hckrnws

Or it could be that people are just tipped out. I hadn't been to a strip club in several years but I got dragged to one a few months back by a friend and I got to tell you the money that these girls wanted seem to astronomically high for the service that they were providing. Maybe people are just fed up with it and spending their discretionary income in other ways. The girls turn their nose up at a couple dollars on stage and are pushing for $500 private dances.

It's just blew my mind. I'm not sure what the house take is but $500 for a private dance for an hour was insane. Senior consultants that solve million dollars problems don't charge that much per hour. I literally had to explain to one of these girls how insane the price was. Because for $500 from the USA if you live near any major airport hub you take a long weekend trip to several Central and South American countries where you can have a whole lot more fun than you can at one of these strip clubs, and you're all in for $500. If that's your chosen form of entertainment, it literally makes no economic sense to spend any money at these strip clubs.

I think at one time using a stripper index as a proxy for a recession measurement would have been good. Nowadays I don't think that's a valid way. Too much has changed across the sex entertainment industry, and the attitudes of the customers have also changed because even if all you want to see is girls dancing there's better value for your money with the other options that are available. Many of those options you don't even have to leave your house.

Maybe a better proxy for a recession measurement would be something like top golf earnings. Or some other discretionary entertainment place similar to that. Are people going on outings spending their discretionary income in that way or are they saving it or did they just not have it to spend.

I think your explanation is missing a competitive element that drives the $500 price. Two similar examples:

1) Maximum City is a book about various people in Mumbai around ~2000. One of them is a sort of stripper (she dances and sometimes dates in a transactional way; I don't remember how explicit it all is). Her analysis is that her clients are partially paying for her but more so for "winning" her over the other clients. The point isn't that one of them takes her shopping and gets to watch her choose handbags; the point is that nobody else gets to go.

2) I read a long article about economic strategies behind webcam shows (by a performer, maybe by Aella?) and the author made two points that I remember: one, it's good to have a stupidly high priced item that a whale can roll in and buy. Two, she had success having a high priced item that "saved" her, e.g., if you pay $X I won't have to eat this gross thing I made. Neither one of these is really about the thing, it's about the feeling of out-competing the other guys there.

So while you're $500 example makes sense if somebody is just looking for the dance (or whatever) itself, it doesn't make sense if that person actually wants to "win" over the other patrons (and doesn't view the poorer patrons in the poorer country as real competitors).

Veblen goods.

I'm kind of with you on this.

The stripper index makes sense when they were servicing a need no one else could. But the rise of OnlyFans means that at least some of the money that would have gone to strippers is going to performers on OnlyFans.

That's the issue with the Stripper index, is that it's vibes based because we can't actually measure how much the industry earned. If we listened to how people felt America should have been through 4 recessions in the last 3 years.

I think 500$ for an hour might have been a little more than a dance, and probably inline with what that kind of service offers.

If not did you goto one of the top strip clubs in America? that sounds insane. Haven't been to a strip club in a real long time myself tho (absolutely don't have the income nor desire).

I think top golf is an interesting metric; I'd be concerned about linking it to two things so addictive - golf addicts and alcohol consumtion. But with the prices at top golf and how much the drinks cost it's probably a good indicator of the sector.

One of the downsides of it might be it only targetting people in upper income brackets (golf is an expensive game per se, def not as everyman and top golf isn't really accessible).

Then again I can't think of any metric that wont be "inflated" by more well off people consuming something cheaper and less well off people having to use another option (aka mcdonalds).

I encountered similar prices at a Miami Beach club. Initially the security pressed me because I don't drink alcohol, but apparently buying drinks was required (in addition to the cover). In order to satisfy them, I said I would buy a dance, but wasn't given a price until already up in the "VIP" area

The price was ridiculous, I don't recall exactly, and I declined, saying I would just leave, and the dancer said in a Russian accent, if I did, she would tell security that I robbed her, since we already entered VIP. I think I paid her like $60 in front of the security guard and walked out. Definitely got mob/extortion vibes from the whole experience.

In this example, at least the $50 per 3 minutes or whatever it was, wasn't for anything 'extra' as the VIP area was wide open with no walls, all the victims able to see exactly how scammed everyone was getting.

