Is…. Is that a real tweet?
It’s a real article. It’s paywalled though. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-03-13/inflation-stings-most-for-those-earning-under-300-000
nflation Stings Most If You Earn Less Than $300K. Here’s How to Deal.
More Americans than ever expect their finances to worsen as inflation hits a 40-year high. Do you really need that extra car? March 13, 2022 at 12:00 PM UTC By Teresa Ghilarducci Teresa Ghilarducci is the Schwartz Professor of Economics at the New School for Social Research. She’s the co-author of “Rescuing Retirement” and a member of the board of directors of the Economic Policy Institute.
Time for the bus?
Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg In this Article Crude Oil 81.69USD/bbl. +0.09% Before it’s here, it’s on the Bloomberg Terminal LEARN MORE This article is for subscribers only.
If your income is more than $289,000 a year, the run-up in gas prices may be alarming — but it’s unlikely to hammer your overall finances. After all, Americans at that level spend no more than 1% of their take-home pay on gas and oil, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
For those earning much less, it’s a different story. Those at the median, with income of about $50,000, spend more than 3% of it on gas and motor oil. Low-income households making between $7,000 and $19,000 spend about 9%. The latest inflation numbers show gas prices jumped 6.6% in February from a month earlier — even before President Joe Biden banned U.S. imports of Russian oil. BloombergOpinion Vladimir Putin’s Biggest Weapon Is Western Fear E-Bikes Aren’t Making New York Any Deadlier If You’re Walking Supreme Court Scoffs at Flimsy Abortion Pill Argument Stop Applying My Recession Rule to Individual States
Economists say the overall share of income spent on gas is lower than it used to be, and despite the increases, prices are still relatively low by historical standards. That’s true, but it offers little consolation these days for someone on the lower end of the income distribution who drives to work.
Food prices are also up, posting their biggest monthly increase since April 2020. There, too, those making less than $19,000 spend much more of their income — almost 15% — compared with higher earners, whose total food spending is just 4% of their income. Households with income of about $50,000 spend 8.5% of it on food.
The most recent barometer of consumer sentiment showed the highest-ever share of Americans expecting their finances to worsen in the coming year. About 54% think their incomes will lag behind inflation in the year ahead — a pretty high percentage historically.
I expect those most affected will adjust to inflation in the classic way by shifting away from relatively expensive items toward close substitutes. Here are some ideas on how to reconfigure consumption and lessen the blow. But again, adjustment is hard for people without savings or choices.
First, you have to know your budget to control your budget. Budgeting takes effort, but it gives you power. And that power is even more important in inflationary times.
To deal with gas prices, it’s worth reconsidering public transportation if it’s an option where you live. Fares are up about 8% compared with 38% for gasoline. Now may even be the time to sell your car. It certainly isn’t the time to buy a new or used one. Prices have stabilized a bit, but used-car prices are still up more than 40% from a year ago, and new ones are up 12%.
When it comes to food, don’t be afraid to explore. Prices for animal-based food products will certainly increase. Ukraine and Russia supply a significant amount of corn and barley to the world market, mainly to feed livestock for human food. Meat prices have increased about 14% from February 2021 and will go up even more. Though your palate may not be used to it, tasty meat substitutes include vegetables (where prices are up a little over 4%, or lentils and beans, which are up about 9%). Plan to cut out the middle creature and consume plants directly. It’s a more efficient, healthier and cheaper way to get calories.
And stay away from buying in bulk — you usually don’t save any money by buying more. Sure, there may be great deals, but most consumers wind up falling for the tricks that entice them to spend more — things like offering free samples, which often leads to impulse buying, or placing discounted big-ticket items near the entrance. If you absolutely must buy in bulk, try to do it with a friend, so you can split some of the costs and ensure everything gets eaten or used.
Aside from being more thoughtful about purchases, it’s also prudent to think about unnecessary charges. So review your credit card to make sure there aren’t any unwanted recurring ones.
If you’re one of the many Americans who became a new pet owner during the pandemic, you might want to rethink those costly pet medical needs. It may sound harsh, but researchers actually don’t recommend pet chemotherapy — which can cost up to $10,000 — for ethical reasons.
Coping with inflation could mean drastic actions or small ones. There are lots of ways people can duck and dance around relative price changes. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found people in recessions hold off on buying cars, furniture and appliances. Though they don’t cut back on travel, they do cut back on restaurants.
