The country for better or worse seems to be frozen in time - salaries have not caught up with the heady levels of SV (or even Europe) but neither have rents or prices for common goods.
This is not a judgment either way - but it does make Japanese exports a significantly more lucrative business - if only they could figure out how to sell more of their stuff abroad!
> In Japan, there's a big issue when a snack raises its price 2 cents
No, there really isn't. You're looking at one company that "apologized" as a marketing play but outside of that prices have been increasing with no fanfare for years now. The annual inflation rate has been 2-3% for the past 4 years. It's a lot less interesting to write a news article about that though.
Yeah, and the price of rice has increased way more than that. Heat is making me too lazy to look it up so I wonder if it's gotten better in the past year. But Japanese people are very used to price increases.
Granted, accommodation is not one of them. Especially if you compare Tokyo to London, Paris or even Geneva.
Have you checked Tokyo hotel prices lately? Thanks to the travel boom they're through the roof as well: the business hotel that was Y10,000 before COVID is now twice that, and Western branded hotels that were Y30,000 or so are now Y100,000+.
That's a fair point. I reserved a business hotel in Tokyo for ¥113900 for 7 days during off-season. After conversion, it's still reasonable since you wouldn't find something with the same quality and convenience in the cities I mentioned.
But what I meant was accommodation for residents and not hotels. I would much rather have to find a flat and live in Tokyo rather than any other big city in the world.
For western reference, ¥100,000+ is $615+, or €540+.
Not cheap. I managed to find a room in SF for like $250 when I was looking, though you’d have to reserve it a week in advance. Is Tokyo really that expensive now?
So you're saying we understand it even less than todays rates lol. But your comment is definitely understood, it's crazy how things (particularly prices!) changed pre and post covid.
I think this is a bit disingenuous. Japan spent nearly all of the last 30 years needling deflation. If you take a look at the highest grossing movies of all time in Japan with and without adjusting for inflation, it barely changes. Do that for the US and it's an entirely different list.
Normal inflation for the last 4 years is basically still nothing in the grand scheme of things.
I watch one of those “apartments for rent in Japan” channels and I’m consistently shocked how inexpensive apartments are in lower tier cities / not Tokyo. Like a studio in an inconvenient part of Fukuoka for $200-250 a month.
I guess the salaries are lower, but it’s hard to imagine such cheap rent in the equivalent American city.
It's hard to compare to the US as a big part of this is the very weak yen.
I spent a couple years traveling the world and punctuated my travels with a 2 week stop in Japan (Tokyo/Osaka/Kyoto) in May '24. I was not prepared for how inexpensive everything was... much less than several eastern European cities I had just come from, more on par with places like Mexico City.
> Here is a startling fact: in 2014 there were 142,417 housing starts in the city of Tokyo (population 13.3m, no empty land), more than the 83,657 housing permits issued in the state of California (population 38.7m), or the 137,010 houses started in the entire country of England (population 54.3m).
Houses in Europe are made to last 200 years. I know traditional rural Japan houses get used for 30-40 years and torn down. So can’t just go on housing starts, would need to go on delta of total units. As houses get torn down, replacing is expanding.
Think I've heard anecdotes about Tokyo being pretty affordable as well. Quick search shows less than 1/3 of income typically spent on housing, which is much better than major US cities.
Most land is leased rather than owned - which means it depreciates over time. Imo it's a sensible system 70-100 year old buildings often have issues like Aluminum wiring, lead pipes, or asbestos, and can be in generally such a sorry state that renovating them costs more.
Also building a house or apt building that can stand for 100 years is very different from one that stands forever, for example steel beams can be used as foundation instead of having to pour concrete
It does depreciate, usually. It's the land underneath that appreciates in value.
Occasionally if you get unusual spikes in building materials and labour costs then the house itself can appreciate in value because it costs more to replace it, but that's rare enough.
Wonder how it is like in other countries with shrinking populations. Say, Korea.
Intuitively, it would make sense for housing prices to decrease when the demand decreases, supply being equal (It's not like housing deteriorates significantly in the short term).
Not sure about Korea, but Japan's case is more interesting than simply adjusting for population: the government strongly incentivizes new buildings every few decades. There is also a culture of viewing housing as a consumable, which is the part that sticks out to me the most.
yeah there is an expectation that you're either building a shrine type building (in that it's gonna be built to last and venerated) that will be there for 300 years, or else you're gonna replace it in <30.
that also leads to a lot of experimentation in architecture, since this building ain't gonna last so get weird. downside is it leads to a prefab corner cutting approach.
my brother lived in japan for a while and he loved it, both the long-standing rural places that were legit old school, but also when he was in the city and sublet some hypermodern, querky places on the cheap.
Demand for the big cities is still increasing pretty much everywhere, even if some countries are seeing net decrease in demand on the whole. Also remember that supply deteriorates. The number of "ready to move into" homes can decrease over time without maintenance and rebuilds.
Japan is a bit of an outlier because of earthquake regulations.
There is a history of substantially updating building regulations every time a new record is set for largest earthquake in the modern era; and so if you are buying historical, you are buying a less safe property that could kill you.
The last major earthquake updates to the code were in 2000, so there isn’t a lot of historical housing stock without this confounding factor.
I don’t agree at all — plenty of college students, 20-30s somethings would love a space like this in NYC, SF, etc. at a lower price point than what’s currently available.
The limits seem to be from legal restrictions on minimum apartment size, not market demand.
The building codes in most jurisdictions wouldn't even allow such a thing, whether there would be demand for it or not. But the lengths people are willing to go for small apartments in top tier cities (NYC, especially) show that there is be demand in the right situations. Of course, the whole point of living in Manhattan is to not spend time at home.
But there are interesting experiments going on. Where I live (Toronto) has had a huge build-out of small ~4-500sqf bachelors that were hoovered up by flippers and mom-n-pop landlords. At the peak of the boom, they were selling for ridiculous prices ($800K+) and the poor build quality of everything from elevators (of which there often weren't enough, resulting in lineups and long waits) to water pipes that burst meant that savvy prospective owners stay clear.
There's a correction happening, but people don't want to unload their "investments" at below what they cost and since mortgages are recourse people can't just walk away.
In theory there should be demand for these units from the young, corporate owners, 2nd homes in the city, etc. But the prices have just not come down enough to make any of those worthwhile.
Right, I should have been clear that my assertion was not that there is lack of demand. My assertion is we don't build and offer this style. Outside of school dormitories. And even then, there is still a preference for bigger.
Would love to see more on the correction you are referencing. So much of the discourse I see focusing on "starter homes." Which, these are not that.
Thanks! And yeah, I knew a few markets were tanking. I was hoping there was evidence that people were starting to offer SRO style places.
Alas, I think there is such a heavy anti-landlord attitude around that nobody wants to be said landlord. Worse, towns don't like having apartment complexes. Worse still, we don't do anything to incentivize moving back to these neighborhoods for the people that do move away to work.
> I recently heard that a trip to Popeye's for a family of 3 recently cost $68 in Florida.
Just checked online.
8pc family meal of spicy white meat with large mash potatoes and gravy, one sweet tea, one purple lemonade, one chilled premium mango lemonade
=
$41.05
@ 1501 NW 20th St, Miami, FL 33142
Bring-your-own-liquids = $30.38
Either ordering at the counter is criminally expensive, or you were listening to someone who wanted to spend $68 at Popeye's in Florida so they could complain about spending $68 at Popeye's in Florida.
My partner and I spent ~$70 CAD at popeyes the other day for two adults. I got a sandwich + fries + slaw, they got tenders, we both got fountain drinks.
I thought the same, too. Generally some small amount of inflation is preferable to encourage spending, rather than deflation which discourages it.
If you know a $100 item will probably cost $102 later then you're more likely to buy it now. But if that item will cost $98 in a deflationary environment, then maybe you'll wait to buy it later. Wages also tend to fall in deflation, which makes it harder to pay back debt, so lending slows down - people won't buy houses or cars, etc. Businesses hold back on capital spending. The economy slows to a standstill: if no one is spending money, how can anyone make money?
I think its more important for investment. If you have $1mil in cash and know it's losing value every day you have an incentive to invest it in some long-term profitable way. Hire more employees, buy some more trucks for your fleet, renovate your store, do some R&D to improve your product, etc. If it's the opposite you don't feel any urgency because your $1mil is gaining value as it sits in the bank.
This is true for investment-level amounts of money and larger percentages, but much less true for everyday purchases and small percentages. For buying a thing, a year of ownership is much more valuable than saving 2%. Look at the computer industry where waiting a year or two almost always gets you significantly better hardware but that doesn't stop people from buying new ones often.
And debts adjust their rates along with inflation/deflation so that effect ends up much smaller.
As for houses and cars, we desperately need to make the economy less focused on the value of houses and cars...
I'm not an economist, so maybe someone more knowledgeable can weigh in. But my understanding is that deflation is worse. If you can just stick $10k under your mattress and expect it to be worth 10% more in a year you have no incentive to invest. Businesses will just hold their cash, banks won't have money to loan out and the sort of investments that provide new jobs, goods and services are a risky high-effort bet compared to just saving.
This (classic) argument is symmetric with respect to the value of money and quantity of goods. As in "if you know money will buy more in the future, it increases your incentive to sell now rather than wait for higher prices. And if you know prices will increase, you will hoard products." The argument doesn't favour either side.
One mechanism of inflation is that it effectively lowers wages (and other contracts) without negotiation. Asset prices are valued by markets and increase with inflation. It effectively transfers wealth from wage earners to capital owners.
Deflation would effectively increase wages instead, and require occasional renegotiations if productivity isn't keeping pace.
The problem is you can't really hoard products. Most products depreciate - it's a force of nature called entropy.
I think the argument from symmetry still holds, but it leads into a different conclusion. Since products (goods, physical assets) depreciate in value over time, money must too decrease in value. Hence you get inflation.
I believe that "natural rate of inflation" is driven by natural depreciation of goods and the free market mechanism that exchanges money and products as you describe.
Capital has multiple forms, I agree that physical goods generally depreciate over time. But there is also land, equity, and bonds and they all have their own market forces to deal with.
I'm hand-waving a lot of arguments and considerations with this statement, but from my perspective one advantage to 2-3% inflation is to incentivize owning capital that will outpace inflation. Land, equity, and bonds all have that potential.
Deflation may incentivize renegotiation of labor, but it also incentivizes hoarding of cash, which itself is not otherwise valuable. The value comes from it being passed around through the economy buying more assets. The more purchases -> the more money to be passed around -> the more opportunity to grow the economy. In a deflationary environment (at least in theory) this slows all of that down and decreases economic opportunity, which we generally don't want.
Right, a steady low level of inflation is a driver for risk taking, which drives investment cycle, hiring, etc. This cascades thru economy from firm to firm, in a virtuous cycle of growth.
Zero inflation even as a target would be hard to hit, as it would imply some absolute perfect match of supply/demand for goods.
Deflation leads to the opposite behavior - hoard your resources, don't invest, don't lend, don't hire. This then cascades through economy in a downward spiral.
Sure 10% deflation would be a problem but so is 10% inflation.
What about 1 or 2% deflation? People would still need food, to replace or repair cars. People would still want and need to buy houses.
Inflation to my mind supposes that we have to have perpetual growth, which is something that is not realistic.
If we grow 3 times the amount of corn that we need this year, do we need to plan to grow 3.1 times next year? Or decrease the cost by 2%? If all the inputs stay the same, where do you get the gains from(assuming that the process is as efficient and automated as possible)?
I think that by printing money and expecting a 1~2% gain every year we just end up robbing ourselves. Companies play games by not giving raises right away, moving production to areas of LCOL or shrinking goods and services but our retirement portfolios go up. Then at the end of the day, you are on a fixed income and having to squeeze down on your consumption.
As I said to a sibling, it is easy to say companies are greedy but how many of us are buying a more expensive product because we know that they treat their employees well? Or do we look at something then try and find it cheaper on Amazon?
In the 90's there was a large amount of disdain for lower income people who were shopping at Wal-mart because they were buying cheap plastic goods from China. The reason they were is because companies were offshoring their jobs. They weren't buying from Wal-mart because they like the products, they were there because they were trying to keep the same lifestyle they had before they lost their higher paying jobs. Companies that did not offshore were driven out of business as their customer base collapsed. We cheated our future selves to keep our inflation targets.
My general impression with most discourse about the economy and statements like "Inflation to my mind supposes that we have to have perpetual growth" is that it looks at transactions within the economy as zero-sum. And that is a false assumption. It grows and shrinks for myriad of reasons that aren't directly related to monetary policy. The monetary policy is there to attempt to keep things stable and predicable, that is all.
> If we grow 3 times the amount of corn that we need this year, do we need to plan to grow 3.1 times next year? Or decrease the cost by 2%? If all the inputs stay the same, where do you get the gains from(assuming that the process is as efficient and automated as possible)?
I think I get what you're driving at, but let me ask this question. Do you believe the price of corn in 1976 reflects the same market forces as the price of corn in 2026? Not the inflationary number alone, but why that corn costs what it does today versus 50 years ago?
There are microeconomic changes for sure, different farming techniques and maybe a different way of buying and selling surplus corn. But the life of a farm hand has likely changed, the average background of them has likely changed, the ownership model of the farm may have changed. The downstream buyers of corn have likely changed from mostly canned good manufacturers to fresh produce providers. And the macroeconomic forces surrounding everything has absolutely changed.
I know that it is not a zero sum game and I get there are changes but I am not talking about 1976 to 2026. I am talking about 2025 to 2026. Or 2024 to 2025.
My premise was that input costs are stable and as automated as possible.
We still expect a 1 to 2% increase YOY.
I am not sure how ownership structure cange would give you growth or reduce cost.
Downstream buyers shouldn't affect it much either as we started out producing 3 times as much as is used. Unless someone suddenly found a use for all the excess.
Let me try again with a different example. Let's say that I run a bottle water company, I have an automated production line and I bottle as much water as I am allowed to pump. I sell all my product so there is no waste, this also means that I have all the customers that I need. I would still be expected to show growth YoY. How? Reduce material used in bottles? At some point the bottles are as thin as possible.
My point is, there is a lower limit to how much you can reduce things or how much you can grow. Not everything is there, in fact most things are probably not. But in our strive to grow or become more efficient we are also throwing away the ability to be resilient.
By moving to lean JIT we shutdown when a shipment is delayed. But we had less cash tied up in inventory!
Now we are applying those same practices to hospitals.
You can't fit 1~2% more chickens in the same cage, nor can you feed them less. So where does it come from? Is it worth the growth to spray the chicken down with bleach? Ship it to China to be slaughtered and back? Take the entrails, centerfuge them into pink slime?
A steady amount of inflation allows interest rates to be near zero or even negative in real terms without actually being negative in nominal terms. Negative (real) interest rates are sometimes a necessary policy tool (see: 2008...2021), but negative nominal rates are difficult to implement in practice in our current regime of privately-controlled money creation via bank lending.
There are other monetary schemes that allow for negative nominal rates (100% reserve-backed lending, a.k.a. The Chicago Plan, or the gold or silver standard, etc.), and in those one does not need steady inflation. There was basically no inflation for most of the 19th century, when most currencies were backed by gold or silver. That had other drawbacks: for example, a relative inability to control the money supply. An expanding money supply following the California gold rush helped fuel speculation during the railroad boom, and the inability to expand the money supply on demand exacerbated the ensuing panic of 1873. Governments at the time did not believe it was their job to dampen the impacts of the business cycle, however.
Inflation usually results in the central bank raising interest rates and thereby discouraging new loans for new projects, to try to prevent further inflation.
Maybe you could win if you’re leveraged using fixed-rate, long-term loans and you’re also confident that you can sell something at a higher price. But that’s a rather specific financial maneuver.
Inflation can exist because of a lot of things: natural loss of value, resource scarcity, monetary policy, greed, etc. And it's even harder to make sense of with fiat currency.
> Seemed like a vicious cycle.
The issue is inflation and deflation both tend to be positive feedback loops. Inflation can promote behavior that promotes inflation. Deflation can promote behavior that promotes deflation.
Note that I use "tend to" and "can promote". It's all based of off assumptions on how people value things and their behaviors, as is all economic models.
> why prices HAVE to keep going up
It really doesn't have to. We do so because economic models show that we should because of the way we behave. But, we also behave the way we do because of the economic systems that we've designed.
Prices have to keep going up if you want a system that promotes endless consumption and growth in consumption.
It also lets you have a "non-zero-sum" economy, where it appears everyone is making a "profit". But, in reality it isn't.
Interest rates create more money, inflation makes more money worth less.
Spain was pretty poor in the 1600's inspite of new world gold and silver, because inflation made everything more expensive as supply of goods wasn't really increased, but money supply was.
in 2020, USA increased money supply by 20% of their all time supply. So inflation has to devalue the currency by at least that much to keep it balanced. Which is why they are distracting us with all the shit they are doing. and they are ignoring the real issue.
part of it has do do with scarcity and gas prices. Gas is used to produce and transport. If gas prices go up, prices go up just to pay for gas. Basic supply and demand. There are more humans, more cars so the demand is higher and gas is a finite resource. Alternative energies help but gas still heavily used.
