Maybe if you wanted to work you wouldn't be blaming inequality on things like 'politics' and 'taxes'. Try doing some real work like being the son of a private equity firm manager, and you'll realise that the real issues in this world are kids buying avocados and not wanting to work.
It's not the war that brought equality. It was the wartime economic policies. But a lot of companies have outgrown their home contries, so we don't know if they would subjugate to stricter policy or just abandon the country altogether. We also can't change our policies so drastically during peacetime because too many people would object and possibly start a civil war.
THATS WHAT IVE BEEN SAYING DUDE. He will have an interesting topic going and the entire chat is just spamming BS trying to get a crumb of a reaction. Some of my favorite videos of his are the straight business ones like the Apple breakdown.
Canadian here, not only are people’s mortgage payments going up, rent is skyrocketing. Not only that but people are being kicked out of their rented homes so renters can renovate and re-rent their property for 3x rent. My family was evicted from our home because the land lord wanted to renovate to re-rent, and our rent went from 1400 to 3000 in a month. And even worse? All the adults (including myself) are all bar tenders and servers, on paper we are poor since our pay check is so small since we live on tips, we had to pay a YEAR down on our new rented home. This was such a shock to our family, everyone here has lost trust in the government it’s very sad
As an American, sometimes I do cry about the market. There’s little for me to inherit, but semi thankfully there are very very few people to inherit with. But that saddens me too. I understand
@@Sam-ui1ll A lot of people's net worth is tied in real estate. When your home is worth 800k, it's bound to happen no matter how much to save up. That being said, a true real estate crash would mostly hurt REITs and other form of over-leveraged real estate investment. The average person doesn't get to use that money because they still need a place to live. A fully paid-off house could drop to 20$ tomorrow and it would do absolutely nothing to the 43% of home owners with fully paid-off homes. Everyone else would end up underwater but, even then, it wouldn't change anything to their lifestyle. The only ones that would actually suffer from a complete real estate crash are investors and real estate agents, which does suck for them but when the alternative is the average earner (43k median income) having to pay 112% of their gross income (4000/mo @ 5%) to afford the median canadian house price (700k), I'd pick the average guy any time of the day over some salesman jobs and investors. The economy can take a hit, it's a lot better than having half your population being too poor to afford living.
That's because we had a prime minister with an actual brain who spent several billion investing in our country to make sure we were the only first world country to not enter a recession. This spending got him kicked out by the opposition who proceeded to spend 3 times the amount he did with zero returns as they spent it sucking off corporations
as a young Australian our lack of apartments and removing negative gearing are large problems for the housing market and it's turned to 2007-8 usa and people are expecting a large crash but many people have their whole retirement investing in housing so its not going to be good
3:23 I'm in Australia - Some family bought a house a couple of years ago RIGHT before inflation went crazy, and the longest fixed rate they could possibly get was 3 years.
how does one get do a battle report? For the past year I have been on a binge of global affairs and current events (thanks atrioc). went from knowing nothing outside of NA to knowing over half the worlds countries and being able to remember key/relevant facts about them. who knew Türkiye and Azerbaijan had such an interesting tangled history. the suwalki gap, Yemen, Guyana, Chinas border disputes, Belarus, Moldova, CSTO, NATO, ASEAN, BRICKS, I could go on forever. I cant stop learning and I cant stop getting bummed out lol.
4:30 so for avionics mechanic I can find work easily anywhere in the world where I speak the language (currently french and English, trying to learn Japanese for the past few months) I'm in Japan untill January and I'm not sure where I'll go afterwards. I don't want to return to Canada since the situation there is horrible (I'll go back for a few weeks just to vote Trudeau out) so I don't know if I want to stay in Jpn or move to EU. Both have financial problems, maybe worse in japan. Both have positive and negative in term of lifestyle so I don't know what I'll choose
You nailed the African/South African point Big A. I'm South African and I've been working in the US for about 7 years. Our young population is just stagnant because of the lack of jobs and provincial/national government corruption. We have resources but I've never seen innovation in utilizing them and our university graduates just end up either working abroad or not finding a job in their field. I knew 7 years ago I had to get out somehow to get even a chance at life.
Australia has an interesting thing around paying subsides for electricity. It’s gonna be like $300 per household per month. This is getting really close to UBI and I wonder how it will affect their budget.
I've been enjoying this channel so so much lately! It's extremely informative on a topic I've always wanted to learn about but found to be annoying and too complicated! Thanks glizzlord
1. As an Indian the only person I trust with a report on India is Doctor Battle 2.That chatter who was saying “ help me” was because a dollar in India is worth 83 rupees
In regards to India not feeling that age imbalance other countries are going to experience, I feel collectivist cultures will fair better against the issues plaguing many young adults in other countries right now, and that’s a massive part of why India isn’t feeling these effects. Family and personal connections trump everything else in life , in collectivist cultures the focus is not personal success and they tend to let their work lives impose on their personal lives far less, as work is *not* their life. Not creating a family to prevent living from paycheck to paycheck would be such a backwards idea in these cultures that many of these young people won’t even consider it. To add onto this, in many of these cultures, families live together even after the kids grow up. This reduces the pressure of having to buy a house before having a kid.