I’ve never lived this lifestyle and don’t agree with it but here’s an AMA from a guy who claims to regularly get high end escorts. Supposedly the cost is anywhere from 250-1000 and that might be Australian dollars? https://old.reddit.com/r/AMA/comments/1cfpcfl/ive_slept_with...

I knew a guy that was a driver for escorts back in college. In the late 90s it was over $1,000/night on average iirc. That included more than just sex though that was also attending a gala or sports game or other social events with you.

You can just browse the backpage for a bigger city to get an idea of prices. Apparently basic sex pays below $200h/h in Seattle (chosen at random), so those higher prices would likely be for a night/event/high class.

Per hour or per night?

That sounds like per hour. If you're curious about how the whole thing works parts of it are fairly above ground - community support subreddits and advertising websites with rates for example.

I don't know what kind of strip club you attended but the "average rate" for a 1-on1 dance is $20 (sometimes with an additional fee for the private room). That's for 1 song, typically 4-5 minutes. That equates to about $240 for an entire hour. Paying for a stripper to spend an hour with you is excessive, unless you are a high roller or are (as many are) expecting more than just a dance. Maybe you visited a "high end" club, or maybe you got taken for a ride (which I've seen happen to rich, inexperienced young men).

But the point stands. That rate is not great compared to legal brothels and escorts in Amsterdam.

Someone living in NYC can fly there for $400. That same flight to Las Vegas is not much less money.

This is why industry-specific indexes don’t work. It can’t capture industry-specific changes to the offering and its surrounding alternatives.

E.h., clubs could be empty due to consolidation and lack of competition and abnormally high prices compared to the past.

E.g., the Big Mac index falls apart if McDonald’s changes its business model away from low cost food and more toward higher pricing and lower volume.

E.g., legal brothels in Nevada are becoming more rare as more shut down and the difficulty of starting a new one is high.

E.g., the stripper index could be inaccurate if more or fewer men are in happy sexually active relationships. You’d have control for that variable.

E.g., the stripper index could be irrelevant in Las Vegas as it transitions to being more of a family, sports, and conference destination rather than a bachelor’s playground.

E.g., the stripper index could become less relevant as more men trend away from being comfortable with the idea of strip clubs in the first place (just like how Hooters went from nearly a family restaurant to being super weird, and how Playboy used to be a respectable mainstream publication but is now much less so).

Entertainment in general; another great example of this is ticket prices for concerts and drink prices inside the venues. Obviously drink prices have always been high, but a pint of domestic beer has been very steadily creeping up by $1-$2 a year since 2020; effectively double today relative to even 8 years ago.

I just paid $250 for pit tickets to see an artist I like at a mid-tier venue. A similarly popular artist in 2019 at the same venue would have cost ~$70.

I think the reality no one in charge wants to admit is that inflation is actually kind of out of control, primarily in non-essential sectors like entertainment. Its a situation where things are more expensive -> people do fewer things -> the things have to get more expensive to account for people doing fewer things -> vicious cycle. The story of 2022-2024 was tech breaking, but I think the story of 2024-2026 is going to be the services and entertainment industry breaking; and the break might be a lot worse.

Entertainment is crazy cheap. $10/month for video. $25 for local theater show. What's expensive is exclusive access to prestige on trend live performance.

You and GP are both right. There's a huge divergence in entertainment pricing. Stuff you can do at home (movies, tv, video games, books and social media) is dirt cheap and may be getting cheaper.

"Outside" entertainment is getting vastly more expensive. Average hotels are charging eye watering prices the world over. Concert tickets are astronomical. Restaurant prices and fees are out of control. Any type of rental, tour or other type of activity on vacation feels extortionate. Airline tickets are hundreds or thousands of dollars for a tiny economy seat.

I think this is largely driven by monetary and fiscal policy that disproportionately benefits the rich (Paycheck Protection Program, low interest rates). If you give people who are poor more money, I believe they will spend it on things that stabilize and improve their day to day lives so you'd expect to see inflation in things like food and medicine. If you give money to people that are already stable, they will spend it on things the things that we see are having very high inflation: improved housing, vacations, luxury goods.

Ticket prices also are likely rising due to physical demand, there's more people and more fans than ever before, but most performers aren't performing at more and bigger venues. IT's the same pressure that exists on real estate, but to a lesser degree.