A capitalist society needs inflation in order to produce a desirable outcome. It is a driver of consumption, as opposed to people and organizations hoarding their money in a deflationary environment, as well as investments, because inflation leads to the devaluation of loans over time.
I hear this argument all the time, but I've always found it lacking connection with the human behaviour I observe as someone growing up low-middle class, now middle-upper class.
It completely misses the mark on human behaviour of those living in scarcity. Inflation forces them to save whatever they can in the most stable and liquid medium (cash). As a result it creates a very strong force pushing low income individuals further down, it takes a lot of hard work and luck to get out.
Those with enough wealth don't need the same liquidity or stability, they have the luxury to invest and see their wealth grow and outpace inflation. As a result of this security they are more willing to spend on products and services.
Inflation causes scarcity for the poor and security for the wealthy.
The lower inflation is the less scarcity for the poor, and they will be more willing to spend and invest. Even in a environment with 0 inflation the wealthy still have incentive not to hoard cash. The incencentive to invest was never about the devaluation of cash, but rather the outpacing return of value that investment brings. Theoretically that still exists even in a deflationary environment, though I do suspect high enough deflation would have drastic negative impacts on the market to the point where returns are too low to justify the risk.
Population growth is ending globally, so I suppose the strategy is to issue debt for clean tech, affordable housing, and similar at the lowest yield for the longest duration you can and let those loans devalue over time as the population declines. China is the closest model I can put forth in this regard: their property sector is imploding for investors, but housing is affordable, for example.
This is the gospel that is taught. It seems to help people tolerate the fruits of their labor being quietly separated from them over time. Just another tax, except the people have even less of a say in this one.
Can you provide counter arguments to mine, though? It does not reduce wealth if dealt with correctly as an individual. It is meant to incentivize investments rather than hoarding, i.e., doing nothing with your money, as I explained.
In the end it's really just greed. Companies always want to charge as much as they can get away with. They are constantly testing price increases to see how high they can get their prices before they start losing enough customers that it hurts their profits.
Older customers who have an idea in their mind of how much something is worth based on how much they've previously paid may eventually feel cheated and stop buying, but there's always a new generation of customers who never knew any better. There are things they can do to offset the backlash like they might offer a sale at the same time as they increase prices to give customers time to get used to the new sticker price. They keep the price the same and try to hide the fact that they're giving customers less product.
it's pretty shortsighted though because it makes our money increasingly worthless and eventually we'll end up like Zimbabwe and a loaf of bread will cost us $100.
Yeah, well their job is to get the best price for their product. Just as it is your job to get as much money as possible for your product, i.e. your talents and labors.
In a competitive economy with informed buyers this greed is what makes things cheap and high quality. Think about two grocery store owners in a small town. They've settled into an equilibria with each other to keep the status quo and not get greedy for a bigger share of the market by competing on price or quality. Then one day, seeing an opportunity, a new grocer moves in with fresher fruit, a wider variety of products and most importantly lower prices. All the customers go over to that grocery store and the old grocers have the choice to improve or die. From the point-of-view of the previous grocery store owners the new grocery store is "greedy", but it ends up benefiting everyone else.
> In the end it's really just greed. Companies always want to charge as much as they can get away with.
Is it also greed when consumers want to pay as little as possible? (In some ways, of course it is, but at some point, the loaded term greed isn’t particularly helpful towards understanding perfectly ordinary microeconomic behavior.)
> Is it also greed when consumers want to pay as little as possible?
Yeah, sometimes it is. People should be paid a fair amount for the resources, time and effort they put into something. Greed seems fitting when the motivation is just an endless repeating of "I want to give you less while taking more of your money for myself" although more often it's "for the company's shareholders".
Pushing for ever-increasing profit at all costs is what corporations do. Calling it anything but greed is just misrepresenting their nature.
> Companies always want to charge as much as they can get away with.
In any market where competition exists, companies compete against other companies for customers. Any company that doesn't (for whatever reason) maximize it's net income is likely to cease to exist at some point, or at the least is unlikely to grow. As a result, not being 'greedy' is usually not a viable strategy.
Describing simple self interest as 'greed' is inherently loaded and reductionist. Look at the natural world; pretty much all living organisms exhibit self-interested behaviors (at least at the group or species level, if not the individual level). Are all of those 'greedy' too? You could say yes and not be wrong, but in doing so you would dilute the meaning of the word 'greed'.
Do you ask for/expect a raise every year? Even if your job responsibilities and workload doesn't change?
It's easy to boil it down and say greed or capitalism but I don't think it is a very reasoned position.
>Prices for goods in Europe in the sixteenth century rose to about four times the level that had prevailed during the preceding three centuries, increasing poverty levels but also raising the profit potential for those who were in a position to exploit an economy that was suddenly based primarily upon money and credit rather than labor and trade.
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/worldwide-in...
Not sure if they were fully capitalistic by then but that was a long time ago.
I also know that Japan has had inflation for a long time, reading history about coins and looking up the worth of a mon that would be 10000 to 1 yen.
IMHO, inflation is driven by both greed (not just companies, everyone wants their retirement portfolio to go up) and increased money supply. The USA has a large amount of deficit spending, this is money that we just magic into existence. We have used it recently to try and manage crisis like 2008 GFC and COVID but I don't think that it is a coincidence that after those two events the costs of everything went up.
Worldwide the prevailing economic theory is that deflation is bad, I am not sure but unless we are willing to allow for some deflation you will only every have inflation.
> Do you ask for/expect a raise every year? Even if your job responsibilities and workload doesn't change?
Cost of living requires that. Also, even when my job responsibilities and workload don't change, my skills do. Someone who has gained valuable skill and experience should be better compensated than someone showing up for their first day of work.
> I recently heard that a trip to Popeye's for a family of 3 recently cost $68 in Florida.
That’s $22 per person. Would like to see what they ordered. Not saying I don’t believe it but that’s pretty high. My family of 4 can eat chilfila for that and chikfila is kind of pricey for fast food where Popeyes is pretty much trash.
No, that's about right in my (very limited) recent experience. It's _very_ easy to spend as much at a fast food restaurant these days as you would at a sit-down restaurant, especially if you don't do one of their combo meals, or add one or two extra items to your order
The crazy high prices and general unhealthiness aside, my main beef (if you'll pardon the pun) with fast food places is that more and more of them are taking orders via AI and/or requiring you to download and install their app to place an order.
You aren't required to but you will pay substantially more by not using the app and creating an account. They offer "exclusive" deals that usually amounts to roughly ~20% off menu price, while they raised all their base prices that much or more so you are subjected to data harvesting in order to pay the normal pirces.
What? Where are you going? What does "taking orders via AI" even mean? I have never once been in a fast food restaurant anywhere in the US that didn't have counter service, self-serve ordering kiosks, or both.
I don't think chick-fil-a is any less trash than Popeyes, personally, and the fried chicken itself is lower quality—too sweet and moist. The fries are dry and unseasoned. The biggest selling point is the lemonade.
Granted, I don't eat at either because better value fried chicken than both is not terribly difficult to find.
The only way I can stomach buying fast food is through deals on their apps, which I find very anti-consumer and predatory.
It's also super annoying when you just want a quick and cheap meal but you need to spend an inordinate amount of time on their app to figure out how not to get taken advantage of by their pricing.
Yeah, fast food just isn't worth it anymore. Used to be super cheap comparatively to regular restaurants. Now I can go get a generous serving of pad thai from a local place here for less than a 10 pcs McNugget meal, and is usually ready just as fast as McDonals have gotten slower over the years.
I don't know how fast food is still in business. Around ~$36 before tip and tax to feed my family of 3 Thai food & the local Teriyaki place or maybe ~$45 for Chinese, and I'm in a HCoL area. Fast food ends up even more than that.
Agree on the apps, I hate them and they are not only predatory but buggy pieces of junk.
Yeah 9 times out of 10 I'd rather go to Popeyes. It is greasy but it's spiced well and I can't think of a single bland thing on their menu.
I'll say though that the customer experience at Chick-fil-a is top notch, and they really have drive through down to a science. Buying the food their has always been a pleasant experience.
They employ 3-4 people to man their drive through. No wonder it's such a great experience. Subconsciously, I think I pick CFA over alternatives, in part, to not have to deal with poor customer service.
late to a reply but poor choice of words on my part. I have a pretty knee jerk reaction to fast food, i tolerate chikfila just because the drive through operation and teamwork at a busy store is a sight to behold. I know chikfila is more expensive than average for fast food however.
In Japan, inflation adjusted wages are down 2% over the last 20 years. In the same time frame in the US, they're up 20% and even for the bottom quartile, earnings are up 15%.
Prices in California seem out of control to me. Recent examples, BLT + Coffee = $36, Plate of broccoli, plate of peas, small pizza, tap water = $95. Plate of 2 tacos, burger, 2 drinks = $120. 2 sandwiches = $60
As for Japan. ATM food is often cheaper. If you want cheap though, there are plenty of much cheaper places in the world. For rent, there are cheap options I wish existed in the states. As many point out tho, size is small. I'm happy to pay less for a smaller place but the price per square meter is comparable, maybe not to SF but at least to LA.
Note that like any city, there is a vast range from downtown to less popular parts of the city. "Tokyo" even includes mountains and farmlands on it's far west side
Or you can eat much better food all around for much less in other establishments.
Businesses charge what they can get away with, and you're actively wasting money if you're referencing prices you actually paid for those meals recently.
You are correct I can find places that charge less. The point is, I used to go out to lunch and not have to worry about it. Now I go and get price shock.
It's interesting that some restaurants (and businesses in general) seemed to figured out within the last few years that a surprising (to me) number of people don't want to make any effort to comparison shop at all.
The only way to stop it is to stop giving them money.
I can't say I've ever been to Popeye's, but $68 for 3 people seems unlikely based on their online prices: I picked a random one in Orlando, Florida and the "family meal" (which appears to be a very large amount of chicken) is $20.
The closest thing would be the "16Pc Classic Signature Chicken Family Meal," which is $55.69 at that location and is described as feeding between 6 and 8 people. So you'd need to tip a bit to get to $68 from there.
> I don't think you can get to $68 for half as many people, even with drinks and tax.
A 5pc chicken tenders, Mac and cheese, and a large drink is $25 before tax. If there are three people who get a similar meal (but not exact so they don't share the family meals) then the total is $75 before tax. Seems like the original price quote of $68 is certainly plausible for a group of three. I am sure its possible to feed three people for less like you claim, but that doesn't mean the $68 is impossible to reach.
> A 5pc chicken tenders, Mac and cheese, and a large drink is $25 before tax.
What region? Putting that same order together for a location near me is $16.23 after tax. Putting in the address above (45 N Orange Blossom in Orlando, FL.), the total was $17.35 after tax.
Sure, it’s not impossible to reach. But I think you’ve demonstrated that you need to work to reach it. Particularly in a family context; I don’t eat at Popeye’s but even I know that the whole point of the family menu is that it’s meant to be economical for family meals.
Ordering a main, a side, and a drink isn't really "working to reach it". Your original post was insinuating that the OP or their friend lied about the cost and I was just demonstrating that it's quite plausible to reach it.
First, you ordered them a la carte, because using the combo price (as almost any actual buyer would do) would undermine your point.
And then you ordered an amount of calories greater than the recommended amount for an adult for the entire day. Sure, some people eat that, but is that remotely a useful metric to answer the question of what it costs the typical family of three to eat at Popeye’s? No.
I’ve seen 2 active teens at healthy body weights split that 8pc meal + a side of biscuits. Obviously if you’re talking about a 6 year old the numbers are different.
I can probably eat an 18” pizza alone, but you would rightly accuse me of misrepresentation for claiming that a “pizza for lunch for one” costs me $25+.
Not if that’s your regular order. For many families of 3 ordering 2 15” pizza, dessert, and drinks would be a regular lunch others may simply order 3 large slices.
That’s my point, family of 3 isn’t some standard size.
But the 8pc meal is only $36? What did the 3rd person order to push it to $68? Maybe the third person is a professional sumo wrestler. Every family is different!
Or maybe, just maybe, the idea that it costs the typical family of three $68 to eat at Popeye’s is just utter bullshit?
That said, 8pc meal is a discount, you can get charged more for the same food if they aren’t all ordering the same thing. Also, don’t forget the extra side of biscuits I mentioned, teens can be shockingly ravenous beasts.
Similarly not all locations have the same pricing.
My general assumption for any food I'm getting eating out in the US (across a range of regions) is $20/person for fast food/casual, and $30 if it's a basic restaurant. The food will be listed at $7-12 etc, but the receipt will show twice that due to fees, add-ons etc.
IMO what matters is what you pay; the numbers they post on the menus and other media aren't useful.
This is from their online checkout, so it is what you'd pay.
(It doesn't seem implausible to me that you'd pay $20/pp for food in most parts of the US; I'm responding purely to the hearsay claim that someone paid $68 for 3 people. I can't square that unless you actually bought twice as much food, and then some.)
If they’re bigger folks or starving and someone doesn’t want bone-in chicken, I could see it. 3 large 4 piece combos is $55.50 in Miami, and I think there are other things in that range (eg a 5 pc tender meal if someone hates bone-in chicken so they can’t get a family meal).
The family meals are substantially cheaper than individual meals, if you can get everyone to agree on bone-in chicken and the same 2 sides.
A 20% tip would push that up to something like $66.
The same people who claim they're spending $68 for a 3 person meal at Popeyes or other similar establishments and that there is no alternative (i.e. people who aren't very good with money and/or willing to put even the slightest amount of effort into comparison shopping).
Popeyes has always been ridiculously over-priced. I stopped going there over a decade ago when I realized they charge at least 2x any other fast food place that exists. They are the same as Five Guys, but at least Five Guys puts some effort into appearing like you are getting quality food. Both are way over-priced though.
Japan gets an economic pass because they have such a strict monoculture.
In the same way you can "break" the laws of thermodynamics by getting every atom to move in the same direction at the same time, you can "break" the laws of economics by getting every person to make the same illogical choice at the same time.
Yes, the laws of thermodynamics and laws of economics are empirical laws. But, the laws of economics are derived from human values, which are inherently subjective.
You state the choices as “illogical”, but those choices can be logical based off a different set of values.
Similarly, if you have a different set of axioms, you can build a different reasonable system on it.
It's like Euclidean geometry and Non-Euclidian geometry. They are both valid systems based off of different axioms. Similarly, the different economic systems are valid based off of different set of societal values.
You can also compare it to the ideal gas law. It's a law, but is based of a hypothetical ideal gas. Similarly, the economic laws are based off of a hypothetical society. The ideal gas law does not hold in all conditions, and economic laws do not hold in all conditions.
The economic laws are meant as tools to predict behavior. But ironically, we end up modifying our behaviors to fit the laws, and we weaponize the usage of "economic laws" to control the behavior of others.
We have economists complain how "that economic system doesn't work". Yes, it doesn't work with the laws that define your economic system, but it works with a different set of laws. We have people say, "that doesn't make sense because of X law". It's the other way around. The "law" doesn't make sense, because I value something different.
You can't really break the laws of thermodynamics because they are statistical laws, not absolute ones.
When you have 10 atoms bouncing around you can pretty easily "break" the laws because you don't have the statistical mass for aggregate behaviors (what we call the laws) to arise.
So it's not really a law that entropy must increase, it's more a 99.999...% (envision a lot of 9's there) chance it will, and the number of 9's is proportionate to the number of energy points in the system.
1. Issue bonds at near zero or even negative yield.
2. Buy US bonds.
The country is still one of the largest foreign US debt holders at $1.191T, and interest from this debt pays for a significant fraction of the interest on their own debt.
Someone who is betting that the negative yield changes favourably. The bet is the same in positive yield regimes as well. This could happen due to a combination of deflation forecasts increasing and expectations of interest rates being lowered even further.
That's 10 cents for a single 35-calorie corn puff, to be clear, and it was a 25% price increase. 10 cents for one corn puff is not actually a good price.
For decades after the 1989 crash they were in deflation. Only in the last 3-4 years has any meaningful inflation returned. Some context here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decades
For like past 30 years yes. The inflation during that time were covered by shrinkflation and value adds through feature adds. I think some argue it has to do with lack of popularity of credit cards and electronic payments, which nudge prices to gravitate towards nearest coin denominations which in turn suppress inflation. Which is probably true, considering if a bottle of soda went from a dollar and a dime to a dollar and two dimes, or the umaibo went from one dime to a dime and three cents totaling as four distinct coins, those will be very tangible to consumers.
They've also been making things smaller. Some would argue that it's a cultural thing, but being poor also means you have to start adopting austere cultural habits as a coping mechanism.
There's shrinkflation for sure. Take Torikizoku for example. One plate = 280yen from 1985 until 2017. Now it's risen to 337yen while also reducing in size by 30%.
Over the long run, population decline it is associated with disinflation or deflation. Deflationary forces often become strong because overall demand and economic growth slow.
People forget that prices don't rise automatically. Businesses decide to raise prices. There isn't some magical force called inflation cuasing prices to go up. It's human decision-making all the way down.
Post COVID is a great example of this in action. They DID raise prices because they could. What keeps prices low is competition. But again, it's not automatic. Look at Arizona Ice Tea as an example. All price rises are business decisions with a person behind it.
