silence7 @ silence7 @slrpnk.net

Posts

2,037

Comments

1,814

Joined

2 yr. ago

The market basket approach they use looks at the mix of goods and services people buy. So yes, it captures the fact that housing is more of a typical person's budget than milk.

It's describing an average. There are definitely subgroups doing both better and worse

That's literally a textbook definition of inflation.

Yes, but it's included in the proportion to which you buy those things. So if you're spending a lot less on other things, but more on housing, it's a wash for your overall expenses. The point is that compared with overall expenses, wages went up more.

The point of the inflation index is that it includes the same basket of things that people buy — including housing. There are some specific ways in which the official numbers can lag peoples' experience (eg: how owners-equivalent rent is handled) but what you're doing is suggesting something terrible, but not actually providing any real evidence for it.

U-6 looks at those kinds of underemployment numbers, and is doing pretty well:

This doesn't mean it's perfect, or everybody is now a sudden billionaire. It does mean that it's within the range of "pretty much ok for most people"

They didn't — what they did was raise a bunch of red herring type issues.

There are a ton of measures of unemployment which try to capture the kinds of thing they're talking about, and they show similar imporvements.

There's always risk in life, and the world isn't some perfect place. The point is that it's actually improved recently, by any measure you might use.

That's what adjusting for inflation is.

Yeah he has some serious issues with coherence. But I'm paying a lot of attention to climate, so I notice it more on that issue than others.

The existing large-scale batteries are largely lithium. There are a bunch of iron-chemistry ones and sodium-ion ones which have been deployed over the past year, with factories going up to scale them up. I'm not expecting to be limited by lithium availability for stationary batteries.

Pretty much, unless we're able to substantially alter the makeup of the Supreme Court.

They're talking about 5+ years on the new nuclear in these. And they haven't done it before, so a 30% deadline slip is realistic.

You can put up a lot of wind and solar in that time.

Apparently, smaller animals make smaller pieces.

Mostly:

• New nuclear is really expensive
• It also takes a long time to deliver
• The new reactor examples in here consist of reactors from suppliers who haven't done that before

So it has the feel of a plan to promise to spend a lot of money several years from now, and get a lot of PR points today, and quietly cancel the project later.

This is almost surely about there being plans to have much more than the occasional attack.

There were. The Republicans now control the Supreme Court, so it won't do anything to stop him, and they hold enough seats int he Senate to keep any impeachment from proceeding to conviction. Not to mention his effective purge of the Republican Party of any opposition.

If you post to Facebook, nobody will see it, because it's going to be deemed "political" and the algorithm there reduces visibility.

It doesn't matter whether he wants it. Something near half the country is going to vote for him, and the result will be that the grifters around him hold power if he wins.

They don't care either; Vance is one of their creatures.

• RFK Jr. (roadkill)
• Hunters