> Its a situation where things are more expensive -> people do fewer things -> the things have to get more expensive to account for people doing fewer things -> vicious cycle.

This is bad reasoning and completely throws out the concept of supply and demand.

You are paying $250 instead of $70 because you want to see a specific show by a specific entertainer. There are lots of other shows available for less.

>I literally had to explain to one of these girls how insane the price was

I'm sure she loved that.

>Maybe people are just fed up with it and spending their discretionary income in other ways.

My friend, paying for "sex" will be one of the last things to go.

>Because for $500 from the USA if you live near any major airport hub you take a long weekend trip to several Central and South American countries

Do you think these are substitutes?

> Do you think these are substitutes?

Depends on the strip club prices in those countries I guess.

You missed the end of the sentence:

> where you can have a whole lot more fun than you can at one of these strip clubs

"Fun" here being prostitution, I presume.

Out of context: what is sex? Is it physical satisfaction or romantic connection?

Yes.

It really depends on the context. If you ask your spouse, it's probably the latter. When talking about strip clubs, it's more of the former.

Computer Guy explaining the international sex entertainment economy to a stripper has got to be pretty close to peak Computer Guy.

> literally had to explain to one of these girls how insane the price was

If that’s the going rate that’s the going rate. My plumber quoted me $17,000 in labor for something that was probably a days work for a team of two (and $5,000 in materials). That’s about $500-1,000 an hour. My dad was like “that’s insane for a plumber.” And I’m like “you told everyone to go to college and become baristas, so that’s what plumbers cost now.”

That's a load-bearing "probably".

What was the job?

Installing a combination hot water heater to replace separate existing tankless domestic water heater and a boiler for a hydronic system in a concrete slab.

I don’t know about strippers but I am right up there with you on tips becoming absurd here. Every kiosk where I swipe my credit card wants a tip now. I didn’t really “like” tipping before, but I accepted it as just part of the transaction for getting a waiter or waitress to write down my order and deliver me my food and refill my drinks.

Now the companies want a tip for the food I pick up myself directly from the restaurant and leave. I am not sure what I would even be tipping for, for making me the sandwich? Shouldn’t that aspect just be rolled into be price of, you know, the sandwich?

I used to feel kind of guilty for declining to tip at these kiosks, but I don’t anymore. In fact in a way I guess it’s sort of saved me money since I dislike this process so much that I have taken to just buying groceries and making food at home more often.

I feel you so much on this. So many shops pressing for many more ways to allow tips, for example presenting a percentage with options 10%, 20%, 30%... to frame customers into picking the one in the middle! Does any of you'all know if there are law defining maximums for tipping, like maybe in european countries or something?

Not so far as I know, but mandatory tipping (i.e. adding a service charge to a bill) is illegal in many countries, and it wouldn't surprise me if having a tip screen on a payment terminal were against local regulations.

We don’t enforce laws on business in the usa

I don't think that's true. I will agree that it's not enforced enough, but the FTC and SEC do enforce laws on businesses on a pretty regular basis.

I can at least tell you that in Australia, nobody tips anybody unless they feel like it, and nobody complains if you don't.

Our minimum wage is higher here though.

Yeah I think it's a kind of distinctly American thing. You're just expected to tip for everything here. I'm sure there's historical reasons for it but they aren't really important because the fact is that regardless of the reason I just really dislike it.

I would much rather employers pay their employees a livable wage and roll the cost of that into the price of the service.

Even if they pay a living wage, why wouldn't they give you a chance to pay more? It's not their fault that you choose to pay extra because your self esteem can't withstand a picture on a screen.

I mean, they're free to do whatever they, I just don't enjoy it; the frequency in which tips are being asked for now is just annoying, I didn't really think that's even a controversial statement.

But I do kind of dispute that it's just a "self esteem" thing. Often the "no tip" option is smaller and harder to spot, and I think that some people genuinely do not realize that "not tipping" is an option, and it's not like these kiosk manufacturers don't know this.

Yeah it drives me nuts, and I am somewhat convinced that it's going to backfire, though I don't have any hard evidence on it.