People forget that high prices aren't paid automatically. Consumers decide to purchase things at the higher prices, it's human decision-making all the way down.
Have you ever run a business? I have and still do. I make the pricing decisions, nobody makes them for me. Have to factor in a lot and repricing is always a hard choice in either direction. It's never automatic or some mystical force.
In my area, the three piece combo - fries, drink, and a biscuit - is $16.79 before tax on UberEats for pickup, and I'm in a fairly low COL area. $68 for three sounds about right.
Why are you so determined to find a way to make an obvious exaggeration partially true?
Your local example failed, so you hand-waved at expensive areas. Someone points out that it's also false in an expensive area, and you say "no not that expensive area it doesn't count".
Why do you feel the need to defend the honor of the "Costs $68 to feed 3 at Popeye's" exaggeration?
Additionally, there are loads of comments of people all over the country price checking this $68 claim in their area. Bizarre to just keep hammering how it must be true under some yet-to-be-revealed circumstances.
Dining prices are up to an extraordinary amount compared to pre-COVID. Prices never went back down despite inflation being "reigned in". Being surprised at a $68 bill at Popeyes just expresses you don't have a family to provide for, which is probably the default position of most of the posters on this forum.
I eat a lot of fast food, including Popeye's. I buy for myself sometimes, other times I'm buying for groups of various sizes.
It has gotten more expensive. But if you're spending $68 for 3 people at Popeye's, someone in that group is eating at levels that will eventually win them a spot on "My 600lb Life".
> Being surprised at a $68 bill at Popeyes just expresses you don't have a family to provide for
I have a family to provide for. I'm surprised at a $68 bill at Popeyes. Taking my family there is normally a good bit less than that. Maybe if it was in some tourist trap area or something, but generally that would be quite high.
The CEO then went on to explain, “We raised base salaries in Japan by 10 percent in April 2023,” adding, “Since then, we have continued to review our compensation system to ensure that remuneration aligns with employees’ demonstrated capabilities, and in April 2026 we implemented further salary increases, including for starting pay.”
If their last raise was 3-4 years ago, this is a simple inflation adjustment, amazing they get good vibe front page Hacker News credit for this.
In Sweden, there's a fundamental agreement between companies, the state and unions to not have raises follow inflation (as it becomes reinforcing and hurting the rack economy).
Now, there's always discussion (you can guess who's arguing what if inflation is high and low...), but overall it seems to work pretty good.
What we need is a concerted world wide order of magnitude reduction in the numerical symbology behind money. It’s where a $100 becomes $10 and the same with every currency world wide at exactly the same time. We should do this every 50 years.
So what you are saying is that you build a cheap house by breaking the laws and local regulations?
Next logical step would be to just barge in the neighborhood house and live there for free.
> To trigger building inspections in my county it can only be forced if there is compensation or commercial intent for building or use of the house, but you have to use a special process to record this with the county affirming you're the owner and the builder and it's a non-commercial non-rented domicile.
The question I have about this is whether you would need to get inspections and permitting done if you ever tried to sell the house?
If that's the case the loophole only works for the owner/builder and the next person to own it is going to have to scrape it clean and rebuild entirely. If you ever wanted or needed to sell it sounds like this would complicate that process by quite a bit either way.
Doubt I'll ever sell the house. I might gift it to an LLC and then sell the LLC though. Or just bulldoze it when I'm done with it, it has already paid for itself and I never built it with an intent to profit off of it.
If he lives there until he dies, bulldozing it will be Someone Else’s Problem. If the electrics catch fire and he dies, it’s his own problem. Perfect American solution.
It’s true that you don’t need much expertise to build the house but electric and plumbing does need some, no? You don’t need to sell the property perhaps but how did you get labor? Surely you didn’t just do it all yourself.
I have to say, pretty cool all told if you managed this!
You need some expertise, but electric and pumbing are not hard to do yourself. If you don't know what you are doing a bad install can kill you (or your family/friends), so you want to do this right. However it isn't hard.
I helped my uncle build his house, the only thing he didn't do himself was dig the holes (foundation and well), pour the concrete, and tape the drywall. Everything was inspected by the county and passed. We could have done those as well, but is made sense to hire someone for those parts considering the experience/tools of family/friends, and how long it would take working only Saturdays.
I miss living where I have lots of family around. There are things I'm forced to hire out that I know how to do just because I can't make a few phone calls and get a dozen people to help next Saturday.
Like the other guy said, electrical and plumbing are not hard to do correctly with a just a little bit of knowledge or experience with modern building practices.
You can't just throw random trash together but there are simple "standard" ways of doing things with standard available wires and pipes and fittings and as long as you follow common practices you will be 95% of the way to a code compliant install. It is only when you want to do something in an unusual or shortcut way that you may run into real compliance problems.
Certainly don't try it if you are completely clueless, but reading a diy book or watching some diy instructional videos will get you pretty far and show you how standardized most residential construction is with hardware store materials.
Go to any third world country and live there for a bit to understand the value of code and inspections and regulations. Even if you get away with it legally, which I doubt you will in a place like the US because they check every year when property taxes are due, you don’t want that to be the norm.
Also most of the cost of a new house is labor, the inspections and building to code costs very little and is free and government provided in most cases.
A good portion of my family is from the third world. And I have lived in the third world (multiple continents, and some of the most war torn places on earth). The housing situation was something I admired as basically anyone could build and own a house. I found it inspiring and realized then the code and zoning game was largely a scam, walking away with the exact opposite conclusion you had expected. Those people generally built the safest house they could with what they can -- the regulations would only make them poorer and less safe, possibly casting them in the street if they cannot afford to meet them where they're not the building inspector's problem anymore (this is the luxury of the building inspector, the downsides of his vigilance is unseen to him and cast into the streets where they likely have an even worse fate).
>the inspections and building to code costs very little and is free and government provided in most cases.
It would have been basically impossible to build my house if there were code inspections. I was only available weekends.
> Even if you get away with it legally,
I have "gotten away with it" and the house is fully legal and recognized. The county literally issued me a closed permit saying they exempted me from inspections. Instead of building plans it just shows a square on a map.
I’m sorry but this comment is hysterical. I have experience with construction and engineering and I shudder to think what type of monstrosity you’ve built.
That’s not historically uncommon though. Like the house I grew up in was a rural house built in ~1890 by the brothers who farmed the land. Of course it had the usual quirks of an old house, but it was well maintained over time and I wouldn’t view it as any kind of “monstrosity”.
I'm guessing it didn't have wiring or plumbing when it was originally built, though. If professional electricians/plumbers added those _after_ the fact, then that's still way different than trying to DIY everything in the 21st century.
We should all appreciate that most homes were not done by teams of professionals back in the day. Multiple things can be true here, 1) building your own home will take a lot of time to get right (so time being used in place of money), 2) the skills involved are all completely learnable and do-able for an able-bodied person who again is willing to put the time in, and 3) its not worth it for the vast majority of people who don't want to learn these skills and would rather focus on their own work and pay someone else to be a professional in the space. And yes 4) I've seen quite a bit of DIY work in homes and sometimes its impressive but usually its questionable and sometimes even horrific.
My grandpa built a similar house under similar level of scrutiny roughly at the same point in life as I did, it was still standing and in good order when he died. At this point it's basically already paid for itself vs rent even valued at $0.
This does not apply to Nintendo of America, which famously does underpay in the Redmond, WA area and well.. I hear has trouble truly attracting talent in the first place.
They also make quite a few more changes than expected when localising games. Or at least they did in the olden days, where the American versions of games sometimes had different/extra features compared to the Japanese originals.
I think some of the localisation team are also regular voice actors for the games, on a worldwide basis.
> They do have at least one development studio there, Nintendo Software Technology.
Oh, interesting! The list of games isn't particularly impressive though, a lot of ports and remakes. Compare that to also-US-based Retro Studios, which isn't considered under Nintendo of America from what I understand.
It's considered tech, adjacent to The Pokemon Company, also in the same area...
It's not just localization and marketing they do have corporate IT and some development/studio as well as very poor security policies that gets them breeched every now and again which makes sense, they pay poorly and from my personal experience gatekeep but that makes sense from the applicants that probably get in their applicant pool.
That's actually a really great suggestion. It would be great if you could throw together a list of these many, many places and post it here, so we could think about what sort of moves we could make. Thanks in advance!
Sweet thanks, I guess I never really thought about moving to the Rust Belt and then taking part in its thriving economy to get the sort of job that would allow me to support a family of 5 and own a house on a single income. I would guess at this point you'd probably try and say something about remote work and arbitraging high west coast tech salaries against low cost-of-living, but really that just gets us back to the other poster's point about this stuff not being obtainable anymore. Certainly, to take just a quick example, not in one of the cities you listed, Wichita, with a median individual income (as specified by the other poster) of between $49k and $35k for men and women, and a median house sale price of $243k (up 4.3% over the last year!), giving you an affordability ratio of roughly 5-7x. Chapman university labels that sort of ratio as "Severly Unaffordable".
Whoops! Guess it isn't quite as easy as your smug comment made it out to be...
I once watched a Vice President at an all hands explain that the company's decision to have non-competitive wages was because "it's not that we're underpaying, it's that everybody else is overpaying. If you want to go somewhere else to get overpaid, that's not going to last." I think about that every now and again and chuckle.
Because the conversation is incomplete if we're talking internationally.
The cost of living in the US is much higher compared to most other first world/rich countries for one. Count up someone's basic living expenses in the US and those in another country (so taxes, rent and fixed costs) and the US often ends up much higher in terms of absolute values. In other countries, taxes usually soak up more of those fixed costs, reducing them more across the board for most people. The US also has very little protection against surprise fees at checkout (to the annoyance of non-Americans when ordering stuff online from the US), so a lot of stores sell on higher markups relatively speaking, making the same goods more expensive in the US. There's also healthcare, which needs little elaboration because the US is to my knowledge the single most expensive country to live in when it comes to that.
That applies to the US as a whole; it's why someone can say they're making 300k USD a year, say they're apparently barely able to stay afloat and then the rest of the world pretty much regards the US economy as being fundamentally wrong in some form. In most places, 300k USD a year is living in the upper class (as in, "work this job for a decade and you can retire early" money), not scraping the bottom of the barrel. By modern conversion standards, that's about 263k euros, or about 21k euros each month.
Then there's the tech sector specific problems. San Francisco is expensive to live in, and most US tech companies are in SF. Take the US cost of living problem, amplify it specifically for the tech sector (which is usually not talked about, since it's hard to vocalize). Second is that the US tech sector has more creative ideas and money than business sense - throwing money at a problem like the purse doesn't exist is a very US tech thing that doesn't apply anywhere else. It means that it's possible to hire people at far more inflated prices than the job is realistically worth.
Whether a wage is good or bad is pretty much entirely dependent on the local economy. Someone making 2000 EUR a month in Europe makes just above/right below the poverty line. Someone making 2000 EUR a month in Brazil is living an upper class lifestyle. That's an extreme comparison, but is a good indicator.
One other point: tastes expand to fit your income. You learn how much many you get every month and then how to spend that much.
My local Mercedes dealer will lease me a car for $4000/month (+ insurance) - somebody must have enough money to make that payment. If that is too much maybe the 18 year old Honda Civic with 300k miles for $1000 (cash price) is more your style? Probably you fit in between those. (note that we are talking about the US so we can assume there is no useful transit)
One thing to consider is that people in France (for example) are actually getting paid 45% more than you see in their salary because the government is taking that invisibly from the employer for social services.
People can achieve a high standard of living anywhere in the world on half or a quarter of what goes for normal in SV tech. The valuations of these companies are even more inflated than their wages, and most of them aren't even profitable and don't have good prospects. Bubbles benefit some people, but they're a sign of dysfunction and I don't believe that the proper reaction to a sign of deep societal dysfunction is to celebrate that a few thousands of people can make a lot of money out of it.
Depends on what you qualify as 'standard of living.' There's no amount of money I would accept to live in many parts of the world. To have the same size property and home I have today in France or Germany would be likely 10's of millions of Euros. My property is worth well less than $1M.
He told you why: because it's in America. You can bet if Europe paid those wages and the US didn't we'd be hearing about wage suppression and underpayment instead.
Nintendo gets a lot of flak for how they treat consumers and how litigious they are. However I get the impression they treat their employees very well in Japan. Like when the Wii U flopped, execs took a pay cut to avoid layoffs.
No company is perfect, but Nintendo seems like an example some C-suites should follow.
Its not even like they indiscriminately shut down fan projects either. Just the ones that try to make money. You still have sites like Pokemon Showdown and Advance Wars By Web that have been running for several decades without incident.
My friends and I made a game for Ludum Dare 36 called No Mario's Sky years ago and received a DMCA take down notice. We weren't selling it, but we still had to remove it. Maybe because Mario is 100% a Nintendo property but Pokemon and Advance Wars are co-owned with other companies.
That's just not true. Off the top of my head: SMBX, Pokemon Uranium, Ocarina of Time 2D, AM2R. A few years back they mass DMCA'd hundreds of fan games on the site GameJolt, none of which were monetized.
(why some fan projects like Showdown are still up is anyone's guess)
IIRC Showdown has a tacit agreement with TPC (or at least has historically; unclear if Champions will change anything in the future) and is allowed to exist so long as it follows certain rules. I can't find it right now, but I swear I read a comment from Zarel, the creator of Showdown, explaining what some of those rules entail, including an agreement not to include any moves or mons that haven't been officially released in the mainline games yet.
Other people have speculated that TPC can't/won't axe Showdown because they know that VGC players rely on it heavily to test out team comps before official tournaments, and Champions doesn't seem like it fills the same niche, unless TPC is suddenly about to change their stance on genning :P
I think they killed it because they were planning on showing off their own remake
I think there are 3 rules to avoid getting the ninjas sent after you:
1) Don't try and make money
2) Don't do anything nintendo would realistically do
3) Don't touch mario. This one seems to be the most important. I see mario projects get killed all the time very early on in development, while am2r was allowed to exist until nintendo exercised rule number 2. I imagine the mother/earthbound fan works/translations will also be left alone if nintendo chooses to never touch that series again
I agree, though 2 seems pretty tricky to navigate/predict. For example I wouldn't have guessed Advanced Wars would get a new release after Days of Ruin, or with Earthbound I could maybe see Mother 3 finally getting a US release with how popular Undertale/Deltarune has been. Maybe the best option is to be as under the radar as possible until it's done and out.
I can almost guarantee mother 3 will never get an official translation. At most, I can see them giving the existing fan translation their official endorsement and releasing the patched version on switch online or something. The only reason earthbound beginnings got published eventually was because they had already translated it and planned to release it in the west but never ended up doing so
I feel like a toxic part of this cycle is that a successful fan project has the potential to actually inspire Nintendo to attempt to do the same thing, leading to #2 as a punishment for success.
When I was a kid this Japanese guy from Nintendo used to live next to us. He gave me the Nintendo DS before its official release for my birthday. It was pretty cool.
DK Bananza is wonderful, a masterpiece. Pokémon Pokopia is also really fun as a recurring game you come back to every day or every couple of days to relax and build your village.
I'm also enjoying Switch 1 games on it. Pokémon Violet, for example, lagged hard on Switch 1 but runs great on Switch 2.
Pokemon Pokopia has been a surprise hit in our house, I have two kids, but I got into it and spent a ton of time making a perfect little Pokemon village. My kids really enjoy Tomodachi Life: Living the Dream. It's really silly but they make all their friends and have them get married and read the news and it's just peak Nintendo goofiness.
My kids have also gotten a little older so the mainline Pokemon games have become a thing again, and we've been playing those together. Everything just seems to run better on the Switch 2.
My kid just discovered tomodachi life from a friend and I'm actually going to buy it for her on my switch 1 and give it to her. We've got a summer trip in a few weeks and she will be surprised to receive the game and the system to be all hers.
Tomodachi Life is so much fun. It's the first time I've seen 1990s voice synthesizer tech used in a fun way. And the item designer makes me nostalgic for Mario Paint.
the Tomodachi series is really just amazing. I'm not the biggest fan of living the dream (I prefer life on the 3DSs gameplay and think collection on the DS is very interesting), but it's still amazing
What? How? It sold extremely well! Oh well, hacking your 3DS takes like 10 minutes and you need a modded console if you want to play collection in english
For my part, I use my Switch 2 as an upgraded Switch 1 for all but one game (a franchise I am fond of release a "Definitive Edition Nintendo Switch 2 Edition") and feel as if I got a good value (esp. considering the upcoming price increase).
Debating on getting the updated Sports Resort, and wishing that there were more motion-controlled games (esp. miss _Red Steel 2_)
Donkey Kong Bananza is probably my Switch 2 game of choice. Like it may not be marketed as such, but it's probably somewhere on par with Super Mario Odyssey in terms of game design and mechanics, and has the craziest ending sequence I've ever seen in a video game. It is a really solid 3D platformer, and does to Donkey Kong what Super Mario 64 did to Super Mario Bros/World.
The DLC is really fun too, though whether it's worth buying is almost entirely dependent on how much you get into Emerald Rush. Personally I found that mode incredibly addictive for the longest time, though it's definitely not for everyone.
