Because the 'numbers' that neoliberals have decided are the indicators of a "good" economy mean almost nothing to, in all likely hood, 95% of Americans.
Measuring the right thing leads to inconvenient conclusions (age till retirement, income at retirement, income independence, buying power, home ownership, business ownership, union membership, etc.)
Bloody well hate the neoliberals. One was arguing with me on reddit that because people in Kenya are better off, compared to the 80s, I should stop complaining.
Like ok I am happy for the people of Kenya. I got nothing against them. So yeah good job. Now can my healthcare costs please go down? Because I am pretty confident that they can and the people of Kenya can also be doing well. One really doesn't impact the other that much.
No, you see, because TVs have gotten consistently cheaper (they're like the only thing to have done so), everything's working!
And the main reason they're cheaper is because all of them are data harvesting machines. What a fun world where even your habits are a commodity!
Like they even give a shit about Kenya. Just blatant manipulation.
I love that they chose a term to further muddy the waters between conservatives and liberals.
I hear neoliberal and I think, “huh, is the a new liberal?” Nope. It’s the exact fucking opposite.
That term isn't new nor is it meant to muddy any waters. Liberals are not leftists.
That’s exactly what leftists are. The left is liberal. The right is conservative.
Outside the US, "liberal" often means "libertarian", not leftist. The Liberals in the UK and in Australia are very pro-business. The leftist parties in both countries, and elsewhere, call themselves "Labor" not "Liberal".
In the US, "neo-liberals" often refers to people who wanted to install pro-business regimes in other countries, like Iraq...
Whenever you see reference to neoliberalism or someone mentions 'leftists' relative to 'liberals' it is in context with classical liberalism.
The wiki page is a pretty good jumping off point to understand some of the distinctions and discourse.
No, the left is socialist, the center is liberal, the right is conservative
Fuck neoliberalism. Glad I found out what it was. It really highlights everything that is wrong with the American economy.
... because my purchasing power is much lower than two years ago and my wages aren't remotely keeping up with profiteering inflation? Because I have to be very careful around Christmas to not overspend and I get to explain to the kids why there's only a few presents under the tree? They'll be okay with it, but as a person who has children to take care of it, it's crushing to go backwards year to year in what you're able to provide? Because a 3/4 full shopping cart today (not much meat) was $179 today?
And we have a fixed rate mortgage! I can't envision the pressures people who are renting or trying to buy a home right now are going through. Anyone saying "it's all good out there!" can get fucked.
No kids to take care of, but my fridge just went out today. This spoiled most of the food in the fridge as I can't pick up a new one until tomorrow, and the of a new fridge and restocking my fridge pretty much cancels Xmas gifts for the family. I feel bad every year because they get my wife and I all kinds of cool stuff and it seems like every year I'm stuck telling them, "Maybe I'll be less broke next year"
Not quite the same, I know, but it still makes me feel aweful...
Meanwhile the owner of my company just bought a 5th wheel camper trailer and hitch for his truck in June because he felt like going camping, and is having a 6 bedroom house built for his son on his ranch because his sons wife is having a baby.
This world is fucked for the working class truly.
This isn't probably what you want to hear right now, but I've been much happier giving homemade gifts to family and friends. I found a couple of things people really enjoy that I make and they all look forward to it every year. For me, it's pork jerky. That might not work for you because you need a dehydrator but I can post the recipe if you want. It's a lot of work so no one ever makes it, but when they receive it for Christmas they know I put a lot of time and love in and I really think that's what Christmas should be about. It's really cheap... Mostly two or three large pork loins covers my entire Christmas list.
Other family members have started to do the same. My brother makes really good homemade caramel popcorn. My sister made some rum infusion to give out. Another sister even one time even made Dominoes somehow with resin.
If you are able to find time and energy to spread your love for your family and friends Christmas is a lot of fun.
This is a great idea! But I will have to go with something other than meat. A fair amount of my wife's side of the family is vegetarian. I'm also not that great at cooking lol one of my thoughts this year was to do some of my stencil spraypaints on canvas, as I have a huge stock of canvases and spray paint I never used when I stopped doing it years ago. I just wish I had more time to create some stencils.
Wait... All your food spoiled in a single day? Was your fridge made of cardboard? It should be able to remain cold for at least a day, probably 2-3.
It's from 1986 and not insulated well. Between that and my wife keeping the thermostat and mordor temp, and opening the fridge for long periods of time not knowing it wasn't working, it turned into a hotbox.