I will go to restaurants when I'm traveling for obvious reasons, but for the six months or so I haven't really eaten out more than five or six times, all of which were for special occasions. For comparison, I used to go to some form of restaurant in the past four times a week. I gradually started to avoid places that have the tipping kiosk, but then just transitioned away to just avoiding restaurants entirely

Now, there's actually a bunch of reasons that I don't eat out anymore, but one thing I'm pretty sure is this: you know what's even worse for a business than people not tipping for a service? Them not showing up to even buy the service.

> long weekend trip to several Central and South American countries

Good luck explaining that to your wife

>Senior consultants that solve million dollars problems don't charge that much per hour.

I do.

I found a similar article from June of 2022 about the stripper index signaling a recession, so clearly it's not a very good indicator. A stripper is typically a short-term career, so it wouldn't make sense to rely on observations made over such a short period. Maybe things are just returning to normal after a boom, and none of the interviewed people were around pre-boom.

The personal savings rate, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT, might be a better proxy of whatever the stripper index is actually signaling. It was at a low in the summer of 2022 and is nearing a low again. Less money in savings means less money to spend at strip clubs. It doesn't, however, automatically mean recession.

Q1 and Q2 2022 had negative GDP growth [0]. Ignoring the debate about whether or not that constitutes a "true recession", as the article mentions this index indicates the economy is experiencing strain and the timelines match up to the previous citation you mention. To me that would indicate it has some level of accurate representation.

[0] https://www.npr.org/2022/07/28/1113649843/gdp-2q-economy-202...

Yet nominal GDP growth and real GDI were high and positive (respectively). GDI should equal GDP so it was a unique situation, not really indicative of any additional non-energy financial strain.

How is the personal savings rate a good indicator? It went up during the great recession and spiked during the last recession in 2020. If anything high savings is a counter-indicator.

Not to mention that we are seeing a generational shift in the labor market right now - the baby boomer part of the population pyramid is finally deciding to retire and is probably not going to save as much as they were when they were building their nest egg.

I trust statistics about strippers more than I trust statistics about the federal government.

Also the length of a stripper's career is irrelevant for this discussion as long as there is an equilibrium state of strippers available.

Between OnlyFans and a cultural shift in masculinity that makes paying for sexual attention more of an "ick" for many, this doesn't seem like a very good economic indicator, especially today.

The media needs to report a more realistic inflation metric. Groceries are wildly expensive.

If we're going that route, the media should also more prominently report the relationship between corporate price-gouging and inflation. Some do, but not prominently[0]. When too few corporations have too much control over the market, the oligopoly can simply extract more from the population, evidently about half of the cause of current inflation [1].

[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2023/08/10/how-corpor...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/19/us-inflatio...

As I have no idea what percentage of people frequent strip clubs, I'm mostly wondering if the sample size (and especially the demographic) is big enough to even be representative of anything.

Then again I'm not from the US and not generally visiting strip clubs. It's a topic that doesn't come up very often either.

Two of the biggest club spenders in Houston and Atlanta (jurisdictions with notoriously-lax restrictions on sex work - "how much you got, mister?") are: finance and energy -sector consultants, entertaining clients.

They don't go out to'da'clubs when their clients aren't able to afford anything.

I don't think the percentage matters; it's the difference between money being and not being spent. It's not my scene, but I am guessing this correlates with highly disposable income -- people who make too much too easily so they can throw it away just as freely. If that stops flowing, I think it's a decent indicator of a general slow-down.

Yeah sure, but naively I'd still assume "tips for pizza delivery people" would be a much better indicator as it would be a much broader target audience.

Then again, maybe it's too mundane again and with the tipping culture (as far as I have heard about it) there is much less spread in tips than where I live.

Do you think the guys writing this article would rather interview a dozen pizza delivery people or a dozen strippers?

There are more people struggling these days than the mainstream news reports. The lines at the food banks where I live are much longer than they were before COVID. One of the local food banks says they're distributing three times as many meals per month as they served before the pandemic. And this is an area of relatively high employment.

People working service jobs simply can't afford the basics, and that's a problem. Part of capitalism's implied promise is that if you work full time, you should be able to feed and house yourself. But for huge numbers of people, that doesn't seem to be true anymore.

It's really getting out of hand. I see it here with my coworkers in our small company. There are only 6 employees here total. 3 of my coworkers commute for 1hr+ away each way because they can't afford to live in our town. And then they don't eat. With their work schedule and their commute they're gone from home for 12hrs or more per day so they can't meal prep. And they can't afford to dine out. So they simply don't eat breakfast or lunch.