Tried to keep this concise for the comments but I feel this is a major part of it that should be mentioned and does seem to hold up as a general rule when comparing countries around the world
We in South Africa are going through a similarly pivotal election right now. If people actually pull their fingers and make the right vote to dethrone the ANC, we could see massive leadership improvement and social change for the people here.
Dunno if atrioc looks at these comments but I think a good quick gag referencing Auckland median house prices compared to the rest of New Zealand would fit into the Aussie stuff. In the fail territory for sure
literally THE reason. although atrioc really likes to ignore it as a white liberal. one other thing is that inequality doesn’t ALWAYS drop, class consciousness needs to built enough to avoid a descent into fascism.
@@atoagej yeah it's kinda odd how HE doesn't know that for such a well read guy, maybe some implicit bias, red scare propaganda really did/does work...
@@PeidosFTW I always found it interesting how the socialist parties in America became the party of gun control and neutering yourself... One of my spicier takes. The red scare never ended, it was just coopted.
I live in Toronto so ill never own a home... maybe I should just get a ton of credit card debt and not pay it back since my credit score won't matter anyways 😇😇
Big A needs to read some more on inequality (like Branko Milanovic or Saez), hes focusing exclusively on the US. Total inequality is a very different story, and the 50s certainly arent a golden era, it only starts to change substantially in the 70s when India and China cause a massive global reduction in absolute poverty.
I've read 2 books by Branko. The discussion in this vid is informed by Piketty and is relevant to my primarily US/western audience. Between-country inequality has indeed fallen, but within-country inequality continues to rise- and that's the inequality that people actually live & experience.
You said that there are hardly any people in China experiencing poverty, but about 50% of the population in China still lives off of less than $10 a day.
BigA I will gladly put together a report on Africa's economy and corruption, well mostly South Africa where I live, there are a lot of funny moments but it is a serious problem that is crippling our continent and people should really know more about it.
This was the most out of touch thing big a has said in a while. China is ranked as one of the most economically unequal countries in the world like top 3.
As someone who's been to mainland china a few times, yeah, no, there is plenty of poverty. They just do a great job at making the touristey cities hide that poverty really well.
Avionics mechanics guy, if he can get qualified to work on military shit, Europe is most likely going to be a Hot market with the massive military build-up. More military means more flight time and more repair and maintenance.
Hi Atrioc! Business Analytics major who lived in India for 16 years before moving to Dallas here. I can make a presentation about the elections in India and how the country is shifting more right-wing. I genuinely don't think Modi will win with a huge majority last the last two terms. Karnataka and Telangana elections have already shown that the South is very anti-Modi.
How do I get in contact with Atrioc about working on the Indian politics? I have been hearing a lot about it since childhood due to me being indian and believe i can make a significant contribution
Dude same here, I’m currently pulling in some data and reports then I’m planning to just mail it to his business mail which u can see on his channel page or just em him on any social media, I suggest u do the same
To everyone please help Aedish and big A see this. Hey Big A I’m Indian and I’ve been following these elections and the market for the past year and half, would you be able to help me contact you to give u a ground level perspective on this, I’m very very passionate about this and there is so much which is not covered in global news, thank you
I think the problem is that you have to consider modern technology and the comforts/luxuries that brings to people's daily lives. Now there's so many distractions that many people will be willing to take more abuse than back in the day. There will be plenty of people upset... but I feel we're losing our capabilities / motivation to rebel against an unjust system as technology gets better. Eventually riots would just be almost impossible when they could just suppress all the protestors with drones. While we do have that level of technology already it's just not wide stream enough to do that large scale without pushback. But bit by bit police and law enforcement will get better and better technology and corrupt politicians will use that to oppress the people. Trump wanted police to shoot people protesting against him. He'd 100% unleash the drones.
Why lump in the 70s with the 50s and 60s? They were not similar decades. Also: 1. Obviously you’re going to lower taxes in the 80s when there isn’t a world war 2. They broke up many companies during the 80s, most notably AT&T 3. The income inequality has always been bad, I’d assume even pre 30s had a higher percent then post 2010s
Income inequality maybe but not wealth inequality. The wealth inequality was very high during the 30s. After WW2 the US had very high taxes more buisness regulations and strong unions this lead to very low wealth inequality. This time is also known as "The golden age of capitalism" btw. Reagen broke the back of unions lowered taxes and worked to open China which lead to the loss of millions of american jobs. This lead to extremly high wealth inequality again but in exchange we now have more billionares and millionares then ever. In 1970 to be in the 1% you needed 500$k (4$million adjusted for inflation) now you need 15$ million.