As a general rule though, the Switch 2's library is kinda niche right now though. What games/DLC are worth it heavily depends on your taste in games.
Cozy/sandbox game? Pokopia could be a good choice.
Fan of the Zelda series in general? The upgrades for BotW and TotK are nice, as is Age of Imprisonment.
Prefer Kirby? Air Riders and the Forgotten Land upgrade are a good bet. More of a Mario fan? Well, there aren't as many options there outside of Mario Kart, though the Wonder upgrade has been pretty well received, and Mario Tennis Fever is a decent game.
Generally you'll find one or two niche spinoffs you'll really get into, though nothing on the level of a big new 3D Mario/Zelda/Pokemon/whatever game.
I'm happy Mario Tennis is back with the ability to play actual full tennis matches again. I skipped the last one.
The story is kind of meh, but the mechanics of the tennis matches is fun. Its not like I play Mario Tennis for a deep storyline campaign, its for playing a tennis game. Its a good multi-player game.
I also have to agree with Bananza. A fun story, good mechanics, and a silly art style and direction.
I'm eager to play Star Fox. It seems like an exceptionally good remake. Its been decades since I last played the original, I imagine it'll feel pretty new and yet familiar at the same time.
I still do have mostly Switch 1 games to play on it. I don't really mind that. The Switch 2 having pretty much full backwards compatibility is a strong feature to me and not really a con. Better hardware for sure, and some parts of my old Switch was getting worn out after so many years of use.
I've poured tons of hours into Blue Prince, which is a great puzzle game. Pokopia is fun and charming if you like Pokemon or Minecraft. I've recently been playing Öoo which is a short but sweet "metroidbrania". I played through both Strange Horticulture and Strange Antiquities recently, and liked them both. I played the demo of "Adventure of Elliot: Millennium Tales", and liked the gameplay enough I'll probably pick up the full game, even though the dialog is atrocious. (The voice acting is good, at least).
The problem is you get paid in a roided up currency and it's a fun vacation for you. The locals get paid awful wages and a single night at an hotel for a typical person here is a whole month's rent for them.
All the other major game studios are dying and Nintendo is taking care of their employees. Just goes to show that focusing on making great games, being protective of golden goose IP, and making unique hardware rather than just trying to push prettier pixels is a winning strategy.
This is putting Nintendo on a pedestal. Major Japanese studios in general are consistently publishing great games and increasing hiring count / raising salaries. Switch 2 is also essentially just a spec bump from switch 1 which came out in 2017.
I don't think it's unfair to say that Nintendo has some of the highest quality games on average, and probably the biggest cache of top tier IP of any studio on earth. The only studio that rivaled them was Blizzard IMO, and that got corrupted and has fallen to capitalism.
The story seems mixed; you are correct that the specifically 10% raise was back in 2023, but they also implemented additional raises in April of 2026, though not the specific 10% that was tweeted/widely reported.
Great thing about Nintendo is unlike its competitors, they don't go around chasing new tech and business models. All their focus is concentrated on the playing experience - interfacing, fun value, guilt-free hooks etc. In many ways they are more a classic toymaker than a tech firm. This is the reason why they have such a strong following, their product at least is not run by MBAs chasing every chance at a point increase in margins.
I wish there were more such successful "craftsman shops" out there than soulless "service providers" that today's video game companies are.
I replayed Luigi's Mansion during a long flight the other day, and my wife looked over my shoulder and went "That game looks cool. Is it new?"
This is exactly why Nintendo games tend to have strong legacies. Everyone back then could see realistic graphics just on the horizon, but they weren't there yet. Nintendo knew that the play experience is the important thing, and made art and designs that work within the limitations. Luigi's Mansion, Wind Waker, Super Mario Sunshine, and Pikmin all still look and feel so good.
Interestingly Wind Waker's art style was its main detractor among critics when it was released, which is wild and incomprehensible to me now. One of my favorite games of all time.
Part of this was the Spaceworld 2000 demo creating expectations for a game which looked basically like Ocarina of Time but on the GameCube. Then when Twilight Princess came out people missed the Wind Waker art style and the cycle continued.
I recently watched a video game journalist speaking about this(chicocartera from Eurogamer): apparently this raise happened in 2023. There was an official transcription from an investors meeting at that time where this was covered.
It seems there are some subtleties in the translation which could lead to think it happened recently.
Good for them. Nintendo and Sony in gaming have always marched by a different drummer. They have a successful business plan, and they execute. While their competition over the years have faded away bankruptcy.
This hasn't been the case for at least a decade now, if not more.
First it was extended out to maybe once every 2 years, then more, and lately at every company I've worked at (primarily large companies) where pay was mentioned the response is "we pay at or above market rates - discuss with your manager."
Not in all / not anymore. I'm in Canada a 300k IT/consulting company and rated top performer several years in a row. No raises last couple of years, before that it was 0.49 and 1% respectively. This year there was zero salary increase for anybody in our branch.
Every few years I get a 10% raise when they realize those less than inflation raises are enough that they are losing people who places that pay better. (sometime it was me who left, but the cycle repeats at the new place)
The worst is when you get a manager who’s either too clueless to realize you’re seeing a pay cut from an “increase” so small, or one who knows but is pretending otherwise.
That awkward pause in the comp update meeting when they tell you about the “increase” and seem to expect some positive reaction. LOL.
"You work hard, screw over everybody that you love, hurt, rob, kill indiscriminately and maybe... just maybe, if you're lucky, you become a three bit gangster. It's bullshit. Go to college. Then you can rip people off and get paid for it. It's called capitalism"
If your "raise" is less than the increase from things like inflation, it's not going to be noticeable even if you did look. The concept of cost of living increases is laughable today. Even banks looking at a mortgage application is assuming your salary will increase way beyond what today's raises are. The only way to do that is to jump ship and find a new job, but then you're dinged because your work history is not stable.
There are basically only two ways to get a substantial raise at most employers, either move to a higher grade/title position, or move to another employer (probably at a higher grade).
Once you are in, large pay increases are rare, I'm sure there are exceptions but as a general rule the salary you negotiate coming in is where you get your pay raise. Hence the prior conventional wisdom that you need to change employers every few years to get your additional experience reflected in your salary.
Japan has a culture of loyalty/lifetime employment so not sure how much that happens there.
Individual employees. But the base rate (or band) stays the same, which is not what I'm reading here. So you might travel inside the band from low-paid to high-paid, while it stays the same.
Your "source" is an editorializing HN submitter who took a one-month increase in prices while the military action with Iran and subsequent oil price shock and multiplied by 12.
The BLS (and any economist) knows better than to do that, so you cited the online equivalent of "a dude wearing sunglasses on the back of his hat being interviewed in his pickup truck..."
The shareholders must be furious about this. Why not lay off 30% of the team and outsource game development and use ai for the art? That seems smarter.
nintendo is one of the best in gaming for employees and one of the worst for customers. everyone here knows about the copyright and patent trolling but then you got things like 3D All Stars where they made a time limited digital release. not a physical limited edition or a third party rights problem. just decided to capitalize on FOMO at the expense of players.
the eshop is filled with huge amounts of slop they dont care about cleaning up, most of it with ai covers and lazy asset flip gameplay. permanent hardware bans that make buying a used switch 2 risky (you dont know if the previous user was a pirate). and they started the whole trend of $80 games by giving other publishers an excuse to charge more because nintendo does it too.
then you got insane demands for other devs like that time fortnite wanted zelda skins and even offered to make it exclusive (as in you can only buy or equip it on switch). nintendo said they would only do it if epic made the items invisible on all other platforms because they dont want their characters to be seen on xbox. its not a big deal for the rest of us but it shows how their execs really think.
Before people praise them (a bit late for that I guess given the current comments), Nintendo seems to pay quite poorly their employees in the first place, as you can see from the salaries on https://www.levels.fyi/en-gb/companies/nintendo/salaries/sof... for a company that has a stash of cash and is as successful as they are.
100k for entry level roles at one of the most recognizable brands of the world doesn’t seem too bad to me. Then again, I’ve never been to the Seattle/Washington area.
I recently heard that a trip to Popeye's for a family of 3 recently cost $68 in Florida.
In Japan, there's a big issue when a snack raises its price 2 cents (3 yen - source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/japanese-snack-company-apolog...)
The country for better or worse seems to be frozen in time - salaries have not caught up with the heady levels of SV (or even Europe) but neither have rents or prices for common goods.
This is not a judgment either way - but it does make Japanese exports a significantly more lucrative business - if only they could figure out how to sell more of their stuff abroad!
> In Japan, there's a big issue when a snack raises its price 2 cents
No, there really isn't. You're looking at one company that "apologized" as a marketing play but outside of that prices have been increasing with no fanfare for years now. The annual inflation rate has been 2-3% for the past 4 years. It's a lot less interesting to write a news article about that though.
https://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/cpi/158c.html
Yeah, and the price of rice has increased way more than that. Heat is making me too lazy to look it up so I wonder if it's gotten better in the past year. But Japanese people are very used to price increases.
Granted, accommodation is not one of them. Especially if you compare Tokyo to London, Paris or even Geneva.
Have you checked Tokyo hotel prices lately? Thanks to the travel boom they're through the roof as well: the business hotel that was Y10,000 before COVID is now twice that, and Western branded hotels that were Y30,000 or so are now Y100,000+.
That's a fair point. I reserved a business hotel in Tokyo for ¥113900 for 7 days during off-season. After conversion, it's still reasonable since you wouldn't find something with the same quality and convenience in the cities I mentioned.
But what I meant was accommodation for residents and not hotels. I would much rather have to find a flat and live in Tokyo rather than any other big city in the world.
For western reference, ¥100,000+ is $615+, or €540+.
Not cheap. I managed to find a room in SF for like $250 when I was looking, though you’d have to reserve it a week in advance. Is Tokyo really that expensive now?
You can still get a shoebox-sized business hotel for less, but if you want a room with enough space to open your suitcase, yes.
For the 98% of people on here that have no idea of the Yen conversion rates, we are talking about 60 usd to 184-600 usd, or 55 euro to 162-550 euro
Well, yes and no, because that 10000 yen room was US$100 back then, not $60.
So you're saying we understand it even less than todays rates lol. But your comment is definitely understood, it's crazy how things (particularly prices!) changed pre and post covid.
Jinx personal jinx no jinxback.
> or even Geneva
Oh yes the budget option for thrifty vacationers
I was not talking about hotels but about apartments and houses (i.e. for local people).
I think this is a bit disingenuous. Japan spent nearly all of the last 30 years needling deflation. If you take a look at the highest grossing movies of all time in Japan with and without adjusting for inflation, it barely changes. Do that for the US and it's an entirely different list.
Normal inflation for the last 4 years is basically still nothing in the grand scheme of things.
I watch one of those “apartments for rent in Japan” channels and I’m consistently shocked how inexpensive apartments are in lower tier cities / not Tokyo. Like a studio in an inconvenient part of Fukuoka for $200-250 a month.
I guess the salaries are lower, but it’s hard to imagine such cheap rent in the equivalent American city.
It's hard to compare to the US as a big part of this is the very weak yen.
I spent a couple years traveling the world and punctuated my travels with a 2 week stop in Japan (Tokyo/Osaka/Kyoto) in May '24. I was not prepared for how inexpensive everything was... much less than several eastern European cities I had just come from, more on par with places like Mexico City.
It was still very affordable in 2009 - 2014 when the yen was not weak.
Part of that is that Japan actually builds housing, while literally every major US metro area has a massive self-inflicted shortage of housing (https://www.fanniemae.com/research-and-insights/perspectives...).
https://www.ft.com/content/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3...
> Here is a startling fact: in 2014 there were 142,417 housing starts in the city of Tokyo (population 13.3m, no empty land), more than the 83,657 housing permits issued in the state of California (population 38.7m), or the 137,010 houses started in the entire country of England (population 54.3m).
Houses in Europe are made to last 200 years. I know traditional rural Japan houses get used for 30-40 years and torn down. So can’t just go on housing starts, would need to go on delta of total units. As houses get torn down, replacing is expanding.
Think I've heard anecdotes about Tokyo being pretty affordable as well. Quick search shows less than 1/3 of income typically spent on housing, which is much better than major US cities.
Yep. Counterintuitively, housing in Japan depreciates unlike most of the world
Most land is leased rather than owned - which means it depreciates over time. Imo it's a sensible system 70-100 year old buildings often have issues like Aluminum wiring, lead pipes, or asbestos, and can be in generally such a sorry state that renovating them costs more.
Also building a house or apt building that can stand for 100 years is very different from one that stands forever, for example steel beams can be used as foundation instead of having to pour concrete
Housing built with pine 2x4s really _should_ depreciate especially in termite/earthquake regions like CA, but doesn't seem like that'll ever happen.
It does depreciate, usually. It's the land underneath that appreciates in value.
Occasionally if you get unusual spikes in building materials and labour costs then the house itself can appreciate in value because it costs more to replace it, but that's rare enough.
Wonder how it is like in other countries with shrinking populations. Say, Korea.
Intuitively, it would make sense for housing prices to decrease when the demand decreases, supply being equal (It's not like housing deteriorates significantly in the short term).
Not sure about Korea, but Japan's case is more interesting than simply adjusting for population: the government strongly incentivizes new buildings every few decades. There is also a culture of viewing housing as a consumable, which is the part that sticks out to me the most.
yeah there is an expectation that you're either building a shrine type building (in that it's gonna be built to last and venerated) that will be there for 300 years, or else you're gonna replace it in <30.
that also leads to a lot of experimentation in architecture, since this building ain't gonna last so get weird. downside is it leads to a prefab corner cutting approach.
my brother lived in japan for a while and he loved it, both the long-standing rural places that were legit old school, but also when he was in the city and sublet some hypermodern, querky places on the cheap.
Demand for the big cities is still increasing pretty much everywhere, even if some countries are seeing net decrease in demand on the whole. Also remember that supply deteriorates. The number of "ready to move into" homes can decrease over time without maintenance and rebuilds.
Japan is a bit of an outlier because of earthquake regulations.
There is a history of substantially updating building regulations every time a new record is set for largest earthquake in the modern era; and so if you are buying historical, you are buying a less safe property that could kill you.
The last major earthquake updates to the code were in 2000, so there isn’t a lot of historical housing stock without this confounding factor.
Seems like this should be a net cost adder. Yet even new builds are quite affordable.
Japan has stigma towards used houses.
Tokyo is massive, you can literally be living rural and still be in Tokyo. Could be an hour or more commute till you get into the metro area.
Not all of Tokyo is nice either. They also probably won’t rent to “outsiders” without giving any explanation so…
I mean... You are looking at a place that is about 250 square feet? There isn't an appetite for offering units that small in the US.
I don’t agree at all — plenty of college students, 20-30s somethings would love a space like this in NYC, SF, etc. at a lower price point than what’s currently available.
The limits seem to be from legal restrictions on minimum apartment size, not market demand.
Apologies, on that I agree. What we don't seem to have, is a willingness to build and offer these places.
That is, I was specifically saying there is a lack of appetite to offer these. Not that there is lack of appetite to buy/rent them.
I think so too. I'm an early 30s that would love to pay a fraction of the current market rates for a Tokyo-sized unit in SF.
When I was younger, this was only doable in larger US cities if you had roommates. And was quite common in that scenario.
Doesn't change that it would be nice to have such offerings without having to navigate all of the extra stuff that comes from having roommates.
The building codes in most jurisdictions wouldn't even allow such a thing, whether there would be demand for it or not. But the lengths people are willing to go for small apartments in top tier cities (NYC, especially) show that there is be demand in the right situations. Of course, the whole point of living in Manhattan is to not spend time at home.
But there are interesting experiments going on. Where I live (Toronto) has had a huge build-out of small ~4-500sqf bachelors that were hoovered up by flippers and mom-n-pop landlords. At the peak of the boom, they were selling for ridiculous prices ($800K+) and the poor build quality of everything from elevators (of which there often weren't enough, resulting in lineups and long waits) to water pipes that burst meant that savvy prospective owners stay clear.
There's a correction happening, but people don't want to unload their "investments" at below what they cost and since mortgages are recourse people can't just walk away.
In theory there should be demand for these units from the young, corporate owners, 2nd homes in the city, etc. But the prices have just not come down enough to make any of those worthwhile.
Right, I should have been clear that my assertion was not that there is lack of demand. My assertion is we don't build and offer this style. Outside of school dormitories. And even then, there is still a preference for bigger.
Would love to see more on the correction you are referencing. So much of the discourse I see focusing on "starter homes." Which, these are not that.
There's a relatively expansive article here: https://financialpost.com/feature/toronto-condo-correction-f...
Also: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqxq32zzq8eo
Thanks! And yeah, I knew a few markets were tanking. I was hoping there was evidence that people were starting to offer SRO style places.
Alas, I think there is such a heavy anti-landlord attitude around that nobody wants to be said landlord. Worse, towns don't like having apartment complexes. Worse still, we don't do anything to incentivize moving back to these neighborhoods for the people that do move away to work.
In BC, the government bought all the unsold, unfit units to prop up the housing market. Your tax dollars at work!