I told my CEO that my past success and my wife are effectively subsidizing his company. Because I could not afford to work here it I had not been so successful earlier and if my wife didn't have a great job with great benefits. In fact, I'm seriously considering leaving my role when the summer starts because childcare for my 5 year old son is going to cost ~55% of my net pay each month.

But my CEO and his family of 4 have been to Disney World twice since October 2023. And they're going to Europe for 2 weeks this summer.

I feel like the owner/operator of a six-person company styling themselves the "CEO" is symbolic of something, somehow.

Definitely. And his wife is the "Executive Assistant" although I've only seen her in the office 4-5 times since I started in October.

A 2 week vacation and 2 long weekends to Disney World don't seem out of reach for any middle class family, let alone a company owner. My sister is an adjunct professor and I think has been to disneyland 3 times this year already.

The rest of it certainly sucks though. There would have to be a VERY good motivation for me to travel that far for work. Most of us on here are involved in software and I'd be shocked to see if less than half of us were remote or partly remote.

> A 2 week vacation and 2 long weekends to Disney World don't seem out of reach for any middle class family, let alone a company owner.

The fact that this person is going on all these vacations while his workers forgo meals is just kind of fucked up. The fact that people don't seem to see a problem with this is the problem.

Yes but it shouldn't take 5 people working 50+ hours per week to support just one family. The CEO's family is the only one taking vacations. They're the only family that has healthcare.

"Keep up all your hard work and next year I'll take you for a drive in my new sports car!" —Some Boss, probably

I know you're kidding, but one of my neighbors gets super excited because his boss allows him to job his sports car to lunch sometimes. My neighbor can't afford his own sports car but at least he gets to drive one to McDonald's a few times per month.

One of the worst paying jobs I ever had had the "perk" of occassionally driving ~$100k sports cars home, about once per month.

I absolutely beat the shit out of those perks.

There’s no such implied promise, it’s the other way around: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour

This sounds vaguely like the observation that retail checkout employees get stupider when the economy is good, because everyone with 2 brain cells to rub together moves to more gainful employment, and walmart has to really start scraping the bottom of the barrel

OK, maybe it isn't capitalism but US society that implies that promise. Many (insensitive) people respond to tales of economic woe by saying, "Get a job!" As if that's going to solve even your basic money woes. As others in this discussion have noted, many people employed full time still struggle to provide the basics. That part of the social contract just isn't holding up for a lot of people. And that's a recipe for social unrest.

I also don’t understand people on a tech forum not being more sympathetic about the economy’s troubles. Is tech not in a recession? That’s ludicrous. Tech is in a bad way.

I don’t think I’d define the situation we’re in as capitalism.

> The lines at the food banks where I live are much longer than they were before COVID.

what does this really mean? Like food is so cheap we are obese. So does this mean more people want freebies? Tasty brand name foods? My neighbor thought we were poor and gave us food they got from a foodbank, it was really nice (but odd) stuff.

In 2024 I can't really understand using food as a measurement. There is too much.

Well, if you can't understand, why such strong opinions?

Read up about basics of nutrition, about how poverty and obesity are correlated, what "food deserts" are, the differences between processed and healthy foods, etc.

Poor people are fat because they don't cook well, not because food is expensive. Good cooking is expensive, and bad cooking is available. Healthy basic cooking is cheap. Food is so cheap that you can eat when you can't afford to anything else! In other words, obesity is cheap entertainment, not a good cost issue.

Funny you mention that. Its my expertise.

Food Deserts are defined in a way that is unhelpful, I live in a food desert in one of the richest counties. I have 0 grocery stores within 1 mile. But I have 6 grocery stores within 3 miles.

Go ahead with the conventional sayings: Tell me the fallacious remark about McDoubles being the healthiest cheapest food ever. Go ahead and say something incorrect like processed foods are cheaper than fresh foods. In a few years you are going to change from thinking Fat is the devil to carbs are the devil. Then you will take up fasting, then keto, then gluten free.

People in the US have too much money to care about food. These are people getting dopamine from food pleasure. No one wants to admit it.