Try to be as flexible and creative as possible. Scientists tell us our brain plasticity will improve by trying novel things. There’s an advantage to mixing up what you consume to cope with unusual price spikes: You become more resilient as you create a locus of control and interrogate your habits.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
To contact the author of this story: Teresa Ghilarducci at tghilarducci@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Alexis Leondis at aleondis@bloomberg.net
If you’re one of the many Americans who became a new pet owner during the pandemic, you might want to rethink those costly pet medical needs. It may sound harsh, but researchers actually don’t recommend pet chemotherapy — which can cost up to $10,000 — for ethical reasons.
Who are these researchers, lady? What makes it unethical to cure a dog’s illness?
It’s absolutely ridiculous to even talk about this in the context of inflation and family budgeting. Fucking boomer bullshit is what it is.
However, to answer your question, there is a gray area for when to treat pets’ illnesses. Dogs can’t tell you how much it hurts, or ask for pain killers, or understand why this is happening. Chemo fucking sucks, can make your dogs lose their appetite, and won’t necessarily extend the life of your pet.
Whether you treat your pet or not depends on how old they are, where the cancer is, how big they are, and another 20 or so factors your vet will discuss with you. It may or may not be in their best interest, and it may or may not be economically feasible to treat it. Those are two different questions.
Shit man, cancer drugs in general fucking suck. My wife was on tamoxifen for a year and she didn’t even have breast cancer, she’s just at very high risk. It’s played utter havoc with her hormones, causing all sorts of side effects in a systemic manner. To make matters worse, she metabolizes drugs very slowly, so it’s only now finally out of her system, months after ceasing treatment.
Now she’s saying fuck it, gonna get ‘em lopped off and replaced with fakes; as much as we both love what she has, the constant fear and agita she’s been getting from them is terrible.
This is with full knowledge and agency over what’s going on, so yeah, I get it, it’s [unintentionally] cruel to do to a pet.
Chemo is fucking awful. Had a gf survive breast cancer (before we met) and the thing traumatized her so much it came up in conversation several times a day, years after the fact. Mom just died of breast cancer. All chemo did was steal the last 2-months of her life.
Want to put your pet through that? For what will likely mean them dying miserably anyway?
Here’s some more info, too fucking depressing to really read top to bottom:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6681408
Seriously weird thing to bring up in an article regarding inflation and spending. Tacky at best. The author must have suffered something to have put that in there. The editor should have yanked it for sounding callous.
tl;dr: I see it as an ethical decision, not a financial one.
Your link didn’t work.
Also:
Will chemotherapy make my pet sick?
Chemotherapy is very well tolerated in most dogs and cats. Most patients experience no side effects. Around 15% will have mild side effects that will last for a few days and many will improve on their own. About 5% of patients can experience more moderate side effects and less than 1% can have more severe/fatal side effects. Cats tend to tolerate chemotherapy even better than dogs, and both tend to handle chemotherapy better than people.
https://www.advetcc.com/cancer-care/frequently-asked-questions-about-chemotherapy/
How do they assess how a pet tolerates chemo? Not like they express themselves as we do, let alone fill out quality-of-life questionnaires. Can’t speak to dogs, but cats tend to hide their suffering until it’s too late.
Actually, I stopped to think it over. I might have to agree, depending on how much the dog would feel like shit vs the likelihood of a full recovery and also depending on the age.
The dog doesn’t have a say in the treatment, nor an explanation of what’s happening. If the vet and I discussed and determined that the outcome might be cruel for not much hope of gain, I’d make a plan with the vet to let my pal suffer the least amount possible.
This is far from a blanket endorsement to euthanize dogs with cancer, which should go without sayin.
If you’re going to say something that out of pocket in an article you have to follow up more thoroughly than that with an explanation and sources, what a fucking stupid thing to include in an article like this with so little info.
I forgot I did this and I’m like Excuse me??? What did I do?
It’s paywalled though.
The irony is strong with this one.
Stop feeding your dog so you can afford our subscription.
For those wanting the archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20220321020734/https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-03-13/inflation-stings-most-for-those-earning-under-300-000
And absolutely what I expect to see from Bloomberg. Never advocating for policy to alleviate hardship. Always blaming millenials for being poor.
Written by a real twit.
Believe me I will not shed a single tear if you shoplift from Walmart or Target or whatever.
Never saw a thing. Never will.
deleted by creator
Are you struggling with rising costs? Finding it difficult to live in a society which the rich warp to serve only their needs?
Have you tried just having a much shittier life?
Across the globe, the most successful have already accepted you having a much shittier life, and it’s working great for them!
Try a shittier life today! A shittier life: if you deserved more, you would’ve been born rich.
