As an example: there are genuine cases of masochists that are subjectively happier because pain is being inflicted on them. In many of these cases no serious harm is done to their body. Your claim "you can't trust their reported state" is either 1) a claim that the outside observer knows better than the individual what their subjective state is or 2) that the health of the subject is more important than their subjective happiness.
If you are arguing for #1, I disagree. If you are arguing for #2, you should be more clear about why/how you keep using the word "objectively".
People can feel less happy when there is a lack of challenge in their life. Consider the example of the guy that spends his life wasting away in front of video games, going for impulsive pleasures instead of long term rewarding goals.
I would guess that each person has a different ideal level and variety of suffering (or responsibility, or challenge, or whatever you want to call it), for which their personality is best suited. We are so far removed from the challenges of the past that we don't know what the subjective experience would be like.
When interest rates for new bonds go up, the value of existing bonds go down. This only ever matters if you intend to resell the bond. If you hold it to maturity, you will get the same payout as you agreed to. However, if you try to sell your old bond with 3 percent yield, when bond buyers can go grab a bond with a 5 percent yield, they will pay you a lower price.
> When interest rates for new bonds go up, the value of existing bonds go down.
I'm sure skybrian understands that. The question is why prices fell more recently than they did back in 1981, when Volcker pushed interest rates much higher.
Apart from the fact that the Fed sets short term interest rates, and bonds, being long term loans, do not necessarily go the same way, there is the pesky behavior of derivatives. If price (p) as a function of yield (y) goes as
p(y) ~ 1 / y
then its derivative, i.e. how much price will change in response to a change in yield is
dp/dy ~ -1 / y^2
which tells you that price will move faster at lower yields.
Thanks! Not in a position to do anything more than eyeball it on my mobile phone, but it seems long-term bond prices started out much higher this time (very low interest rates), so they had further to drop.
If they raised the minimum wage for all workers, it would have a greater destabilizing effect, so they limited it to a smaller group so they could get their message across while minimizing the change they cause.
> raised the minimum wage for all workers, it would have a greater destabilizing effect
Theory suggests this will happen at some point. Evidence shows we aren’t close to it.
Raising the minimum wage—across the board—to $25/hour in non-rural counties and something lower in rural (where COL is lower) would likely cause growth. Because while costs have gone up, there is a massive purchasing power unleashed. (Critically, this could only be done after zoning reform. Otherwise the surplus will just go to landowners.)
It just so happens that that particular tribe of people has sufficient political power to push through an increase for themselves.
See non English speaking farm workers that have their very own exclusions to minimum wage laws, even on the west coast. They just don’t happen to have the political power, so they get shafted.
Fracturing your opposition is a tried and true method to break consensus.
Edit: I find it hilarious that even in this tribal delineation, somehow people who work at a business that bakes things got screwed.
> "do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
This one doesn't just have edge cases, it has a hole large enough to float an aircraft carrier through it. My grandparents (all deceased at this point) did not want to be treated in the same way I want(ed) to be treated.
The much less absurd version is: "treat other people the way they would like to be treated". Still edge cases, but the holes are much smaller.
It breaks down when dealing with anybody who selfishly wants more than they deserve. A child stamps his feet and demands the biggest piece of cake, should you give it to him? Treating people the way they want to be treated rewards greed and selfishness.
On the other hand, treating other people the way you wish to be treated is self-moderating. If I am greedy, the golden rule commands me to be generous to others. If I encounter somebody who's greedy, the golden rule only obliges me to give them whatever I would think myself entitled to.
The golden rule can't make everybody happy, and isn't supposed to. If there is some delta between the way your grandparents expect to be treated and the way you want to be treated, so be it. I don't think this is a reasonable objection to the golden rule.
I think you meant to reply to my comment, rather than a comment on that.
When it comes to materialistic "treating", sure I agree. But in the realm of emotion and psychology, I stand by what I said: treats others as they wish to be treated (to the extent possible).
> But in the realm of emotion and psychology, I stand by what I said: treats others as they wish to be treated (to the extent possible).
How do you deal with narcissists, who feel entitled to praise and adoration beyond what they can reasonably be entitled? Do you humor them to the extent possible? And if you don't humor narcissists like that, what is your process for determining what is or isn't reasonable? Probably, that process involves you imagining yourself in their shoes and thinking about what you might reasonably feel entitled to in their position, e.g. applying the golden rule.
If I do a lot of exercise on a hot day, I can come back to the house and eat a can of anchovies and still want more salt. I wish I could uh, know how healthy this is
That has to be true only for some countries in the world, but far from being the average. I don't think this applies to most of (western) Europe or Japan e.g.
Perhaps over the small window, but still lagging over the longer. So ultimately using the shorter window is data cherry-picking. Yes, the iPhone has a definitive start so the window makes sense, but keep in mind citizens / workers / taxpayers / consumers were plenty behind inflation at that point.
Anecdotally, I don't think I know anyone who believes they're ahead of inflation.
Housing is a component of the consumer price index used to measure inflation. The proportion matches the proportion of household spending that most USians spend on housing.
Of course, not every household is the average household. Some households spend more of their spending on things that have increased more than the average household. Some spend less of their spending on such things.
And, of course, even if the average wage has risen quicker than inflation, that doesn't mean any specific household's wages have.
I said "average" not "mean". The median is a form of average.
BLS looks at mostly median households in the survey dataset, but also considers means of some aggregates, when choosing weightings of goods in the basket.
I suspect in the specific case you're talking about -- housing -- using the mean would overweight housing in the basket.