> I recently heard that a trip to Popeye's for a family of 3 recently cost $68 in Florida.
Just checked online.
8pc family meal of spicy white meat with large mash potatoes and gravy, one sweet tea, one purple lemonade, one chilled premium mango lemonade
=
$41.05
@ 1501 NW 20th St, Miami, FL 33142
Bring-your-own-liquids = $30.38
Either ordering at the counter is criminally expensive, or you were listening to someone who wanted to spend $68 at Popeye's in Florida so they could complain about spending $68 at Popeye's in Florida.
That 8pc 'family meal' feeds 2 people. The sweet teas don't count as food - they may as well be dumped down the sink.
Feeding a family of four would need 2 of those 8 piece meals, so $60.
Looking at the Popeyes menu, the 8pc family meal is $32.99 and feeds 3-4 people (3218-3738 calories)
If that’s not enough, you order the larger portion, not double your quantity.
12pc family meal: $42.99 for 4-6 people (4992-6032 calories)
16pc family meal: $52.99 for 6-8 people (6766-8326 calories)
Have you folks seen a Popeyes family meal? They’re not tiny… eating that many calories in one sitting is not the best idea.
Half those calories are from the drinks. Like I said, pour it down the drain, it just pumps the numbers.
Their family meals don’t include drinks.
We Americans are used to overeating. In Asia 1 piece of chicken and a small side (kids size) is enough for 1 person.
My partner and I spent ~$70 CAD at popeyes the other day for two adults. I got a sandwich + fries + slaw, they got tenders, we both got fountain drinks.
that's about $50 USD.
I don't know how you're paying that much.
Sandwich + Tenders + 2 Cole slaws + 2 bottled 500ml drink + one fries, as combos here in western Canada total up to $50 CAD for me on DoorDash...
The chicken sandwich large combo at Popeyes consists of the sandwich, 2 sides (fries, slaw), and a fountain drink — $14.99.
The 5pc chicken tenders regular combo (tenders, fries, biscuit, fountain drink) is $15.99.
Where did the other ~$20 USD come from?
why is the lemonade purple
grape drank + lemonade
As a kid, I always wondered why prices HAVE to keep going up. Seemed like a vicious cycle.
I thought the same, too. Generally some small amount of inflation is preferable to encourage spending, rather than deflation which discourages it.
If you know a $100 item will probably cost $102 later then you're more likely to buy it now. But if that item will cost $98 in a deflationary environment, then maybe you'll wait to buy it later. Wages also tend to fall in deflation, which makes it harder to pay back debt, so lending slows down - people won't buy houses or cars, etc. Businesses hold back on capital spending. The economy slows to a standstill: if no one is spending money, how can anyone make money?
I think its more important for investment. If you have $1mil in cash and know it's losing value every day you have an incentive to invest it in some long-term profitable way. Hire more employees, buy some more trucks for your fleet, renovate your store, do some R&D to improve your product, etc. If it's the opposite you don't feel any urgency because your $1mil is gaining value as it sits in the bank.
This is true for investment-level amounts of money and larger percentages, but much less true for everyday purchases and small percentages. For buying a thing, a year of ownership is much more valuable than saving 2%. Look at the computer industry where waiting a year or two almost always gets you significantly better hardware but that doesn't stop people from buying new ones often.
And debts adjust their rates along with inflation/deflation so that effect ends up much smaller.
As for houses and cars, we desperately need to make the economy less focused on the value of houses and cars...
Velocity of Money is the term to look into. Governments also like it because as money circulates it generates tax revenue through sales tax/VAT.
I'm not an economist, so maybe someone more knowledgeable can weigh in. But my understanding is that deflation is worse. If you can just stick $10k under your mattress and expect it to be worth 10% more in a year you have no incentive to invest. Businesses will just hold their cash, banks won't have money to loan out and the sort of investments that provide new jobs, goods and services are a risky high-effort bet compared to just saving.
This (classic) argument is symmetric with respect to the value of money and quantity of goods. As in "if you know money will buy more in the future, it increases your incentive to sell now rather than wait for higher prices. And if you know prices will increase, you will hoard products." The argument doesn't favour either side.
One mechanism of inflation is that it effectively lowers wages (and other contracts) without negotiation. Asset prices are valued by markets and increase with inflation. It effectively transfers wealth from wage earners to capital owners.
Deflation would effectively increase wages instead, and require occasional renegotiations if productivity isn't keeping pace.
The problem is you can't really hoard products. Most products depreciate - it's a force of nature called entropy.
I think the argument from symmetry still holds, but it leads into a different conclusion. Since products (goods, physical assets) depreciate in value over time, money must too decrease in value. Hence you get inflation.
I believe that "natural rate of inflation" is driven by natural depreciation of goods and the free market mechanism that exchanges money and products as you describe.
Capital has multiple forms, I agree that physical goods generally depreciate over time. But there is also land, equity, and bonds and they all have their own market forces to deal with.
I'm hand-waving a lot of arguments and considerations with this statement, but from my perspective one advantage to 2-3% inflation is to incentivize owning capital that will outpace inflation. Land, equity, and bonds all have that potential.
Deflation may incentivize renegotiation of labor, but it also incentivizes hoarding of cash, which itself is not otherwise valuable. The value comes from it being passed around through the economy buying more assets. The more purchases -> the more money to be passed around -> the more opportunity to grow the economy. In a deflationary environment (at least in theory) this slows all of that down and decreases economic opportunity, which we generally don't want.
Right, a steady low level of inflation is a driver for risk taking, which drives investment cycle, hiring, etc. This cascades thru economy from firm to firm, in a virtuous cycle of growth.
Zero inflation even as a target would be hard to hit, as it would imply some absolute perfect match of supply/demand for goods.
Deflation leads to the opposite behavior - hoard your resources, don't invest, don't lend, don't hire. This then cascades through economy in a downward spiral.
Sure 10% deflation would be a problem but so is 10% inflation.
What about 1 or 2% deflation? People would still need food, to replace or repair cars. People would still want and need to buy houses.
Inflation to my mind supposes that we have to have perpetual growth, which is something that is not realistic.
If we grow 3 times the amount of corn that we need this year, do we need to plan to grow 3.1 times next year? Or decrease the cost by 2%? If all the inputs stay the same, where do you get the gains from(assuming that the process is as efficient and automated as possible)?
I think that by printing money and expecting a 1~2% gain every year we just end up robbing ourselves. Companies play games by not giving raises right away, moving production to areas of LCOL or shrinking goods and services but our retirement portfolios go up. Then at the end of the day, you are on a fixed income and having to squeeze down on your consumption.
As I said to a sibling, it is easy to say companies are greedy but how many of us are buying a more expensive product because we know that they treat their employees well? Or do we look at something then try and find it cheaper on Amazon?
In the 90's there was a large amount of disdain for lower income people who were shopping at Wal-mart because they were buying cheap plastic goods from China. The reason they were is because companies were offshoring their jobs. They weren't buying from Wal-mart because they like the products, they were there because they were trying to keep the same lifestyle they had before they lost their higher paying jobs. Companies that did not offshore were driven out of business as their customer base collapsed. We cheated our future selves to keep our inflation targets.
My general impression with most discourse about the economy and statements like "Inflation to my mind supposes that we have to have perpetual growth" is that it looks at transactions within the economy as zero-sum. And that is a false assumption. It grows and shrinks for myriad of reasons that aren't directly related to monetary policy. The monetary policy is there to attempt to keep things stable and predicable, that is all.
> If we grow 3 times the amount of corn that we need this year, do we need to plan to grow 3.1 times next year? Or decrease the cost by 2%? If all the inputs stay the same, where do you get the gains from(assuming that the process is as efficient and automated as possible)?
I think I get what you're driving at, but let me ask this question. Do you believe the price of corn in 1976 reflects the same market forces as the price of corn in 2026? Not the inflationary number alone, but why that corn costs what it does today versus 50 years ago?
There are microeconomic changes for sure, different farming techniques and maybe a different way of buying and selling surplus corn. But the life of a farm hand has likely changed, the average background of them has likely changed, the ownership model of the farm may have changed. The downstream buyers of corn have likely changed from mostly canned good manufacturers to fresh produce providers. And the macroeconomic forces surrounding everything has absolutely changed.
I know that it is not a zero sum game and I get there are changes but I am not talking about 1976 to 2026. I am talking about 2025 to 2026. Or 2024 to 2025.
My premise was that input costs are stable and as automated as possible.
We still expect a 1 to 2% increase YOY.
I am not sure how ownership structure cange would give you growth or reduce cost.
Downstream buyers shouldn't affect it much either as we started out producing 3 times as much as is used. Unless someone suddenly found a use for all the excess.
Let me try again with a different example. Let's say that I run a bottle water company, I have an automated production line and I bottle as much water as I am allowed to pump. I sell all my product so there is no waste, this also means that I have all the customers that I need. I would still be expected to show growth YoY. How? Reduce material used in bottles? At some point the bottles are as thin as possible.
My point is, there is a lower limit to how much you can reduce things or how much you can grow. Not everything is there, in fact most things are probably not. But in our strive to grow or become more efficient we are also throwing away the ability to be resilient.
By moving to lean JIT we shutdown when a shipment is delayed. But we had less cash tied up in inventory!
Now we are applying those same practices to hospitals.
You can't fit 1~2% more chickens in the same cage, nor can you feed them less. So where does it come from? Is it worth the growth to spray the chicken down with bleach? Ship it to China to be slaughtered and back? Take the entrails, centerfuge them into pink slime?
What is the stopping point? That is my question.
A steady amount of inflation allows interest rates to be near zero or even negative in real terms without actually being negative in nominal terms. Negative (real) interest rates are sometimes a necessary policy tool (see: 2008...2021), but negative nominal rates are difficult to implement in practice in our current regime of privately-controlled money creation via bank lending.
There are other monetary schemes that allow for negative nominal rates (100% reserve-backed lending, a.k.a. The Chicago Plan, or the gold or silver standard, etc.), and in those one does not need steady inflation. There was basically no inflation for most of the 19th century, when most currencies were backed by gold or silver. That had other drawbacks: for example, a relative inability to control the money supply. An expanding money supply following the California gold rush helped fuel speculation during the railroad boom, and the inability to expand the money supply on demand exacerbated the ensuing panic of 1873. Governments at the time did not believe it was their job to dampen the impacts of the business cycle, however.
Inflation makes servicing debt cheaper which incentivizes getting loans to build things.
It also leads to those who have little bargaining power to become underpaid as they cannot negotiate higher salaries as inflation squeezes them.
Inflation usually results in the central bank raising interest rates and thereby discouraging new loans for new projects, to try to prevent further inflation.
Maybe you could win if you’re leveraged using fixed-rate, long-term loans and you’re also confident that you can sell something at a higher price. But that’s a rather specific financial maneuver.
You win when you have a fixed rate 30 year mortgage
Maybe, if you also get a raise. But there might be better ways to get a raise than hoping it will happen due to inflation.
Inflation can exist because of a lot of things: natural loss of value, resource scarcity, monetary policy, greed, etc. And it's even harder to make sense of with fiat currency.
> Seemed like a vicious cycle.
The issue is inflation and deflation both tend to be positive feedback loops. Inflation can promote behavior that promotes inflation. Deflation can promote behavior that promotes deflation.
Note that I use "tend to" and "can promote". It's all based of off assumptions on how people value things and their behaviors, as is all economic models.
> why prices HAVE to keep going up
It really doesn't have to. We do so because economic models show that we should because of the way we behave. But, we also behave the way we do because of the economic systems that we've designed.
Prices have to keep going up if you want a system that promotes endless consumption and growth in consumption.
It also lets you have a "non-zero-sum" economy, where it appears everyone is making a "profit". But, in reality it isn't.
Interest rates create more money, inflation makes more money worth less.
Spain was pretty poor in the 1600's inspite of new world gold and silver, because inflation made everything more expensive as supply of goods wasn't really increased, but money supply was.
in 2020, USA increased money supply by 20% of their all time supply. So inflation has to devalue the currency by at least that much to keep it balanced. Which is why they are distracting us with all the shit they are doing. and they are ignoring the real issue.
It's a vicious cycle if we get in an "inflationary spiral", but most of the time a small inflation is pretty healthy.
part of it has do do with scarcity and gas prices. Gas is used to produce and transport. If gas prices go up, prices go up just to pay for gas. Basic supply and demand. There are more humans, more cars so the demand is higher and gas is a finite resource. Alternative energies help but gas still heavily used.
A capitalist society needs inflation in order to produce a desirable outcome. It is a driver of consumption, as opposed to people and organizations hoarding their money in a deflationary environment, as well as investments, because inflation leads to the devaluation of loans over time.
I hear this argument all the time, but I've always found it lacking connection with the human behaviour I observe as someone growing up low-middle class, now middle-upper class.
It completely misses the mark on human behaviour of those living in scarcity. Inflation forces them to save whatever they can in the most stable and liquid medium (cash). As a result it creates a very strong force pushing low income individuals further down, it takes a lot of hard work and luck to get out.
Those with enough wealth don't need the same liquidity or stability, they have the luxury to invest and see their wealth grow and outpace inflation. As a result of this security they are more willing to spend on products and services.
Inflation causes scarcity for the poor and security for the wealthy.
The lower inflation is the less scarcity for the poor, and they will be more willing to spend and invest. Even in a environment with 0 inflation the wealthy still have incentive not to hoard cash. The incencentive to invest was never about the devaluation of cash, but rather the outpacing return of value that investment brings. Theoretically that still exists even in a deflationary environment, though I do suspect high enough deflation would have drastic negative impacts on the market to the point where returns are too low to justify the risk.
Population growth is ending globally, so I suppose the strategy is to issue debt for clean tech, affordable housing, and similar at the lowest yield for the longest duration you can and let those loans devalue over time as the population declines. China is the closest model I can put forth in this regard: their property sector is imploding for investors, but housing is affordable, for example.
China Home Prices Fall at Faster Pace in Setback to Revival - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-16/china-hom... - June 15th, 2026
China Housing Demand to Stay at 75% Below Peak, Goldman Says - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-17/china-hou... | https://archive.today/LkbCF - June 16th, 2025
This is the gospel that is taught. It seems to help people tolerate the fruits of their labor being quietly separated from them over time. Just another tax, except the people have even less of a say in this one.
Can you provide counter arguments to mine, though? It does not reduce wealth if dealt with correctly as an individual. It is meant to incentivize investments rather than hoarding, i.e., doing nothing with your money, as I explained.
In the end it's really just greed. Companies always want to charge as much as they can get away with. They are constantly testing price increases to see how high they can get their prices before they start losing enough customers that it hurts their profits.
Older customers who have an idea in their mind of how much something is worth based on how much they've previously paid may eventually feel cheated and stop buying, but there's always a new generation of customers who never knew any better. There are things they can do to offset the backlash like they might offer a sale at the same time as they increase prices to give customers time to get used to the new sticker price. They keep the price the same and try to hide the fact that they're giving customers less product.
it's pretty shortsighted though because it makes our money increasingly worthless and eventually we'll end up like Zimbabwe and a loaf of bread will cost us $100.
> In the end it's really just greed.
Yeah, well their job is to get the best price for their product. Just as it is your job to get as much money as possible for your product, i.e. your talents and labors.
In a competitive economy with informed buyers this greed is what makes things cheap and high quality. Think about two grocery store owners in a small town. They've settled into an equilibria with each other to keep the status quo and not get greedy for a bigger share of the market by competing on price or quality. Then one day, seeing an opportunity, a new grocer moves in with fresher fruit, a wider variety of products and most importantly lower prices. All the customers go over to that grocery store and the old grocers have the choice to improve or die. From the point-of-view of the previous grocery store owners the new grocery store is "greedy", but it ends up benefiting everyone else.
> In the end it's really just greed. Companies always want to charge as much as they can get away with.
Is it also greed when consumers want to pay as little as possible? (In some ways, of course it is, but at some point, the loaded term greed isn’t particularly helpful towards understanding perfectly ordinary microeconomic behavior.)
> Is it also greed when consumers want to pay as little as possible?
Yeah, sometimes it is. People should be paid a fair amount for the resources, time and effort they put into something. Greed seems fitting when the motivation is just an endless repeating of "I want to give you less while taking more of your money for myself" although more often it's "for the company's shareholders".
Pushing for ever-increasing profit at all costs is what corporations do. Calling it anything but greed is just misrepresenting their nature.
> Companies always want to charge as much as they can get away with.
In any market where competition exists, companies compete against other companies for customers. Any company that doesn't (for whatever reason) maximize it's net income is likely to cease to exist at some point, or at the least is unlikely to grow. As a result, not being 'greedy' is usually not a viable strategy.
Describing simple self interest as 'greed' is inherently loaded and reductionist. Look at the natural world; pretty much all living organisms exhibit self-interested behaviors (at least at the group or species level, if not the individual level). Are all of those 'greedy' too? You could say yes and not be wrong, but in doing so you would dilute the meaning of the word 'greed'.
Do you ask for/expect a raise every year? Even if your job responsibilities and workload doesn't change?
It's easy to boil it down and say greed or capitalism but I don't think it is a very reasoned position.