Stealing your entire comment, because I want to post this everywhere!
The horrible implications about your pets aside, you’d think economists understand what selling your car means in terms of employability.
they’re Bloomberg Economists™ which is the equivalent of McDonald’s doctors
Oh they understand. Take the bus, peasant! All the extra time you waste on public transportation is time you won’t be spending organizing with your fellow wage-slaves!
I mean… with buses you are around others. Your car you are not. So if they seriously wanted to prevent organizing they wouldn’t want people taking public transit. I know you are joking but yeah
employability *in America/Canada
gotta remember the folks in countries that have actually compactly designed infrastructure and usable public transport / sidewalks (yes that somehow includes Germany in this context)
Germany is far, far away from having reliable public transport. We do not have workers’ rights to protect you in case the trains strike for the sixth time, either.
Reliable? Compared to the rest of developed Europe, no. But usable? Compared to 99% of North America, VERY. Most of the US doesn’t even have access to public transport, only in bigger cities will you expect to find it. And when you do find it it’s basically unusable and probably will arrive an hour later than scheduled most of the time, except around the northeastearn US and massive cities like Chicago.
Germany has some pretty terrible public transport, but next to American public transport it’s comparatively extremely good (which is kind of funny but also sad)
The keyword here is “reliable”.
Last year my local train station was out of service for three months with a replacement bus starting too late in the day in the next village. And you know all too well about the strikes.
I cannot rely on public infrastructure to get me to work. Even though I avoid a car 90% of days I absolutely need access to a car for the remaining 10%.
I took a guy from my village along for free too when the train wasn’t running. I met him on the train and he doesn’t have a license. Without a car or a friend with a car you’re screwed in small town Germany, and I think it’s a damn shame.
There’s a lot of complaining about European trains in X nation not being as good as the rest of Europe… In reality, it’s just France have great trains when they’re not striking and every other European nation believes that’s the standard for the whole west of Europe except with less striking when it’s just not
Wow this is so helpful. I thought skipping iPhones and avocado toast would cover it, but putting down Fido definitely makes sense.
Here’s a couple more ideas:
- Never leave your house.
- Actually, get rid of the house, tents offer shelter at a fraction of the cost
- Let grandma pull herself up by her bootstraps, physical therapy isn’t cheap.
- If you have children, help them with interview roleplay, putting little ones to work can be a great way to increase your household income
- cut out alcohol, tobacco and caffine, those costs can add up quick!
If your child is young enough, you might be able to sell them to African slavers to work in diamond mines. Not only a savings but a profit!
Euthanasia can be pretty pricey,* better to just, idfk, send Fido off on an ice floe or whatever
*source: personal experience, lost three senior cats in ~18 months
Legit, actually, there have been lawmakers who’ve justified lowering the minimum work age in their states as ‘well some people really need their kids to work to afford things’. Like that’s a normal thing.
Removed by mod
Honestly, whether a person should pursue chemo or whatever else to prolong their life is their decision. It should be okay for assisted suicide to happen. or even not-assisted suicide, though I would really hope people seek help.
But also, I don’t really think people struggling financially are going to get chemo for their dog. Like that’s not even in the cards. (unless they have pet insurance, I s’pose)
As someone who had a dog and a family member go through chemo at basically the same time, the dosages are much lower compared to humans for those very reasons. While nausea can still be an issue, they really don’t experience much of the other discomforts that people undergo. I’ll always be thankful for the extra couple years of quality life it gave him.
As our oncologist said, people are able to tell us how they feel so they tend to get far higher dosages and back off if it becomes too much or take other measures as necessary.
Why do all economists seem so out of touch?
The article isn’t for us. It’s for the super rich to justify their wealth. They’ll read that and think, “yeah, I made my sacrifices, these kids need to make theirs if they want to be as wealthy as me. Now how do I pay my daughter to talk to me again?”
Because they worship money. It all makes sense when you assume this.
The poor don’t buy the artists’ paintings, sir, neither do they commission articles.
Actual article for those interested https://archive.is/20220320001551/https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-03-13/inflation-stings-most-for-those-earning-under-300-000?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-economics&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=economics
Bloomberg is not worth the electrons to used to represent the characters that they print but this is pure rage bait and almost anything taken out of contacts can be horrific.
Here’s the quote with context
If you’re one of the many Americans who became a new pet owner during the pandemic, you might want to rethink those costly pet medical needs. It may sound harsh, but researchers actually don’t recommend pet chemotherapy — which can cost up to $10,000 — for ethical reasons.
Emphasis mine.