I can't believe how expensive thanksgiving shopping was this year. I hit nearly 200 dollars.
We hit $200 very easily just buying household essentials, it seems like. Heaven help us if we need paper towels, toilet paper, contact solution, the 'cheap' shampoo and conditioner, plus a few cleaning supplies all at the same time. $200 comes at you fast on those shopping days.
Dang, I was just thinking about how my mom got a raise years ago when I was still a kid and it practically changed our life. All of a sudden we were eating out more. All of a sudden we had nicer things. All of a sudden my mom wasn't stressed anymore.
It's sad to see how people are now experiencing the opposite of that. It's sad they're experiencing that when, in absolute terms, we are more productive than ever.
Greed really is the worst thing we face as a species in the modern age. It's a shame so many people are gung-ho about supporting it.
The disparity in wealth needs to shrink instead of grow. Otherwise, these problems will only get worse over time.
I feel like I have been seeing the same article once a month since 2007.
A. Unemployment numbers are basically a lie at this point. The only number that comes even close to representating the situation is the workforce participation rate. Question: what percent of people are employed? Answer: what percent of people are employed. It is simple as that. If you look at pretty much every month the US hits a new low. Over a third of the adult population did not earn $20 dollars last week. There was a slight trending down right before 2007 crash but not significant. A deep dive into the numbers shows that this is not the result of retirement, it is the result of prime working age males dropping out.
B. Who cares if inflation is low at this moment? That is like arguing that everything is fine the previous 5 minutes when a car crash happened 6 minutes ago.
Peices of garbage keep telling us that everything is fine when it fucking isnt
I really like that car crash analogy or whatever you want to call it. It isn't like sudden positive changes in inflation or job numbers magically fixes QOL for people overnight. It can take weeks...months, maybe even years (maybe even never?)
This is it exactly. Positive changes in inflation mean prices aren't going up as fast. They're still going up. They're never going to go down because businesses don't charge less when the alternative is making more money. They only ever charge more with inflation.
Checks out. Not a huge change but a definite trend.
As soon as people have more money to spend, landlords increase rent.
Renting is one of the biggest scams this generation has convinced itself into falling for.
I wasn't able to afford to buy a house until I was over 50 years old, it took a global pandemic, a complete shutdown of the economy, and working from home for multiple years to bank the cash to make it happen.
People don't rent because they CHOOSE to.
How much was your house?
Listed for $374,000, but I had to bid up to $390,000 to get it.
Yeah, you didn't have to spend anywhere near that much.
But you wanted to, so you did.
To buy a house where I live, that's a bargain!
Yeah, there are plenty of other places you can live though.
There are, but you can't make a living there.
It's all proportional.
Let's say you want to live in a low cost of living state:
You aren't buying a $175K house making $12.54 an hour. It's not happening.
Good maths but do it again with median, not average
You need to use median household income, not per capita. It's $49,111 in Mississippi according to your source.
The ratio of home price to household income is typically between 4 and 5 in the US, so the median family should be able to afford the median house in Mississippi.
Household income is absolutely not the right metric to use here, because it'll always be proportional to the cost of the house out of necessity.
For example, if the cost of a house goes up relative to individual income, then more people in the family need to start working more hours, and more people live with roommates.
Household income stays proportionally the same, always, but individual income shows you how much people are struggling.
No, it's not the right metric. Which is why people don't use it.
Imagine you make $160K and buy the nicest house you can afford with that income.
Then you get married, and your spouse makes $100K. Your household income has increased to $260K, which means you can afford an even nicer house.
Your per capita income has decreased to $130K. By your logic, you can't afford a nicer house. In fact, with a second income you might no longer be able to afford your current house. That's nonsense.
When multiple people live in a house they all have the opportunity to contribute to paying for it. Some may contribute a lot, some (like children) may contribute nothing. The house you can afford depends on the total amount everyone contributes, aka household income.
if the cost of a house goes up
This doesn't make sense. The cost of a house is fixed when you buy it. It won't ever go up while you live there.
"If you want to move to a shithole, you can get a good deal on a house" is not the persuasive argument you think it is.
EDIT: Just so you know where this person is coming from, they've moved on to talk about how fascism isn't so bad from a "global perspective" and being anti-fascist is just "tribalism."
That's because it's not my argument. You're being reddit-brained again.
Yeah, there are plenty of other places you can live though.
Sure sounds like your argument to me. But do tell us the non-shithole places you can live where houses are less than $300,000.
