243
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2026
243 points (97.6% liked)
PC Master Race
21543 readers
306 users here now
A community for PC Master Race.
Rules:
- No bigotry: Including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No NSFW content.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- Be thoughtful and helpful: especially when new beginners have questions.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Well whatever the reasons/terminology, it doesn’t change the fact that people simply can’t afford to spend ridiculous amounts on luxury/optional purchases. I know a lot of people across the U.S. who are choosing between food and rent. As for myself, I’m a disabled veteran and only get so much in disability per month. With my wife being laid off, I have exactly enough to pay rent and buy groceries every month and that’s about it. I understand what you’re saying, but unless people’s wages are actually adjusted for this new economy, these companies are going to lose money. It’s not a matter of want, it’s a matter of literally not having the money to spend.
Yeah, that's the key. (A small amount of) Inflation is potentially a net good thing, but only if incomes keep up. As it is, incomes are effectively being reduced, because they aren't increasing at the same rate as inflation. People are able to afford to spend less and less, while all the wealth is funneled to a select few.
Eventually this has to effectively freeze the economy, because people literally will not have money to spend. The economy only functions if most people are spending money. Having more billionaires (or trillionaires now) does not create much spending, and does not make a healthy economy.
Yeah, who’d have thought that the class of people famous for hoarding their wealth would not stimulate the economy much? Trickle down economics my ass. Lmao