>Prices for goods in Europe in the sixteenth century rose to about four times the level that had prevailed during the preceding three centuries, increasing poverty levels but also raising the profit potential for those who were in a position to exploit an economy that was suddenly based primarily upon money and credit rather than labor and trade. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/worldwide-in...
Not sure if they were fully capitalistic by then but that was a long time ago.
I also know that Japan has had inflation for a long time, reading history about coins and looking up the worth of a mon that would be 10000 to 1 yen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_cash_coins_by...
IMHO, inflation is driven by both greed (not just companies, everyone wants their retirement portfolio to go up) and increased money supply. The USA has a large amount of deficit spending, this is money that we just magic into existence. We have used it recently to try and manage crisis like 2008 GFC and COVID but I don't think that it is a coincidence that after those two events the costs of everything went up.
Worldwide the prevailing economic theory is that deflation is bad, I am not sure but unless we are willing to allow for some deflation you will only every have inflation.
> Do you ask for/expect a raise every year? Even if your job responsibilities and workload doesn't change?
Cost of living requires that. Also, even when my job responsibilities and workload don't change, my skills do. Someone who has gained valuable skill and experience should be better compensated than someone showing up for their first day of work.
Comparing prices between Japan and Europe or US is strongly skewed by the weak yen.
The fact that the JPY has lost a lot of value compared to the US dollar has nothing to do with how prices or salaries in Japan evolve.
Wouldn't that be covered by using PPP comparisons rather than just market currency conversion rates?
> I recently heard that a trip to Popeye's for a family of 3 recently cost $68 in Florida.
That’s $22 per person. Would like to see what they ordered. Not saying I don’t believe it but that’s pretty high. My family of 4 can eat chilfila for that and chikfila is kind of pricey for fast food where Popeyes is pretty much trash.
No, that's about right in my (very limited) recent experience. It's _very_ easy to spend as much at a fast food restaurant these days as you would at a sit-down restaurant, especially if you don't do one of their combo meals, or add one or two extra items to your order
The crazy high prices and general unhealthiness aside, my main beef (if you'll pardon the pun) with fast food places is that more and more of them are taking orders via AI and/or requiring you to download and install their app to place an order.
Where is this happening? I think I would walk out and never come back if I walked into a fast food place and couldn't order until I downloaded an app.
You aren't required to but you will pay substantially more by not using the app and creating an account. They offer "exclusive" deals that usually amounts to roughly ~20% off menu price, while they raised all their base prices that much or more so you are subjected to data harvesting in order to pay the normal pirces.
I order fast food all the time and I'm always scoping for deals, rewards, etc. in the apps, and it's nowhere near 20% off on average.
What? Where are you going? What does "taking orders via AI" even mean? I have never once been in a fast food restaurant anywhere in the US that didn't have counter service, self-serve ordering kiosks, or both.
The McDonald's drive through.
They’re testing it at a whopping five stores.
I don't think chick-fil-a is any less trash than Popeyes, personally, and the fried chicken itself is lower quality—too sweet and moist. The fries are dry and unseasoned. The biggest selling point is the lemonade.
Granted, I don't eat at either because better value fried chicken than both is not terribly difficult to find.
Menu prices in the restaurant are ridiculous now.
The only way I can stomach buying fast food is through deals on their apps, which I find very anti-consumer and predatory.
It's also super annoying when you just want a quick and cheap meal but you need to spend an inordinate amount of time on their app to figure out how not to get taken advantage of by their pricing.
Yeah, fast food just isn't worth it anymore. Used to be super cheap comparatively to regular restaurants. Now I can go get a generous serving of pad thai from a local place here for less than a 10 pcs McNugget meal, and is usually ready just as fast as McDonals have gotten slower over the years.
I don't know how fast food is still in business. Around ~$36 before tip and tax to feed my family of 3 Thai food & the local Teriyaki place or maybe ~$45 for Chinese, and I'm in a HCoL area. Fast food ends up even more than that.
Agree on the apps, I hate them and they are not only predatory but buggy pieces of junk.
Whoa...harsh words. I consider their fried chicken sando the best in the biz, yes even over Chik-fil-a
Yeah 9 times out of 10 I'd rather go to Popeyes. It is greasy but it's spiced well and I can't think of a single bland thing on their menu.
I'll say though that the customer experience at Chick-fil-a is top notch, and they really have drive through down to a science. Buying the food their has always been a pleasant experience.
They employ 3-4 people to man their drive through. No wonder it's such a great experience. Subconsciously, I think I pick CFA over alternatives, in part, to not have to deal with poor customer service.
late to a reply but poor choice of words on my part. I have a pretty knee jerk reaction to fast food, i tolerate chikfila just because the drive through operation and teamwork at a busy store is a sight to behold. I know chikfila is more expensive than average for fast food however.
Popeyes is way tastier. Chick-fil-a is so bland.
to be fair, it's all trash
In Japan, inflation adjusted wages are down 2% over the last 20 years. In the same time frame in the US, they're up 20% and even for the bottom quartile, earnings are up 15%.
> but neither have rents or prices for common goods.
All the price increases over the last few years disagree.
Prices in California seem out of control to me. Recent examples, BLT + Coffee = $36, Plate of broccoli, plate of peas, small pizza, tap water = $95. Plate of 2 tacos, burger, 2 drinks = $120. 2 sandwiches = $60
As for Japan. ATM food is often cheaper. If you want cheap though, there are plenty of much cheaper places in the world. For rent, there are cheap options I wish existed in the states. As many point out tho, size is small. I'm happy to pay less for a smaller place but the price per square meter is comparable, maybe not to SF but at least to LA.
Note that like any city, there is a vast range from downtown to less popular parts of the city. "Tokyo" even includes mountains and farmlands on it's far west side
Where in California is that?
username is socalgal so presumably SoCal, e.g. LA or San Diego, places known for being expensive
Or you can eat much better food all around for much less in other establishments.
Businesses charge what they can get away with, and you're actively wasting money if you're referencing prices you actually paid for those meals recently.
You are correct I can find places that charge less. The point is, I used to go out to lunch and not have to worry about it. Now I go and get price shock.
It's interesting that some restaurants (and businesses in general) seemed to figured out within the last few years that a surprising (to me) number of people don't want to make any effort to comparison shop at all.
The only way to stop it is to stop giving them money.
I can't say I've ever been to Popeye's, but $68 for 3 people seems unlikely based on their online prices: I picked a random one in Orlando, Florida and the "family meal" (which appears to be a very large amount of chicken) is $20.
The closest thing would be the "16Pc Classic Signature Chicken Family Meal," which is $55.69 at that location and is described as feeding between 6 and 8 people. So you'd need to tip a bit to get to $68 from there.
Did you include tax?
Also, that meal doesn’t include drinks. Poppies is significantly cheaper if you’re taking it home and supplementing with your own drinks.
Yes, but that meal is for 6-8 people. I don't think you can get to $68 for half as many people, even with drinks and tax.
I just tried it with the "8pc meal" and 3 fountain drinks for the same location, and it came to $39.36, including tax.
(If you want to try for yourself, I picked the Popeye's at 45 N Orange Blossom in Orlando, FL.)
> I don't think you can get to $68 for half as many people, even with drinks and tax.
A 5pc chicken tenders, Mac and cheese, and a large drink is $25 before tax. If there are three people who get a similar meal (but not exact so they don't share the family meals) then the total is $75 before tax. Seems like the original price quote of $68 is certainly plausible for a group of three. I am sure its possible to feed three people for less like you claim, but that doesn't mean the $68 is impossible to reach.
> A 5pc chicken tenders, Mac and cheese, and a large drink is $25 before tax.
What region? Putting that same order together for a location near me is $16.23 after tax. Putting in the address above (45 N Orange Blossom in Orlando, FL.), the total was $17.35 after tax.
I think they're ordering it as a la carte vs a combo. The same items are $20.5 vs $13 pretax at the location closest to me in Florida.
18.99 for me but with 2 mac and cheese
Sure, it’s not impossible to reach. But I think you’ve demonstrated that you need to work to reach it. Particularly in a family context; I don’t eat at Popeye’s but even I know that the whole point of the family menu is that it’s meant to be economical for family meals.
Ordering a main, a side, and a drink isn't really "working to reach it". Your original post was insinuating that the OP or their friend lied about the cost and I was just demonstrating that it's quite plausible to reach it.
First, you ordered them a la carte, because using the combo price (as almost any actual buyer would do) would undermine your point.
And then you ordered an amount of calories greater than the recommended amount for an adult for the entire day. Sure, some people eat that, but is that remotely a useful metric to answer the question of what it costs the typical family of three to eat at Popeye’s? No.
Depends on the family.
I’ve seen 2 active teens at healthy body weights split that 8pc meal + a side of biscuits. Obviously if you’re talking about a 6 year old the numbers are different.
I can probably eat an 18” pizza alone, but you would rightly accuse me of misrepresentation for claiming that a “pizza for lunch for one” costs me $25+.
Not if that’s your regular order. For many families of 3 ordering 2 15” pizza, dessert, and drinks would be a regular lunch others may simply order 3 large slices.
That’s my point, family of 3 isn’t some standard size.
But the 8pc meal is only $36? What did the 3rd person order to push it to $68? Maybe the third person is a professional sumo wrestler. Every family is different!
Or maybe, just maybe, the idea that it costs the typical family of three $68 to eat at Popeye’s is just utter bullshit?
I am curious where and what they ordered.
That said, 8pc meal is a discount, you can get charged more for the same food if they aren’t all ordering the same thing. Also, don’t forget the extra side of biscuits I mentioned, teens can be shockingly ravenous beasts.
Similarly not all locations have the same pricing.
Florida sales tax is around 8%. Drinks are $2-3.
My general assumption for any food I'm getting eating out in the US (across a range of regions) is $20/person for fast food/casual, and $30 if it's a basic restaurant. The food will be listed at $7-12 etc, but the receipt will show twice that due to fees, add-ons etc.
IMO what matters is what you pay; the numbers they post on the menus and other media aren't useful.
This is from their online checkout, so it is what you'd pay.
(It doesn't seem implausible to me that you'd pay $20/pp for food in most parts of the US; I'm responding purely to the hearsay claim that someone paid $68 for 3 people. I can't square that unless you actually bought twice as much food, and then some.)
Hey - I tried this just now, and was surprised; you're right; it was ~$12.
[dead]
If they’re bigger folks or starving and someone doesn’t want bone-in chicken, I could see it. 3 large 4 piece combos is $55.50 in Miami, and I think there are other things in that range (eg a 5 pc tender meal if someone hates bone-in chicken so they can’t get a family meal).
The family meals are substantially cheaper than individual meals, if you can get everyone to agree on bone-in chicken and the same 2 sides.
A 20% tip would push that up to something like $66.
Why would you tip at Popeye's? It's fast food.
Who is out there paying a 20% tip at a Popeyes?!
The same people who claim they're spending $68 for a 3 person meal at Popeyes or other similar establishments and that there is no alternative (i.e. people who aren't very good with money and/or willing to put even the slightest amount of effort into comparison shopping).
This whole thread is like a Youtube epsiode of "Food Theory". https://www.youtube.com/@FoodTheory
Popeyes has always been ridiculously over-priced. I stopped going there over a decade ago when I realized they charge at least 2x any other fast food place that exists. They are the same as Five Guys, but at least Five Guys puts some effort into appearing like you are getting quality food. Both are way over-priced though.
Awesome news! Please let me know which chain I can go to for fried chicken at half the price that Popeye’s charges.
Japan gets an economic pass because they have such a strict monoculture.
In the same way you can "break" the laws of thermodynamics by getting every atom to move in the same direction at the same time, you can "break" the laws of economics by getting every person to make the same illogical choice at the same time.
Yes, the laws of thermodynamics and laws of economics are empirical laws. But, the laws of economics are derived from human values, which are inherently subjective.
You state the choices as “illogical”, but those choices can be logical based off a different set of values.
Similarly, if you have a different set of axioms, you can build a different reasonable system on it.
It's like Euclidean geometry and Non-Euclidian geometry. They are both valid systems based off of different axioms. Similarly, the different economic systems are valid based off of different set of societal values.
You can also compare it to the ideal gas law. It's a law, but is based of a hypothetical ideal gas. Similarly, the economic laws are based off of a hypothetical society. The ideal gas law does not hold in all conditions, and economic laws do not hold in all conditions.
The economic laws are meant as tools to predict behavior. But ironically, we end up modifying our behaviors to fit the laws, and we weaponize the usage of "economic laws" to control the behavior of others.
We have economists complain how "that economic system doesn't work". Yes, it doesn't work with the laws that define your economic system, but it works with a different set of laws. We have people say, "that doesn't make sense because of X law". It's the other way around. The "law" doesn't make sense, because I value something different.
is it similar?
to break the laws of thermodynamics locally, you need to have an open system where the tally is made up elsewhere
is japan following a unified culture of choices the result of other people doing extra outside of japan?
You can't really break the laws of thermodynamics because they are statistical laws, not absolute ones.
When you have 10 atoms bouncing around you can pretty easily "break" the laws because you don't have the statistical mass for aggregate behaviors (what we call the laws) to arise.
So it's not really a law that entropy must increase, it's more a 99.999...% (envision a lot of 9's there) chance it will, and the number of 9's is proportionate to the number of energy points in the system.
For the longest time their strategy was to:
1. Issue bonds at near zero or even negative yield.
2. Buy US bonds.
The country is still one of the largest foreign US debt holders at $1.191T, and interest from this debt pays for a significant fraction of the interest on their own debt.
If you issue debt at non-positive yield, then there is no interest on your debt to offset with the yield from US bonds.
I don't understand. Why would anyone buy their bonds when the US bonds yield more?
The issuer of debt is the seller of the bond.
That doesn't the answer the question of "who is buying these bonds instead of US Treasuries?"
Someone who is betting that the negative yield changes favourably. The bet is the same in positive yield regimes as well. This could happen due to a combination of deflation forecasts increasing and expectations of interest rates being lowered even further.
That's 10 cents for a single 35-calorie corn puff, to be clear, and it was a 25% price increase. 10 cents for one corn puff is not actually a good price.
> In Japan, there's a big issue when a snack raises its price 2 cents
That can't be true. So inflation just doesn't exist in Japan?
For decades after the 1989 crash they were in deflation. Only in the last 3-4 years has any meaningful inflation returned. Some context here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decades
For like past 30 years yes. The inflation during that time were covered by shrinkflation and value adds through feature adds. I think some argue it has to do with lack of popularity of credit cards and electronic payments, which nudge prices to gravitate towards nearest coin denominations which in turn suppress inflation. Which is probably true, considering if a bottle of soda went from a dollar and a dime to a dollar and two dimes, or the umaibo went from one dime to a dime and three cents totaling as four distinct coins, those will be very tangible to consumers.
Historically, no. Prices were basically flat for a long time until covid.
They've also been making things smaller. Some would argue that it's a cultural thing, but being poor also means you have to start adopting austere cultural habits as a coping mechanism.
There's shrinkflation for sure. Take Torikizoku for example. One plate = 280yen from 1985 until 2017. Now it's risen to 337yen while also reducing in size by 30%.
Population is flat or declining so that's one of the main drivers of inflation. Japan could be a pioneer in steady-state economics.
Over the long run, population decline it is associated with disinflation or deflation. Deflationary forces often become strong because overall demand and economic growth slow.
Japan had decades of deflation after 1990. There’s a generation of people who got used to prices staying flat or going down.
Note that the snack price was increased "from 12 yen ($0.08) to 15 yen ($0.10)". That's a 25% increase.
> I recently heard that a trip to Popeye's for a family of 3 recently cost $68 in Florida.
Does it?
no, a combo meal (entree, side, drink) there is ~$10.
$20 used to feed a whole family at KFC/Popeyes.
People forget that prices don't rise automatically. Businesses decide to raise prices. There isn't some magical force called inflation cuasing prices to go up. It's human decision-making all the way down.
Human decisions but usually with external factors: increasing costs, pressure to grow, etc.
If they could get away with raising price just because they feel like it they would do it earlier and more often.
Post COVID is a great example of this in action. They DID raise prices because they could. What keeps prices low is competition. But again, it's not automatic. Look at Arizona Ice Tea as an example. All price rises are business decisions with a person behind it.
People forget that high prices aren't paid automatically. Consumers decide to purchase things at the higher prices, it's human decision-making all the way down.
Have you ever run a business?
Have you ever run a business? I have and still do. I make the pricing decisions, nobody makes them for me. Have to factor in a lot and repricing is always a hard choice in either direction. It's never automatic or some mystical force.
Yes and all the price decisions are done by a person. Lowering prices, increasing prices, these are all decisions. Nothing is automatic.
Wrong.
[flagged]
Sounds like you don't pay for a family of people. I went out to dinner last night at a low/mid tier restaurant and it was over $100.
Did you spend $68 to feed 3 at Popeye's? If not, your comment is pretty irrelevant to this thread.
In my area, the three piece combo - fries, drink, and a biscuit - is $16.79 before tax on UberEats for pickup, and I'm in a fairly low COL area. $68 for three sounds about right.
UberEats prices are often inflated vs. in-restaurant. As many others have pointed out, $68 makes no sense.