Places with median home prices under 300K and Democrats in state government:
Buffalo, NY
Rochester, NY
Michigan
(Since you live in IN, you don't need me to tell you that Michigan is a pretty nice state to live in).
@jordanlund already linked saying the average price for a home is 170k in Mississppi, and even that isn't necessary to find a nice place.
My house was only $60k and it's 1,200 sqft and 10 minutes from a hospital.
The real issue here is your entitlement. You think you're 'too good' to live in places that many others do because you think you're better than them.
Well, if you're so much better than them then pay up, lol. The problem with you people is that you think you're entitled to live in expensive places, but you're not actually valuable enough to society to have a salary that can pay for them. Then you want other people to foot the bill so you can continue to have more than those living in what you deem 'shitholes.'
You'd come across as more genuine if you just admitted it. But you won't. Nobody wants to acknowledge their entitlement, lol.
Do those places have even remotely comparable work, laws, or amenities? Because yeah you can buy a dirt cheap house 5 mountains from the nearest city in rural Tennessee, but it’s a terrible place to live and you won’t be able to find work.
That’s not a crazy price, that’s like outskirts of reasonably sized city price.
This generation? Fucking Romans were complaining about high rent for shitty apartments over 2000 years ago. Don't be a dumbass.
Right... and no generation since has ever seen the value of owning property, right? Lol.
Mark Twain was right. It's easier to fool someone than to convince them they'd been fooled.
See how mad people get in this comment section when someone points out they're being taken for a ride? One person even said they won't get off the ride if it isn't "easy." Lol.
Supply and demand. You're not exempt from them.
Right... and no generation since has ever seen the value of owning property, right? Lol.
Are you under the impression that modern renters are choosing to rent instead of own?
60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck making saving for a down payment impossible for over half the country, and with rates being what they are, mortgages are expensive af.
People are renting because it's the only way to live, not because they think it's neat. People are getting upset at you not because you're pointing out that rent is a scam, but because you're implying it's the fault of the victims
Quoting someone much smarter than you doesn't enhance your unintelligible argument. It makes it dramatically worse.
Oh boy, we got one.
slaps forehead wait I can just buy a house? What a solution!! So easy!
You are being sarcastic but a lot of people who are convinced they can't afford it actually could afford to own the place they rent and have just never crunched the numbers.
Before the rate hike this was probably true, but most areas haven't adjusted to people having about 100k less buying power.
I never said it would be easy.
Do you only do things if they are easy?
I make about $75k a year, but to afford a $700k house (which is a "reasonable" price) near my city (Seattle), I'd have to make $150k per year. The only affordable houses are two hours' drive away, and there are no "starter" homes to buy. I can skrimp and save for the rest of my life (and I am). But unless I get a huge raise (and I'm already above the median national income), buying a house is impossible. Not just hard, economically impossible.
Have you tried just making more money?
Jeez, you poors are just so lazy.
(I really wish this weren't needed, but I think it is) \s
I'm also in Seattle and it's bad out here. I was looking at townhouses last year before the rates went up but couldn't get a mortgage because of a limited amount of work experience since getting my second degree during the pandemic. I was actually surprised that I could have afforded a decent townhouse in like Edmonds or Shoreline until the rates shot up - going from 3.5% to 7% adds something like $1000 a month in interest on a $400k mortgage. Then I realized I have never lived alone before and wasn't sure if buying a place was the best way to try that out lol. Average rent in Seattle right now though is like $2300-$2400 a month which is close to 50% of the take-home income of someone making $100,000 per year. It's insane.
lol yeah dude, I convinced myself to rent
I mean, you live in a major city so yeah.
You're probably never going to leave major cities, nor are you ever going to own property in them.
Yeah. You convinced yourself to rent.
I live in rural Iowa wtf are you talking about? We rent out here too!
I actually am paying off my trailer, though, so someday I could maybe put this on a piece of rural property somewhere and do remote work or something? But like, I never chose this shit - I just stayed where I grew up and got a factory job when my neurosis and undiagnosed dysphoria caused me to flunk out of college. I guess I could go squat in the woods though lol
Its pretty insane we don't invest in our cities anymore when they're the powerhouse of the economy. Not to mention they're a way better use of land than suburbs and rural living. You can find affordable places in Tokyo and so many other cities worldwide that dwarf ours in almost every metric. Cities really aren't the problem, they are actually the potential solution if we change our policies around them and attempt to catch up with countries like Japan.
Hold on everyone, this 17 year old is gonna explain why we're all idiots
Because those two metrics are meaningless for the average person.
Inflation is trending down... After it skyrocketed and is still way above affordable ranges.