I largely agree, but lately eggs, butter, cheese, meat have sure surged ahead in price. They cant really shrinkflate around these items. Even the kids selling eggs as a side hustle in my rural community are jacking their prices.

Price of chicken feed is up as well which might explain locally jacked egg prices.

No one will push against the claim there's far too many calories available, on average, in Western countries. That consumption is the automatic answer to anything that ails, it could be argued as well.

It reeks of ignorance and obstinate privilege to claim people are too rich to care about food [1] [2], that having to travel 3 miles to get food is not a barrier to access [3] [4]. Saying that processed foods are more expensive than fresh is an outright lie [5][6][7].

The HN discussion forums are one of the last remaining places where we can expect civil and informed online discourse. Please try and keep with that spirit.

1: https://www.feedingamerica.org/about-us/press-room/53-millio...

2: https://gitnux.org/food-bank-statistics/

3: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/food-bank-use-highest-in-cana...

4: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/what-are-food-dese...

5: https://foodispower.org/access-health/food-deserts/

6: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9967271/

7: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/healthy-vs-...

8: https://www.aier.org/article/why-unhealthy-food-is-cheap-and...

> Saying that processed foods are more expensive than fresh is an outright lie [5][6][7].

This is faux-intellectual. Your sources never even back up your claims.

Low-quality googling and nice formatting won't change reality.

Go check out the website Efficiency Is Everything, that website actually compares foods objectively.

I think it has more to do with OnlyFans.

OnlyFans has been around since 2016. The entertainers in the article are talking about a steep decline in the past ~year.

No, they haven't. The first tweets about this (when this bullshit "indicator" went viral on Twitter) were in 2021.

In this specific article, which is all I've read on the subject, they talked about the latest YoY and post-covid. I did not see any references to 2021.

The evidence is tweets.

So what's driving the impeding recession? Shouldn't the economy be on the up swing?

It has been growing fine, don't believe everything you read from people that make poor financial decisions.

This is a weirdly common type of article; given that the long-prophesied US recession remains stubbornly absent by any normal metrics, people just make up new ones to claim that there is a recession.

> Many quirky (and weirdly accurate) economic indicators help forecast the economy. For example, if an AFC team wins the Superbowl, the stock market will decline the following year. While there doesn’t seem to be a direct explainable connection, this has an accuracy rate of 73%.

Oh, ffs. I have serious questions about the accuracy of this website's domain name.

People confuse a economic recession with what is happening because of how words sometimes change their meaning away from their technical to a more colloquial interpretation. The economy as a whole is doing well, but people aren't because of inflation. Recession is just the word they've learnt to interpret as "I'm feeling poorer".

And the stripper index is down because their market is oversaturated aka "onlyfans overload".

Imho, inflation has a lot less to do with the perception than bimodal income separation.

Either you're "fine" or you're very much not fine.

Which is why you get people talking past each other.

Nah, inflation sucks across the board. The human mind and human society don’t really react well to things changing so fast. And since losses weigh higher than gains, and everything needs to be renegotiated, nobody feels good about the outcome even if they come up even. This holds for people at the top and people at the bottom.

I'm not sure how much the high end of households whose assets have appreciated with inflation are feeling the suck. I think there are a fair number of households at the top that are feeling better off as reflected in their spending increases in spending in sectors such as travel which can be attributed to a wealth effect[1], as older and wealthier households see their assets increase in value and their confidence increase.

Increases in asset prices spurn consumer spending in wealthier households relative to their proportion of assets owned - the top 10% of households own 62% of the assets.[2]

[1]https://apnews.com/article/inflation-economy-wealth-rates-fe...

[2]https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...

You’re talking past the point I made. Losses weigh heavier than gains in human psychology. This is a pretty robust finding. Inflation necessarily means losses for everyone. These can be offset but people don’t necessarily come away feeling good about it. You can say that on average people are better off after the reshuffle (though not necessarily everyone), but even if wages are universally up people will not necessarily feel good about it.

> Inflation necessarily means losses for everyone.

This is the thing you're disagreeing with parent on, because it's not true if you can afford to hold the assets that are inflating.

Inflation doesn't happen in a vacuum: it's inflation-in-terms-of-____.

If you happen to own a lot of ____, because you have disposable income and can afford to invest, then your net worth "inflates" too.