@@Admiral-General_Aladeen 1. Yes, taxes were high but you're missing a lot of context. America just got out of a war, it doesn't drop right away. America was building the interstate highway system which cost over $600 billion in 2023 dollars. The marginal tax rate could be 100% but through loopholes the average person may only pay a small percentage (e.g., how Bezos pays a true rate of ~1%). Anyway taxes started to drop in the 60s. 2. Business regulations have only grown since the 50s to the 1990s, substantially. There's a good video to visual it somewhere in terms of "books". 3. The amount of union works have gone down since the 90s primarily due to the loss of manufacturing jobs to China. To say Reagan broke unions is ridiculous because you can literally only point to one example in which he fire the federal union workers because they were breaking the law. 4. Major losses of manufacturing jobs (in millions of manu. jobs) did not start occurring until the early 90s. 5. That is literally not true. To be the 1% in America, depending on the source, you have to make almost a $1M or be worth $6M. Where did you get the $15M?
@@kylekyle1087Wrong. While the highest marginal tax rate was 90% the effective tax rate was still 70% so still very high. Otherwise the wealth inequality would have gone up much sooner. The US had military spending of 10% during the 50s and huge cold war costs in general like the space race which far exeeds the cost of the highway system. Do you think this money came out of nowhere? The massive deficit spending of the US started under Reagen because he lowered taxes but still spend like crazy. I never said that the loss of manucacturing jobs occured under Reagen just that he started the process. Sorry the 15 million and 500k was a mistake on my part thats the average wealth of the 1%. That still supports my point though that the wealth of the 1% increased a ridiculous amout from around 8$ trillion 50$ trillion which again started to happen under Reagen. I would need more time for the unions but honestly im tired right now.
@@kylekyle1087Lol my comment got censored. Anyway. Nope you couldn't just dodge taxes easily the marginal tax rate was 90% but the effective tax rate was still 70%. The US spend 10% of it's gdp on military during the 50s. 14% during Vietnam while also having other expensive projects like going to the moon etc. This while also decreasing their dept to gdp ratio so making no new significant dept. The dept to gdp lowered from 119% in 1946 to around 31% in 1980. During that entire time the wealth inequality stayed almost the exactly same for 3 decades. Same with the average wealth of the 1%. Then Reagen comes and reduces the tax rate which wasn't even necessary according to you because the rich could just dodge taxes anyway right? Suddenly for some inexplainable reason the wealth of the 1% and the wealth inequality suddenly starts rising extremly fast. And then for the first time after WW2 the dept to gdp ratio increases again. Why would that happen? You said the rich didn't pay taxes anyway right? It's almost like the rich did pay taxes which is how the US could afford to spend so much on it's military and why the wealth inequality stayed low. But the funniest thing here is the way that Reagen could afford low taxes while also spending like crazy was dept. Reagen started the deficit spending.
@@Admiral-General_Aladeen Lmao you're taking parts of what I said which applied generally to the 1950s-1990s, finding the decade or time that it least applied then using a statistic like "% of the US GDP on military" that is completely irrelevant to my argument. What does that have to do with the price of rice? US spend today is 3.5% of it's GDP, so what. Part of my point was that come V day, the government isn't going to say "oh well, we won the war, let's lower taxes back to pre-war levels today". I won't debunk everything you just spewed because you sound like a college kid who took econ 101 and because you're not adding any context lmao so I'll just leave this: 1. There will always be wealth inequality, grow up, some people are smarter than others, some people are born into wealthier families. Countries have tried to "spread the wealth" and the have all either lost all the wealth or transferred it to a different 1%. 2. "You said the wealthy dodge taxes so let's just make taxes 99.99 percent haha!" is what we call a straw-man argument, look it up, learn from it, don't do it again because you look really dumb. 3. You've spell Reagan wrong. 4. Congress makes the budget, and the president approves. I don't agree with the spending during the 80s but I agree with lowering taxes. Also, news flash, deficit spending did not start with Reagan it's been happening almost every year at least since Herbert Hoover.
i recently started work in these multi million dollar homes as an electrician, these rich people will get rid of perfectly working kitchens to redo them with appliances that do the exact same but instead it costs 20-30k. meanwhile i’m driving home to my 3 room mates and broken appliances. if i was as rich as those people id feel guilty.
Yeah they’re going hard on ethnic cleansing of Muslims and crushing multiple ethnic groups seeking independence while the American media largely doesn’t care.
this video glosses over the fact that inequality was a LOT worse in the 1890s during the gilded age, the graph makes it look like inequality is worse than ever when in reality it's not nearly as bad as it was
pretty sure the graph is meant to measure from WWI but it's also clearly a rough indicator to illustrate a point it doesn't have any values on either axis and is hand drawn.