The screenshot is pure rage bait.
Would you like to know more? https://faunalytics.org/canine-chemotherapy-the-ethics-behind-hard-decisions/
deleted by creator
Real talk in case someone needs to see this:
I had a good friend who’s dog got cancer and he spoke very passionately about regretting the chemo. He said that chemo for people is to kill the cancer chemo for animals is to extend their life, but this wasn’t something he knew going into the process.
It was not a good experience for either my friend or his doggo.
Bloomberg economics can go fuck themselves.
Yeah, I probably wouldn’t do chemo for my pet knowing what it does to a human who can communicate how much it sucks. Not because of inflation and the author of the piece really could’ve left that part out.
I hope it doesn’t come to it, but if I face this problem I plan to ask the vet what they would do if it was their dog. Not asking you to choose for me. But if it was your baby, what would you want for them?
Big companies just raise prices because they can, and they will do so to sway an election.
Chemotherapy for a dog? I think where I live it’s seen as more merciful to put the dog down rather than have them suffer through chemo.
My understanding is the goal of chemo for animals is to keep the drugs at a low enough level that any symptoms they have from them are less impactful than the symptoms they have from the cancer. I understand it’s also less effective, for this reason- but it wouldn’t be fair to make them sick because they don’t understand.
I feel like the chemo would only be to prolong their life for the benefit of the owners and not of the animal.
Yes. It’s absurd how much $$ some people will spend on their pets. Especially when the vast majority of pets are not money makers, eg: breeding, show winners.
I too only value people, animals, and things, for the monetary returns they bring in.
No wait, that’s not true, because I’m not a fucking psychopath.
You can still change your ways and keep that $$.
You sound like a slave stockpiling brownie points with your master instead of realizing the yoke around your neck.
Enjoy that. I guess.
Nope. Just don’t waste my $$. For less, people can adopt a new pet. There are tons waiting in shelters.
I’ve seen plenty of dogs and cats that were long past their quality of life. Selfish prick owners.
The absurdity here is you feel the need to express an unwanted opinion about the way someone else spends their money.
They’re idiots. Full stop.
No, they have more money than you. If someone can afford to pamper their pet, why shouldn’t they?
It’s not “pamper” to provide expensive medical care. It’s mostly selfish. You sound as dumb as they.
It’s absurd how some people think animals should only be exploited for making money
I don’t. It just seems more justified to spend a lot on vet care. I’ve always adopted from shelters.
…it’s just a pet. Give them some love, food, housing and that’s all we need, as it’s always been since we tamed the first pet animal. No need for fancy stuff
True and there is a boatload of other animals stuck in shelters waiting for a nice home. No need to prolong things when it’s impossible to know how the pet is actually feeling about the extended treatments.
Yeah and if the current pet has to go to the next life, just adopt another and treat them well too. Life comes and goes.
Also…maybe its my country speaking, but chemo is fucking expensive. I love my pets tremendously, but it seems wasteful to dedicate all that time and money to an animal, even if they are a beloved pet.
“Expensive” is relative. If you’re making 300k a year, chemo for your pet might only cost 3% of your annual salary. Someone making 50k a year can easily spend 3% of their salary ($1,500) on their pet even without any medical emergencies.
I agree it seems unethical, though. I hadn’t though of that before this thread, and now I’m sad…
Also…maybe its my country speaking, but chemo is fucking expensive. I love my pets tremendously, but it seems wasteful to dedicate all that time and money to an animal, even if they are a beloved pet.
How about just selling organs… of former executives and politicians… harvested in a dirty basement… and sold out of the back of a van…
Look, I’m just trying to share my life experiences to try and help, alright?
Tired:
How about just selling organs…
Wired:
of former executives and politicians…
Vince McMahon falling backwards:
harvested in s dirty basement… and sold out of the back of a van…
That was a rollercoaster
Another quick tip - you can both make and save a bit of money by selling your kids to be eaten!
Just leave a trail of sweets for them to the local witches’ cottage and they’ll take them off your hands.
Appalling, yes. But give it a couple generations.
Owning pets, land or house? Eating anything but bugs? Absurd! Who do you think you are, royalty?
I don’t get this eating bugs paranoia - assuming it becomes a meaningful thing, they’ll be turned into something tasty. There’s also every reason to think it’ll be cheaper and more sustainable than meat.
I don’t see conspiracusts losing their minds about the mechanically reclaimed offal in their burgers.
Don’t we eat sea bugs already? What’s wrong with land bugs?
> Bloomberg’s daily “Let them eat cake” post