Simple example: how does inflation of the price of gasoline at the pump impact you, if you own a refinery and a filling station? Certainly not in the same way it does to someone who owns neither and commutes to work daily in an ICE vehicle.

Wages have outpaced inflation for like a year now, it's really not a huge deal anymore.

>And the stripper index is down because their market is oversaturated aka "onlyfans overload".

The article talks about a steep decline in the past ~year / post-covid. OnlyFans has been around since 2016. They are also fairly distinct. Not sure you can pin it all on OF.

Just because OnlyFans has been around for eight years doesn’t imply that it’s been popular for that long.

Sample size of one, but I personally had not heard of it until 2020, after some YouTuber drama, and I am a somewhat terminally online human. I suspect it didn’t reach broad cultural awareness for a fair bit longer than that; I don’t remember any people IRL talking about it until OF talked about not allowing adult content like a year later.

>Just because OnlyFans has been around for eight years doesn’t imply that it’s been popular for that long.

Sure, but it's been popular longer than the time period talked about in the article. And, as I mentioned, I think the markets are somewhat distinct.

Are they actually distinct?

Pretty much my entire life (and certainly since I was a teenager from experience) it has been trivial to get porn for free on the internet. I thought people paid for OnlyFans (and strippers) because it feels more "interactive"?

>Are they actually distinct?

I mean, I don't have data, so I don't know. My intuition and anecdotal experience says yes, they would be.

To start with an example: when I used to go out on the town with some buddies, we might end up at strip club at the end of the night after the bars close. OnlyFans wasn't out at the time, but I can guarantee that we wouldn't cap our night off by group-watching OnlyFans.

I have also had some rowdier nights with account managers trying to win over my business who would take me out to a higher end strip club. Again, I cannot imagine them taking me back to a hotel for a cozy OnlyFans viewing.

But I think it boils down to the completely different experiences. One is delivered through a monitor, one is physically there in front of you.

Yeah, fair, upon thinking about it I think OnlyFans more exists to simulate a "long distance girlfriend" instead of a "stripper", which can have similar but still different roles.

> The economy as a whole is doing well, but people aren't

Yeah, that means your measurement of "the economy" is lying. And that you are in a recession.

There's no mixing of technical and colloquial terms here. All that is there is a lying indicator. And if people insist that incorrect number is real, those people are lying too.

Where's the lie? The economy, the system, is a machine. The humans that happen to compose it are by and large either raw materials or wear parts, not output. People can be having an _awful_ time while the system functions beautifully. It's not for them, they're for it.

The entire goal of the machine is to supply the humans.

It's not a parasitic alien.

>given that the long-prophesied US recession remains stubbornly absent by any normal metrics, people just make up new ones to claim that there is a recession.

So are you of the mind that we'll never see a recession again, or...?

The point is prediction. Once the "normal metrics" are in the tank (because they are lagging indicators), we are already in recession.

No, of course there'll be more recessions. But the 2021/22/23/24-really-this-time-we-promise one seems to have become a particular obsession of the media, and over the last few years we've seen increasingly weird metrics deployed to claim that actually it's happening right now.

We had a recession 4 years ago. Growth is good, consumers are spending, and unemployment is at a ~50 year low.

If the economy is bad people seem to enjoy news articles about how things are going to get worse and if the economy is good people seem to enjoy news articles about how things are just about to crash.

Wonder how a recession will affect the election

Most likely negatively for the current president. Regardless of actual policies, there will be lots of people associating the beginning of the recession with whoever has the role at the time. Few consider what the baseline of inaction would be.

It’s not going to help that Biden was previously taking credit for it with the imo poorly considered “Bidenomics” official catchphrase. Spending a ton on Build Back Better than no one can point to the building or the better. And pushing these in an abstract while people are very clearly seeing grocery store prices.

Right or wrong doesn’t matter. This admin and the media has been doing their best to gaslight a great economy, and that I think will hurt. You can be so blue that your commie red, and still see the messaging of this admin has been bad.

A recession would be bad for the incumbent.

But then again, the last incumbent oversaw a 15% unemployment rate and almost won reelection when 3,000 people were dying every day so, perhaps it wouldn't be.

3,000 Americans dying every day would be an anomaly. Deaths are closer to 10k a day on average and only going up.

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/uni...

[flagged]