this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025
264 points (97.5% liked)

No Stupid Questions

42089 readers
1109 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 200 points 22 hours ago (13 children)

We're already there. The only reason we aren't calling this a depression is that the stock market hasn't been affected much.

But when 25% of Americans are functionally unemployed, it's hard to argue we aren't already largely 'crashed'.

[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

If the economy doesn't need 25% of the populace to keep functioning...what happens?

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 82 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (3 children)

The biggest issue is the need for families to have two incomes to support a houshold. Unemployment would plummet if single incomes for the working class were feasible again,since unemployment is based on looking for employment.

Basically if jobs had living wages and we had universal healthcare we wouldn't be in this mess.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 63 points 21 hours ago (4 children)

That ship sailed under Reagan, and it's never getting back to port, sadly. Thanks to him, families now needed two incomes.

Then, Bush and Clinton came along, and you needed not only two incomes, but two college degrees. Now, with Dubya, Obama, and Trump, not even that's enough, and they're capping student loans instead of regulating student loan interest, so your only real shot at being a doctor now is being born in the right zip code.

America, baby. Dig it.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 36 points 21 hours ago (12 children)

it's never getting back to port

In the event of an actual crash, a lot of these "nevers" will get re-evaluated. The New Deal consisted of a lot of "nevers" that all got passed because people didn't want a repeat of the first Great Depression; I'd expect a similar snap-back after the second Gilded Age finally burns itself out.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 17 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I mean that's hopeful, but remember that the New Deal also came against the backdrop of the height of socialism in the West and the labor rights movement. Modern Americans don't have the organizational strength to make such a compromise attractive in the eye of the ruling class, and they don't seem intent on ever having it.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 7 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Historically, humans don't just suffer in silence for more than a couple of generations.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 47 minutes ago* (last edited 44 minutes ago)

People in big wealthy countries underestimate how far those nations can fall.

Argentina was the 5th richest country in the World at one point, and look at them now.

The higher you are, the more you can fall before hitting a new stable state: just look at those places which were once great imperial nations like Greece, Iran, Turkey or Egypt. I mean, most of the Middle East was once the seat of some great nation or other and look at them now.

The US going all the way down to the level of wealth per capita of, say, Russia, is a distinct possibility, if the structural elements which supported its high economic output start breaking (so, things like Education, the productivity of its companies and the belief of outsiders that investing in America is safe and has a good ROI, all things getting worse) and the higher a nation is in that scale the more such structural supports are required to keep it there (for example, not other developed nations don't relly on their currency being the World's Reserve Currency to prop-up its public finances), so the harder it is to stay there.

[–] Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Would pointing out places like North Korea and Turkmenistan be overkill here?

Guess so…

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 10 points 21 hours ago (1 children)
[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 11 points 21 hours ago

Well, it's either that or American Revolution II: Electric Boogaloo, so I hope so too.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 6 points 18 hours ago

This is part of my problem. My wife has medical issues and can't work which is exaserbated by our higher than typical medical costs. It sucked before but we managed and now it seems like the end.

[–] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 6 points 21 hours ago

if jobs had living wages

But but billionaires would be slightly less obscenely rich then, oh no!

[–] sartalon@lemmy.world 12 points 16 hours ago

And the stock market is just another way for the top percent to continue to siphon wealth.

[–] hobovision@mander.xyz 16 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

From your own source on "true" unemployment, it's the lowest it has been since they started calculating it. It peaked in 09 at 35% and again in COVID, but all through the early 00s it was between 28% and 30%.

You can't use that number as evidence we "already crashed", because as we've seen in other actual crashes it spikes up to 35%.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 15 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

When the definition of unemployed is changed to exclude the majority of working age people without jobs then it is no longer a helpful statistic.

That's why we see people calculating real unemployment with other variables.

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 5 points 16 hours ago (6 children)

When the definition of unemployed is changed to exclude the majority of working age people without jobs then it is no longer a helpful statistic.

U-3 has used the same definition of unemployed since 1940.

Whatever metric you want to use, you should look at that number and how it changes over time, to get a sense of trend lines. LISEP says the "true" unemployment rate is currently 24.3% in May 2025, which is basically the lowest it's ever been.

Since the metric was created in 1994, the first time that it dipped below 25% was briefly in the late 2010's, right before COVID, and then has been under 25% since September 2021.

Under this alternative metric of unemployment, the unemployment rate is currently one of the lowest in history.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

Hello friend.

This point has been discussed elsewhere in the thread. I hope you have a nice afternoon.