Employment rates are high... But those jobs don't pay living wages.
Go check how much savings the average American has, check what an average doctor's visit costs, and then maybe you'll understand the gloom.
Median figures are more accurate and scarier than average.
No one is asking for deflation. They're asking for wages that don't decrease every year due to inflation and companies not giving raises or giving raises so small that it's still a pay decrease since it's not keeping up with inflation.
Wages are now out pacing inflation. So it sounds like you're saying your gloomy about the economy because the president hasnt come in and forced your boss to give you a raise, or hand you a different job with more pay.
Where are you that minimum wages are going up?
Less than 1% of people make minimum wage, so minimum wage isn't really relevant to any discussion.
Yes it is, it is the absolute floor that someone can be paid.
Yes I am aware. That's still not relevant whatsoever.
But it is relevant?
Just like when massive unions get better pay rates (or weekends) it raises the bar for what all other workers expect, except the min wage has MORE effect since it applies across all employment.
"A rising tide lifts all boats"
Yeah sure, less than 1% of working Americans make minimum wage. Gonna need a citation for that one.
And that's counting all laborers, including young people and the heavily disabled who have work programs
And $7.50 is a pointless figure to use as representative of minimum wage. When established, the minimum wage was equivalent to $26 today, and most states had higher minimums even before they went up to $15.
I think we should tie the minimum wage to local (probably generally county/parish) COL, updated biannually.
But the minimum wage currently shapes a miniscule amount of people's bargaining power.
Your number leaves out all of the people whose pay rates are above minimum wage, but are still poverty wages. There is quite a large gap between minimum and poverty, and not in the direction that benefits the working class.
Furthermore, raising the minimum wage leads to people in that gap also getting raises. People can and do benefit tremendously from the minimum wage being raised, even if they have never personally worked at minimum wage. As such, the minimum wage is relevant to far, far more workers than are actually getting it.
Your number leaves out all of the people whose pay rates are above minimum wage, but are still poverty wages.
This is because minimum wage has nothing to do with this discussion
This is my original point.
Furthermore, raising the minimum wage leads to people in that gap also getting raises.
They're already getting raises because wages are up across the board. There are two jobs for every person right now and that isn't likely to change for a long time.
I'm sorry, how in the fuck is the minimum wage not related to the fact that rising prices and inflation are causing people to struggle financially? That's like saying the tides have nothing to do with surfing.
And sure, wages are up, the problem is that if you bother to account for inflation and COL, the purchasing power they provide is down. That's what people mean when they say "real wages." I'm sure you know that on some level, even if for purposes of this discussion, you're pretending not to.
I’m sorry, how in the fuck is the minimum wage not related to the fact that rising prices and inflation are causing people to struggle financially?
Because a small enough people make.minimum wage that it has no bearing on overall price pressures for labor.
Idk why you think I'm "pretending" anything.
I think you're pretending not to understand the relevance of the minimum wage because two comments ago I said this:
Furthermore, raising the minimum wage leads to people in that gap also getting raises. People can and do benefit tremendously from the minimum wage being raised, even if they have never personally worked at minimum wage. As such, the minimum wage is relevant to far, far more workers than are actually getting it.
And you proceeded to act like I didn't.
He's a troll and not a good faith interlocutor so don't expect honesty from him.
I understand you said it, but that doesn't make it true.
It would be true if any significant number of people made minimum wage, but they don't.
I mean, at least you acknowledged that I said it this time. Even if I'm now slightly less convinced that you deliberately aren't getting it, because you still didn't seem to understand what I was actually arguing.
They say it takes exponentially more effort to debunk bullshit than it does to spread it, and when I'm making a real effort to make a point and your rebuttal is basically "nuh uh," that seems to hold true. Fortunately, I don't have to type out the argument myself when I can just post Charlynn Teter's excellent essay, sources included, about it instead. https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2021/01/30/no-more-lies-the-truth-about-raising-the-minimum-wage/ I look forward to how you "nuh uh" this.
Told ya he's a troll.
A verbose troll, but still a troll.
So, couple things.
First, and least important (but still important), this article is out of date
In California, 96 percent of workers who would benefit from the proposed minimum wage increase to $15 are over the age of 20, and 58 percent are over the age of 30
This data is not accurate after wage increases
Second, this article has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I have nothing against raising the minimum wage. I think it should be tied to local cost of living and reassessed every 2 years.