I checked on the Popeyes website in my area - $50 with tax for three three-piece combos.
$68 is entirely believable for expensive areas; I'm in the rust belt.
$48.96 for me, with tax. And I live in Manhattan.
Manhattan's an outlier in many things. I'd expect, for example, foot traffic to be much larger at such a location.
(See, for example, the famous $1 pizza slice that lasted a lot longer there than elsewhere.)
Why are you so determined to find a way to make an obvious exaggeration partially true?
Your local example failed, so you hand-waved at expensive areas. Someone points out that it's also false in an expensive area, and you say "no not that expensive area it doesn't count".
Why do you feel the need to defend the honor of the "Costs $68 to feed 3 at Popeye's" exaggeration?
Additionally, there are loads of comments of people all over the country price checking this $68 claim in their area. Bizarre to just keep hammering how it must be true under some yet-to-be-revealed circumstances.
It’s obviously just bullshit.
Dining prices are up to an extraordinary amount compared to pre-COVID. Prices never went back down despite inflation being "reigned in". Being surprised at a $68 bill at Popeyes just expresses you don't have a family to provide for, which is probably the default position of most of the posters on this forum.
I eat a lot of fast food, including Popeye's. I buy for myself sometimes, other times I'm buying for groups of various sizes.
It has gotten more expensive. But if you're spending $68 for 3 people at Popeye's, someone in that group is eating at levels that will eventually win them a spot on "My 600lb Life".
> Being surprised at a $68 bill at Popeyes just expresses you don't have a family to provide for
I have a family to provide for. I'm surprised at a $68 bill at Popeyes. Taking my family there is normally a good bit less than that. Maybe if it was in some tourist trap area or something, but generally that would be quite high.
> Prices never went back down despite inflation being "reigned in".
A) Dining prices going up that much was way more than inflation.
B) Reigning in inflation doesn't mean prices go back down, it means they stop increasing quickly.
Gonna need more info. How many people did that feed? What is your definition of “mid tier restaurant?”
Popeye's for 3 costs ~$10 in India unless you're trying to make a full-course meal out of it.
Why should salaries catch up to heady levels of SV? There are very few places in US that can match SV in salary.
The CEO then went on to explain, “We raised base salaries in Japan by 10 percent in April 2023,” adding, “Since then, we have continued to review our compensation system to ensure that remuneration aligns with employees’ demonstrated capabilities, and in April 2026 we implemented further salary increases, including for starting pay.”
If their last raise was 3-4 years ago, this is a simple inflation adjustment, amazing they get good vibe front page Hacker News credit for this.
People are already stupidly underpaid in Japan too so yeah, I agree.
Still way better than what many companies do in the US regarding inflation adjustment...
You compared “companies in the US” to this 1 thing that 1 company did in Japan.
Why don’t you cherry pick the compensation at 1 company, maybe nvidia or openai, and do the comparison.
god dam people are hostile these days
A lot of companies seem to not do consistent raises for inflation
In Sweden, there's a fundamental agreement between companies, the state and unions to not have raises follow inflation (as it becomes reinforcing and hurting the rack economy).
Now, there's always discussion (you can guess who's arguing what if inflation is high and low...), but overall it seems to work pretty good.
I never considered the two are linked. Any research or modeling that shows this is true? Is it generalisable to other countries...
That's very cool. They don't say whether or not it's retroactive, though (I'll bet not).
I am astounded at some of the starting salaries, these days. Kids, right out of school, make more than I ever did, at the peak of my career.
And can't afford a house.
My father never made more than about $40K, but had a house in Potomac, two cars, and a stay-at-home wife.
Money ain't what it used to be.
What we need is a concerted world wide order of magnitude reduction in the numerical symbology behind money. It’s where a $100 becomes $10 and the same with every currency world wide at exactly the same time. We should do this every 50 years.
This is way too much of a hassle to do unless the number of zeros gets too high.
why?
[flagged]
So what you are saying is that you build a cheap house by breaking the laws and local regulations? Next logical step would be to just barge in the neighborhood house and live there for free.
Some research seems to point to TN allowing for this if the county has chosen to do so https://support.commerce.tn.gov/hc/en-us/articles/208924888-...
That’s a pretty cool rule! I think it’s actually super awesome that this dude did this.
> To trigger building inspections in my county it can only be forced if there is compensation or commercial intent for building or use of the house, but you have to use a special process to record this with the county affirming you're the owner and the builder and it's a non-commercial non-rented domicile.
The question I have about this is whether you would need to get inspections and permitting done if you ever tried to sell the house?
If that's the case the loophole only works for the owner/builder and the next person to own it is going to have to scrape it clean and rebuild entirely. If you ever wanted or needed to sell it sounds like this would complicate that process by quite a bit either way.
Doubt I'll ever sell the house. I might gift it to an LLC and then sell the LLC though. Or just bulldoze it when I'm done with it, it has already paid for itself and I never built it with an intent to profit off of it.
If he lives there until he dies, bulldozing it will be Someone Else’s Problem. If the electrics catch fire and he dies, it’s his own problem. Perfect American solution.
It’s true that you don’t need much expertise to build the house but electric and plumbing does need some, no? You don’t need to sell the property perhaps but how did you get labor? Surely you didn’t just do it all yourself.
I have to say, pretty cool all told if you managed this!
You need some expertise, but electric and pumbing are not hard to do yourself. If you don't know what you are doing a bad install can kill you (or your family/friends), so you want to do this right. However it isn't hard.
I helped my uncle build his house, the only thing he didn't do himself was dig the holes (foundation and well), pour the concrete, and tape the drywall. Everything was inspected by the county and passed. We could have done those as well, but is made sense to hire someone for those parts considering the experience/tools of family/friends, and how long it would take working only Saturdays.
I miss living where I have lots of family around. There are things I'm forced to hire out that I know how to do just because I can't make a few phone calls and get a dozen people to help next Saturday.
Like the other guy said, electrical and plumbing are not hard to do correctly with a just a little bit of knowledge or experience with modern building practices.
You can't just throw random trash together but there are simple "standard" ways of doing things with standard available wires and pipes and fittings and as long as you follow common practices you will be 95% of the way to a code compliant install. It is only when you want to do something in an unusual or shortcut way that you may run into real compliance problems.
Certainly don't try it if you are completely clueless, but reading a diy book or watching some diy instructional videos will get you pretty far and show you how standardized most residential construction is with hardware store materials.
Go to any third world country and live there for a bit to understand the value of code and inspections and regulations. Even if you get away with it legally, which I doubt you will in a place like the US because they check every year when property taxes are due, you don’t want that to be the norm.
Also most of the cost of a new house is labor, the inspections and building to code costs very little and is free and government provided in most cases.
A good portion of my family is from the third world. And I have lived in the third world (multiple continents, and some of the most war torn places on earth). The housing situation was something I admired as basically anyone could build and own a house. I found it inspiring and realized then the code and zoning game was largely a scam, walking away with the exact opposite conclusion you had expected. Those people generally built the safest house they could with what they can -- the regulations would only make them poorer and less safe, possibly casting them in the street if they cannot afford to meet them where they're not the building inspector's problem anymore (this is the luxury of the building inspector, the downsides of his vigilance is unseen to him and cast into the streets where they likely have an even worse fate).
>the inspections and building to code costs very little and is free and government provided in most cases.
It would have been basically impossible to build my house if there were code inspections. I was only available weekends.
> Even if you get away with it legally,
I have "gotten away with it" and the house is fully legal and recognized. The county literally issued me a closed permit saying they exempted me from inspections. Instead of building plans it just shows a square on a map.
I’m sorry but this comment is hysterical. I have experience with construction and engineering and I shudder to think what type of monstrosity you’ve built.
That’s not historically uncommon though. Like the house I grew up in was a rural house built in ~1890 by the brothers who farmed the land. Of course it had the usual quirks of an old house, but it was well maintained over time and I wouldn’t view it as any kind of “monstrosity”.
I'm guessing it didn't have wiring or plumbing when it was originally built, though. If professional electricians/plumbers added those _after_ the fact, then that's still way different than trying to DIY everything in the 21st century.
We should all appreciate that most homes were not done by teams of professionals back in the day. Multiple things can be true here, 1) building your own home will take a lot of time to get right (so time being used in place of money), 2) the skills involved are all completely learnable and do-able for an able-bodied person who again is willing to put the time in, and 3) its not worth it for the vast majority of people who don't want to learn these skills and would rather focus on their own work and pay someone else to be a professional in the space. And yes 4) I've seen quite a bit of DIY work in homes and sometimes its impressive but usually its questionable and sometimes even horrific.
My grandpa built a similar house under similar level of scrutiny roughly at the same point in life as I did, it was still standing and in good order when he died. At this point it's basically already paid for itself vs rent even valued at $0.
Not sure where you live, but in my area -even if it's a great house- it would not end well.
We have some pretty heavy-duty local township bureaucrats.
Anybody remember Groverhaus?
This does not apply to Nintendo of America, which famously does underpay in the Redmond, WA area and well.. I hear has trouble truly attracting talent in the first place.
How much does Nintendo of America really do? It's basically localization and marketing, right? And maybe outreach to third party developers?
I would imagine they're able to underpay due to the allure of working for Nintendo combined with a lack of actual positions.
They do have at least one development studio there, Nintendo Software Technology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Software_Technology
They also make quite a few more changes than expected when localising games. Or at least they did in the olden days, where the American versions of games sometimes had different/extra features compared to the Japanese originals.
I think some of the localisation team are also regular voice actors for the games, on a worldwide basis.
> They do have at least one development studio there, Nintendo Software Technology.
Oh, interesting! The list of games isn't particularly impressive though, a lot of ports and remakes. Compare that to also-US-based Retro Studios, which isn't considered under Nintendo of America from what I understand.
Retro Studios is a subsidiary of Nintendo, actually! Not sure how it's structured organizationally, but Nintendo does own it.
Yes, but it's not under Nintendo of America, I don't think? That was my point.
It's considered tech, adjacent to The Pokemon Company, also in the same area...
It's not just localization and marketing they do have corporate IT and some development/studio as well as very poor security policies that gets them breeched every now and again which makes sense, they pay poorly and from my personal experience gatekeep but that makes sense from the applicants that probably get in their applicant pool.
I'm sure they've employed an army of lawyers for US IP law which isn't something easily reproducible in Japan.
Game devs in general underpay unless you're high up.
US tech wages are insanely inflated compared to, well, everywhere.
US tech wages are what everyone should be making. Tech looks high compared to everyone else, but it is more that everyone else's wages got suppressed.
>Tech looks high compared to everyone else, but it is more that everyone else's wages got suppressed.
Where do you draw the line? Maybe everyone should be earning $10M/year like AI researchers, and anything to the contrary means it's "suppressed"?
> Where do you draw the line
You can own a house and support a family of 5 on a single income and retire at 65.
Where I live that is only really possible for SWE, lawyers, doctors, and execs.
You're welcome to move to one of the many, many places in the US where it's still possible.
I live in Canada, so no Im not.
That's actually a really great suggestion. It would be great if you could throw together a list of these many, many places and post it here, so we could think about what sort of moves we could make. Thanks in advance!
Large portions of the rust belt, midwest, and deep south for starters.
There are many, many lists of the most affordable cities in the US. I see Buffalo, Dayton, and Wichita on them regularly as specific examples.
Sweet thanks, I guess I never really thought about moving to the Rust Belt and then taking part in its thriving economy to get the sort of job that would allow me to support a family of 5 and own a house on a single income. I would guess at this point you'd probably try and say something about remote work and arbitraging high west coast tech salaries against low cost-of-living, but really that just gets us back to the other poster's point about this stuff not being obtainable anymore. Certainly, to take just a quick example, not in one of the cities you listed, Wichita, with a median individual income (as specified by the other poster) of between $49k and $35k for men and women, and a median house sale price of $243k (up 4.3% over the last year!), giving you an affordability ratio of roughly 5-7x. Chapman university labels that sort of ratio as "Severly Unaffordable".
Whoops! Guess it isn't quite as easy as your smug comment made it out to be...
https://datausa.io/profile/geo/wichita-ks -> link for median single income data in Wichita
https://www.redfin.com/city/19878/KS/Wichita/housing-market -> link for median house sale price
https://www.chapman.edu/communication/_files/Demographia-Int... -> Link to Chapman study, income affordability ratio labeling is on page 6 of the study.
Buy a house below the median cost if you want to live that specific lifestyle.
And don't rely on trashy websites for your snarky, invalid arguments: https://www.bls.gov/regions/mountain-plains/summary/blssumma...
Fine by me. Let's give it a shot.
I'm pretty sure they meant ~100k-200k in a housing market away from the coasts... oh wait that's already true!
[dead]
I once watched a Vice President at an all hands explain that the company's decision to have non-competitive wages was because "it's not that we're underpaying, it's that everybody else is overpaying. If you want to go somewhere else to get overpaid, that's not going to last." I think about that every now and again and chuckle.
That’s beautiful, so many ways to turn that phrase into a painful questioning event.
I hate this crab in a bucket framing. It's so anti-working person. Why isn't it that wages are insanely deflated compared to the US?
Because the conversation is incomplete if we're talking internationally.
The cost of living in the US is much higher compared to most other first world/rich countries for one. Count up someone's basic living expenses in the US and those in another country (so taxes, rent and fixed costs) and the US often ends up much higher in terms of absolute values. In other countries, taxes usually soak up more of those fixed costs, reducing them more across the board for most people. The US also has very little protection against surprise fees at checkout (to the annoyance of non-Americans when ordering stuff online from the US), so a lot of stores sell on higher markups relatively speaking, making the same goods more expensive in the US. There's also healthcare, which needs little elaboration because the US is to my knowledge the single most expensive country to live in when it comes to that.
That applies to the US as a whole; it's why someone can say they're making 300k USD a year, say they're apparently barely able to stay afloat and then the rest of the world pretty much regards the US economy as being fundamentally wrong in some form. In most places, 300k USD a year is living in the upper class (as in, "work this job for a decade and you can retire early" money), not scraping the bottom of the barrel. By modern conversion standards, that's about 263k euros, or about 21k euros each month.
Then there's the tech sector specific problems. San Francisco is expensive to live in, and most US tech companies are in SF. Take the US cost of living problem, amplify it specifically for the tech sector (which is usually not talked about, since it's hard to vocalize). Second is that the US tech sector has more creative ideas and money than business sense - throwing money at a problem like the purse doesn't exist is a very US tech thing that doesn't apply anywhere else. It means that it's possible to hire people at far more inflated prices than the job is realistically worth.
Whether a wage is good or bad is pretty much entirely dependent on the local economy. Someone making 2000 EUR a month in Europe makes just above/right below the poverty line. Someone making 2000 EUR a month in Brazil is living an upper class lifestyle. That's an extreme comparison, but is a good indicator.
One other point: tastes expand to fit your income. You learn how much many you get every month and then how to spend that much.
My local Mercedes dealer will lease me a car for $4000/month (+ insurance) - somebody must have enough money to make that payment. If that is too much maybe the 18 year old Honda Civic with 300k miles for $1000 (cash price) is more your style? Probably you fit in between those. (note that we are talking about the US so we can assume there is no useful transit)
One thing to consider is that people in France (for example) are actually getting paid 45% more than you see in their salary because the government is taking that invisibly from the employer for social services.
People can achieve a high standard of living anywhere in the world on half or a quarter of what goes for normal in SV tech. The valuations of these companies are even more inflated than their wages, and most of them aren't even profitable and don't have good prospects. Bubbles benefit some people, but they're a sign of dysfunction and I don't believe that the proper reaction to a sign of deep societal dysfunction is to celebrate that a few thousands of people can make a lot of money out of it.
Depends on what you qualify as 'standard of living.' There's no amount of money I would accept to live in many parts of the world. To have the same size property and home I have today in France or Germany would be likely 10's of millions of Euros. My property is worth well less than $1M.
> anywhere in the world
Anywhere outside of SV, really.
The rest of the world has educated people willing to work for less. Wages are just supply/demand.
I'm not saying either is right or wrong, it's just an observation.
He told you why: because it's in America. You can bet if Europe paid those wages and the US didn't we'd be hearing about wage suppression and underpayment instead.
Nintendo gets a lot of flak for how they treat consumers and how litigious they are. However I get the impression they treat their employees very well in Japan. Like when the Wii U flopped, execs took a pay cut to avoid layoffs.
No company is perfect, but Nintendo seems like an example some C-suites should follow.
Its not even like they indiscriminately shut down fan projects either. Just the ones that try to make money. You still have sites like Pokemon Showdown and Advance Wars By Web that have been running for several decades without incident.
My friends and I made a game for Ludum Dare 36 called No Mario's Sky years ago and received a DMCA take down notice. We weren't selling it, but we still had to remove it. Maybe because Mario is 100% a Nintendo property but Pokemon and Advance Wars are co-owned with other companies.
That's just not true. Off the top of my head: SMBX, Pokemon Uranium, Ocarina of Time 2D, AM2R. A few years back they mass DMCA'd hundreds of fan games on the site GameJolt, none of which were monetized.