[–] lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world 47 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, I don’t know if OP is in the USA, but having someone like Donald Trump elected to high office is 100% part of a crash already in progress. Inequality got so bad that democracy is not functioning. In a healthy society, Trump would be an unelectable laughing stock.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 22 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah. I consider Trump the "blow everything up" candidate, he got a lot of support from people who were just so generically desperate that they wanted to vote for whoever seemed like they were going to majorly change something, somehow. It almost didn't matter what Trump did as long as he smashed the existing order while doing it.

[–] lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world 12 points 19 hours ago

Agreed. People were angry - many with good cause. Unfortunately, people often make bad decisions when they are angry.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 39 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Also, not so fun fact, but this got me curious so I looked up the unemployment rate during The Great Depression: apparently then it was around 20% to 25% as well, so I feel like that reinforces the point I'm making a bit.

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 4 points 16 hours ago

apparently then it was around 20% to 25% as well

No, the unemployment rate was around 20-25% under the traditional definition. It's currently 4.2% under that definition.

If you want to use this LISEP definition, fine, but recognize that it's been above 30% for most of its existence, and has only been under 25% since COVID. Basically, if you go by the LISEP definition then you're saying that the job market after COVID has been better than it has ever been before.

[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 25 points 21 hours ago

The 1% own even more stock than they own outright money. You could replace "the economy" in every article with "rich people's yacht money". The stock market is 100% dissociated from reality and shouldn't be used as a measure of general wealth by any means.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 6 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Im at 42 weeks. My life plane is heading straight down and the rudder is not responding.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago

Best way to recover from a spin is push the yoke to straight down and rudder opposite the spin.

[–] htrayl@lemmy.world 11 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

Meh, please don't quote unusual statistics without giving any context for how to interpet them.

For this value, it is calculated by:

Using data compiled by the federal government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the True Rate of Unemployment tracks the percentage of the U.S. labor force that does not have a full-time job (35+ hours a week) but wants one, has no job, or does not earn a living wage, conservatively pegged at $25,000 annually before taxes.

24.3% is not that out of the ordinary - you can see historical data back to like, 1995 here.

Not saying this stat is useless, but the way you've chosen to use it is intentionally and inaccurately inflammatory.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

The fact that it's pegged to 25k means that the number is much much higher. It's not 24.3%. its 24.3% plus everyone who can't afford to live at today's prices.

That's terrifying.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 7 points 20 hours ago

I dunno, H.

I may be wrong in saying it's indicative of a crash, and I'm okay with being corrected.

As to inaccurate or inflammatory, maybe it feels that way if you're on the winning side of the equation.

I think we should be inflamed about this. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that thirty years of high functional unemployment being ordinary is an objectively bad thing, but when you couple it with the increasingly supercharged price gouging and inflation the US has experienced over the last several decades, things that seemed improbable before suddenly become feasible. (Like making fascists electable.)

[–] selokichtli@lemmy.ml 4 points 20 hours ago

Maybe in 1995 you could actually afford things while functionally unemployed? I mean, while the relative number is stable, the absolute numbers keep growing, and their situation keeps worsening. Here lies the inflammatory part.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 3 points 20 hours ago

The stock market is not the same thing as it was at the start, different players, different motives, and lots of failsafes. That time it was a signal that things were bad, this time we could continue to get worse and you'd never know it looking at the DOW.

[–] LadyButterfly@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Can you ELI5 why the stock market isn't affected much?

[–] kernelle@0d.gs 2 points 17 hours ago

If we look at historic crashes, they had major catalysts causing mass sell orders. Right now markets have had time to adjust because the speed of decline has been very slow.

Markets are also largely speculative, many stocks are traded way above their fundamental value (think Microsoft, tesla, or coca-cola). These will probably be hit the hard, algorithms will default to what a stock should be and drop hard. But these companies might have the strongest chance to bounce back as well.

Companies with the strongest books will be safer, but many more risk taking companies won't be as lucky. This is part of what due diligence of a stock will tell you, but also probably one of the hardest parts of investing.

As long as decline is slow, stability can be found. But when uncertainty rises fast, so does the unstability of the stock market. Catalysts such as the public losing confidence in banks causing a bank run, companies downsizing at unseen scales to cut costs, or global political instability are possible.

TLDR: it needs to get way worse, very quickly for the market to crash

[–] SolidShake@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

So many jobs 🫲🍊🫱

[–] snowe@programming.dev 1 points 19 hours ago

Really weird reading an article that interviews someone you’ve worked for (who is a billionaire themselves).