(why some fan projects like Showdown are still up is anyone's guess)
IIRC Showdown has a tacit agreement with TPC (or at least has historically; unclear if Champions will change anything in the future) and is allowed to exist so long as it follows certain rules. I can't find it right now, but I swear I read a comment from Zarel, the creator of Showdown, explaining what some of those rules entail, including an agreement not to include any moves or mons that haven't been officially released in the mainline games yet.
Other people have speculated that TPC can't/won't axe Showdown because they know that VGC players rely on it heavily to test out team comps before official tournaments, and Champions doesn't seem like it fills the same niche, unless TPC is suddenly about to change their stance on genning :P
AM2R for example was distributed for free and DMCA-ed.
I think they killed it because they were planning on showing off their own remake
I think there are 3 rules to avoid getting the ninjas sent after you:
1) Don't try and make money 2) Don't do anything nintendo would realistically do 3) Don't touch mario. This one seems to be the most important. I see mario projects get killed all the time very early on in development, while am2r was allowed to exist until nintendo exercised rule number 2. I imagine the mother/earthbound fan works/translations will also be left alone if nintendo chooses to never touch that series again
I agree, though 2 seems pretty tricky to navigate/predict. For example I wouldn't have guessed Advanced Wars would get a new release after Days of Ruin, or with Earthbound I could maybe see Mother 3 finally getting a US release with how popular Undertale/Deltarune has been. Maybe the best option is to be as under the radar as possible until it's done and out.
I can almost guarantee mother 3 will never get an official translation. At most, I can see them giving the existing fan translation their official endorsement and releasing the patched version on switch online or something. The only reason earthbound beginnings got published eventually was because they had already translated it and planned to release it in the west but never ended up doing so
I feel like a toxic part of this cycle is that a successful fan project has the potential to actually inspire Nintendo to attempt to do the same thing, leading to #2 as a punishment for success.
they indiscriminately shut down any sight of online smash tournaments
Probably for the best seeing how many literal degenerates and sex pests there are in the scene, what with Nintendo being a family company and all.
edit: sorry downvoters, if you want to play with corporations you might want to remove the rapists from your ranks:
https://www.ssbwiki.com/2020_Super_Smash_Bros._sexual_miscon...
When I was a kid this Japanese guy from Nintendo used to live next to us. He gave me the Nintendo DS before its official release for my birthday. It was pretty cool.
Always a great thing to hear. Well paid employees, good results, and I'm definitely loving their Switch 2 releases already.
Off topic: what are you enjoying lately? Most of the games I have bought work on switch 1 but the screen and controls on the switch 2 are better.
I regret buying caravan sandwitch because it's so hard to see with my aging eyes but it is nice to play it anywhere.
Always curious to hear what others enjoy about it to help me have less regret in my $600 investment in Mario kart
DK Bananza is wonderful, a masterpiece. Pokémon Pokopia is also really fun as a recurring game you come back to every day or every couple of days to relax and build your village. I'm also enjoying Switch 1 games on it. Pokémon Violet, for example, lagged hard on Switch 1 but runs great on Switch 2.
DK Bonanza is if someone vomited neon all over a WOW clone
Pokemon Pokopia has been a surprise hit in our house, I have two kids, but I got into it and spent a ton of time making a perfect little Pokemon village. My kids really enjoy Tomodachi Life: Living the Dream. It's really silly but they make all their friends and have them get married and read the news and it's just peak Nintendo goofiness.
My kids have also gotten a little older so the mainline Pokemon games have become a thing again, and we've been playing those together. Everything just seems to run better on the Switch 2.
My kid just discovered tomodachi life from a friend and I'm actually going to buy it for her on my switch 1 and give it to her. We've got a summer trip in a few weeks and she will be surprised to receive the game and the system to be all hers.
Tomodachi Life is so much fun. It's the first time I've seen 1990s voice synthesizer tech used in a fun way. And the item designer makes me nostalgic for Mario Paint.
the Tomodachi series is really just amazing. I'm not the biggest fan of living the dream (I prefer life on the 3DSs gameplay and think collection on the DS is very interesting), but it's still amazing
Have you seen what these go for? A 3ds cart is over $100 now.
What? How? It sold extremely well! Oh well, hacking your 3DS takes like 10 minutes and you need a modded console if you want to play collection in english
What sort of games do you enjoy playing?
For my part, I use my Switch 2 as an upgraded Switch 1 for all but one game (a franchise I am fond of release a "Definitive Edition Nintendo Switch 2 Edition") and feel as if I got a good value (esp. considering the upcoming price increase).
Debating on getting the updated Sports Resort, and wishing that there were more motion-controlled games (esp. miss _Red Steel 2_)
I was so disappointed with Switch Sports. It lacked the soul of Wii Sports. Sadly, it seems like Sports Resort is going to be more of the same :(
I rather enjoyed Wii Sports Resort (mostly the flying and archery) --- so long as those are well-implemented, I'll be fine.
I am afraid MK World isn't even the best kart racer on NS2. It's Sonic Crossworlds
I'm actually not loving mario kart world. I didn't know the sonic game was a thing so thank you I will check it out.
enjoy!
Donkey Kong Bananza is probably my Switch 2 game of choice. Like it may not be marketed as such, but it's probably somewhere on par with Super Mario Odyssey in terms of game design and mechanics, and has the craziest ending sequence I've ever seen in a video game. It is a really solid 3D platformer, and does to Donkey Kong what Super Mario 64 did to Super Mario Bros/World.
The DLC is really fun too, though whether it's worth buying is almost entirely dependent on how much you get into Emerald Rush. Personally I found that mode incredibly addictive for the longest time, though it's definitely not for everyone.
As a general rule though, the Switch 2's library is kinda niche right now though. What games/DLC are worth it heavily depends on your taste in games.
Cozy/sandbox game? Pokopia could be a good choice.
Fan of the Zelda series in general? The upgrades for BotW and TotK are nice, as is Age of Imprisonment.
Prefer Kirby? Air Riders and the Forgotten Land upgrade are a good bet. More of a Mario fan? Well, there aren't as many options there outside of Mario Kart, though the Wonder upgrade has been pretty well received, and Mario Tennis Fever is a decent game.
Generally you'll find one or two niche spinoffs you'll really get into, though nothing on the level of a big new 3D Mario/Zelda/Pokemon/whatever game.
DKB was created by the Odyssey team so it makes sense that it scratches the same itch!
Galaxy 1&2 have visual upgrades.
I'm happy Mario Tennis is back with the ability to play actual full tennis matches again. I skipped the last one.
The story is kind of meh, but the mechanics of the tennis matches is fun. Its not like I play Mario Tennis for a deep storyline campaign, its for playing a tennis game. Its a good multi-player game.
I also have to agree with Bananza. A fun story, good mechanics, and a silly art style and direction.
I'm eager to play Star Fox. It seems like an exceptionally good remake. Its been decades since I last played the original, I imagine it'll feel pretty new and yet familiar at the same time.
I still do have mostly Switch 1 games to play on it. I don't really mind that. The Switch 2 having pretty much full backwards compatibility is a strong feature to me and not really a con. Better hardware for sure, and some parts of my old Switch was getting worn out after so many years of use.
Unless you've played it elsewhere, I'd highly recommend person 3 reload
> Off topic: what are you enjoying lately?
I've poured tons of hours into Blue Prince, which is a great puzzle game. Pokopia is fun and charming if you like Pokemon or Minecraft. I've recently been playing Öoo which is a short but sweet "metroidbrania". I played through both Strange Horticulture and Strange Antiquities recently, and liked them both. I played the demo of "Adventure of Elliot: Millennium Tales", and liked the gameplay enough I'll probably pick up the full game, even though the dialog is atrocious. (The voice acting is good, at least).
Caves of Qud.
For someone in Japan this is shockingly high! Money doesn’t go far here at all
Err does go far, right? Japan is pretty cheap in my experience.
This is largely a function of exchange rates. If you are paid in USD, then Japan will seem cheap in a way it does not for people paid in yen.
Vietnam is even cheaper.
The problem is you get paid in a roided up currency and it's a fun vacation for you. The locals get paid awful wages and a single night at an hotel for a typical person here is a whole month's rent for them.
Living there with local wages and taxes?
Not if you don't get paid very much?
My British parents went there this year and found it very expensive
Japanese Yen is now 162 to USD, the lowest exchange rate since 1986.
And they are seeing sustained inflation for the first time since 2000. Not a great time to be paid in yen.
All the other major game studios are dying and Nintendo is taking care of their employees. Just goes to show that focusing on making great games, being protective of golden goose IP, and making unique hardware rather than just trying to push prettier pixels is a winning strategy.
This is putting Nintendo on a pedestal. Major Japanese studios in general are consistently publishing great games and increasing hiring count / raising salaries. Switch 2 is also essentially just a spec bump from switch 1 which came out in 2017.
https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/atlus-to-increase-sal...
https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/sega-is-raising-jap...
https://gameworldobserver.com/2024/03/06/capcom-salary-raise...
https://automaton-media.com/en/news/sonys-game-division-anno...
I don't think it's unfair to say that Nintendo has some of the highest quality games on average, and probably the biggest cache of top tier IP of any studio on earth. The only studio that rivaled them was Blizzard IMO, and that got corrupted and has fallen to capitalism.
this is a puff piece. the raise was in April 2023
The story seems mixed; you are correct that the specifically 10% raise was back in 2023, but they also implemented additional raises in April of 2026, though not the specific 10% that was tweeted/widely reported.
The other studios’ investors are winning just fine. That’s all that matters to them.
Great thing about Nintendo is unlike its competitors, they don't go around chasing new tech and business models. All their focus is concentrated on the playing experience - interfacing, fun value, guilt-free hooks etc. In many ways they are more a classic toymaker than a tech firm. This is the reason why they have such a strong following, their product at least is not run by MBAs chasing every chance at a point increase in margins.
I wish there were more such successful "craftsman shops" out there than soulless "service providers" that today's video game companies are.
I replayed Luigi's Mansion during a long flight the other day, and my wife looked over my shoulder and went "That game looks cool. Is it new?"
This is exactly why Nintendo games tend to have strong legacies. Everyone back then could see realistic graphics just on the horizon, but they weren't there yet. Nintendo knew that the play experience is the important thing, and made art and designs that work within the limitations. Luigi's Mansion, Wind Waker, Super Mario Sunshine, and Pikmin all still look and feel so good.
Interestingly Wind Waker's art style was its main detractor among critics when it was released, which is wild and incomprehensible to me now. One of my favorite games of all time.
Part of this was the Spaceworld 2000 demo creating expectations for a game which looked basically like Ocarina of Time but on the GameCube. Then when Twilight Princess came out people missed the Wind Waker art style and the cycle continued.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNrOHY2HZqs
Yes, Nintendo have themselves to blame for the next-gen OoT hype train. In fans' eyes, they promised but didn't deliver.
My favorite Zelda game for sure, also the first that I played. Cell shading aged much better than the competition for sure but felt weird at the time.
Indies are where it's at. Increasingly, the modern games I play are either by nintendo or indie devs with the exception of the occasional atlus game
Don't forget their patent trolling, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43059215 and general IP related bullying.
Yeah I'll admit that's obnoxious but one could argue that's technically Nintendo of America, not Nintendo of Japan.
I recently watched a video game journalist speaking about this(chicocartera from Eurogamer): apparently this raise happened in 2023. There was an official transcription from an investors meeting at that time where this was covered. It seems there are some subtleties in the translation which could lead to think it happened recently.
2023 was 3 years ago, so if raises were 3% under inflation they are due for another 10% increase again.
I would expect raises were more like 1-2% under inflation and so they won't be due for a couple more years.
10% from what to what? Japanese companies are not famous for pay.
Yeah without context this could be good or bad.
It mostly seems that Nintendo is trying very hard to prevent any concern over their stock price dropping like a rock
https://www.shacknews.com/article/149817/nintendo-ntdoy-pres...
Stockholders seem concerned that Nintendo isn't throwing away enough of their seed corn, like all the other major game publishers are.
Oh no, their poor stock! They should lay everyone off, cut pay, and join the dystopia like everyone else!
Good for them. Nintendo and Sony in gaming have always marched by a different drummer. They have a successful business plan, and they execute. While their competition over the years have faded away bankruptcy.
I thought it is common in big companies to raise salaries by x% every year?
I'm not gonna lie, I chuckled a bit reading this.
This hasn't been the case for at least a decade now, if not more.
First it was extended out to maybe once every 2 years, then more, and lately at every company I've worked at (primarily large companies) where pay was mentioned the response is "we pay at or above market rates - discuss with your manager."
Not in all / not anymore. I'm in Canada a 300k IT/consulting company and rated top performer several years in a row. No raises last couple of years, before that it was 0.49 and 1% respectively. This year there was zero salary increase for anybody in our branch.
Any year you're not getting a raise and there is inflation, you're taking a pay cut. You may know this, sharing as a PSA for those who might not.
Absolutely. I've done the inflation calculator and I'm painfully aware of my lower effective compensation / purchasing power.
Leave, that's BS.
When it was, it was typically some amount less than inflation. 1-2%
Every few years I get a 10% raise when they realize those less than inflation raises are enough that they are losing people who places that pay better. (sometime it was me who left, but the cycle repeats at the new place)
That's what I think I get... So few, I don't even bother to look how much more it is...
The worst is when you get a manager who’s either too clueless to realize you’re seeing a pay cut from an “increase” so small, or one who knows but is pretending otherwise.
That awkward pause in the comp update meeting when they tell you about the “increase” and seem to expect some positive reaction. LOL.
Could be worse, mine has promised me salary increase thrice this year. Every time coming up with bullshit issues why it couldn't happen.
I am still working on minimum wage (as a DevOps).
"You work hard, screw over everybody that you love, hurt, rob, kill indiscriminately and maybe... just maybe, if you're lucky, you become a three bit gangster. It's bullshit. Go to college. Then you can rip people off and get paid for it. It's called capitalism"
If your "raise" is less than the increase from things like inflation, it's not going to be noticeable even if you did look. The concept of cost of living increases is laughable today. Even banks looking at a mortgage application is assuming your salary will increase way beyond what today's raises are. The only way to do that is to jump ship and find a new job, but then you're dinged because your work history is not stable.
3% for me, the last few years.
There are basically only two ways to get a substantial raise at most employers, either move to a higher grade/title position, or move to another employer (probably at a higher grade).
Once you are in, large pay increases are rare, I'm sure there are exceptions but as a general rule the salary you negotiate coming in is where you get your pay raise. Hence the prior conventional wisdom that you need to change employers every few years to get your additional experience reflected in your salary.
Japan has a culture of loyalty/lifetime employment so not sure how much that happens there.
Individual employees. But the base rate (or band) stays the same, which is not what I'm reading here. So you might travel inside the band from low-paid to high-paid, while it stays the same.
Japan had zero or negative interest rates for decades, a period which ended a couple of years ago.
not anymore
Good for them. My colleague used to work for them, said it was the best
Annualized inflation this year (in the USA) is 10%. I heard Japan is worse. So they only get a 5% pay cut instead of a 15% pay cut? Hooray.
> Annualized inflation this year (in the USA) is 10%
Source? I think that's about 2-2.5x the figure that everyone else is using.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48489655
Your "source" is an editorializing HN submitter who took a one-month increase in prices while the military action with Iran and subsequent oil price shock and multiplied by 12.
The BLS (and any economist) knows better than to do that, so you cited the online equivalent of "a dude wearing sunglasses on the back of his hat being interviewed in his pickup truck..."
Congratulations Nintendo employees! I've always had great conversations and interactions with your engineers so I think this is well deserved.
And the weakening of the yen to the dollar reduced the salary by -12% over the last year.
In Japan, giving your employees a raise is very rare and a sign of great respect.
Whats the highest paying gane studio? Rockstar?
The shareholders must be furious about this. Why not lay off 30% of the team and outsource game development and use ai for the art? That seems smarter.
nintendo is one of the best in gaming for employees and one of the worst for customers. everyone here knows about the copyright and patent trolling but then you got things like 3D All Stars where they made a time limited digital release. not a physical limited edition or a third party rights problem. just decided to capitalize on FOMO at the expense of players.
the eshop is filled with huge amounts of slop they dont care about cleaning up, most of it with ai covers and lazy asset flip gameplay. permanent hardware bans that make buying a used switch 2 risky (you dont know if the previous user was a pirate). and they started the whole trend of $80 games by giving other publishers an excuse to charge more because nintendo does it too.
then you got insane demands for other devs like that time fortnite wanted zelda skins and even offered to make it exclusive (as in you can only buy or equip it on switch). nintendo said they would only do it if epic made the items invisible on all other platforms because they dont want their characters to be seen on xbox. its not a big deal for the rest of us but it shows how their execs really think.
Before people praise them (a bit late for that I guess given the current comments), Nintendo seems to pay quite poorly their employees in the first place, as you can see from the salaries on https://www.levels.fyi/en-gb/companies/nintendo/salaries/sof... for a company that has a stash of cash and is as successful as they are.
100k for entry level roles at one of the most recognizable brands of the world doesn’t seem too bad to me. Then again, I’ve never been to the Seattle/Washington area.
BECAUSE it is one of the most recognizable brands of the world it's a bad salary.
160-250k jobs? I think no action would satisfy you.
[flagged]