What we're talking about is that raising the minimum wage would not provide the price pressure on the labor market you think it will, because there are already more jobs than people and wages are already rising as a result (though slowing, in which case your argument may someday become relevant again).
The market is unlikely to shift away from labor for over a generation, barring some ludicrous advancement in AI and robotics. Our population is shrinking while our economy is growing. That's bad for employers in price-sensitive markets but great for literally all employees (until they get old, but whatcha gonna do).
Raise the minimum wage. Go nuts. It won't affect average wages in any significant way, because not enough people are on the minimum wage.
While it's true that less than 1.3% of people make minimum wage, it's important to recognize that the minimum wage sets a baseline for the broader labor market. Even though a small percentage of workers are directly affected, the minimum wage often serves as a reference point for wage negotiations and can have a cascading effect on wages above the minimum. While the direct impact may be limited to a specific percentage of workers, the broader implications of minimum wage policies are relevant to a much larger economic context.
Dude, that is the federal minimum, which hasn't been raised in over 30 years. The states had minimums closer to $10 to $12 in the last 20 years, and many went up to $15 in the last 3 years. That is still much less buying power than minimum wage was at its establishment.
That's not relevant to any discussion tho. 1.3% of people are at the federal min
Dude I corrected you on this EXACT BS you posted earlier.
You might just be a chat bot.
If someone is claiming that the rise In minimum wages in many states does not impact the "wages are growing faster than inflation" assertion, it is entirely relevant as many of those people saw a 33% raise over the last few years, and that is way more than 1.3% of wage earners.
What rise in federal min wage are you talking about?
You are a troll, and I refuse to continue explaining things you refuse to understand.
Lol ok bud.
Words just don't mean anything to you at all, do they
You are one to talk.
I'm here to help and provide information or assistance on a wide range of topics. If something seems weird or if you have a specific question or topic you'd like to discuss, feel free to let me know, and I'll do my best to assist you!
Oh, I thought we were talking about actual wages, not the minimum wage. I'm not even sure how that makes sense in the context.
Most of the places around me pay way less than the actual cost of living, like the average is maybe $12 an hour max but I'd say it's more like $10. Cost of living estimates vary but for a single adult it's often around $2500/month, which is far more than you'll make working at almost anywhere here full time. Even worse, most establishments are actually choosing to short-staff themselves to save money, so most aren't even looking to increase employment.
So you can work full time and still not have enough to just survive, then if you want to do university/trade school and aren't elligible for e.g. HOPE then you could have to pick up 2 full time jobs and still somehow have the time/energy left to do college (which most people wouldn't after that and would just drop out). Some people are able to live with family to reduce or eliminate the housing cost, and a few people are privileged enough to have their family pay for their whole college, but if that's not the case you're completely fucked.
And this is in suburban/rural Georgia. I can only imagine how shit it is for someone who can't afford college, a car, whatever else in a shitty place like Texas or Florida.
One of the things that frustrates me the most about this site (and reddit but it seems even worse here) is the inability of people to follow the context.
The article is about how people, wide spread, are rating the economy as poor despite good economic data. The top level comment is talking about not wanting deflation, but rising wages so they don't lose out to inflation. I point out that wages are rising and outpacing inflation, so by the metric they used the economy is doing well. Then someone inexplicably brings in the minimum wage (FTR, "Workers in the bottom pay quartile also saw median "real" income gains of 6% since 2019, more than the rest of the income distribution."[https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-job-market-softens-gains-minority-groups-hang-balance-2023-11-27/#:~:text=Workers%20in%20the%20bottom%20pay,rest%20of%20the%20income%20distribution] But who cares about the facts? They don't really mean anything anymore.). I point out that this isn't about the minimum wage (BTW, I agree that it should be raised) and people still go off on how in their anecdotal experience minimum wage is not enough to get by.
It's like anything to ignore reality. It's the same ridiculousness I see from conservatives when I'm debating climate change: just ignore the facts, cherry-pick some data, throw in some anecdotes, and try to reframe the debate.
It's the subjective experience of not seeing the wage growth themselves, combined with things not being acceptable for a longer time than Biden or Trump's presidency. Things are improving right now, but haven't caught up to people having economic security. When you've sunk deep enough, it takes a longer period of rising to finally catch a breath. Basically, the current growth must sustain for longer to get more people into a good position. If things continue on their current path, people will calm down.
It's also true that necessities like housing have inflated in price far faster than other goods, again, for longer than a decade. Unnecessary goods might be cheaper than ever, but you NEED things like shelter and there are NO alternatives. Despite good competition, the demand is inelastic, so limited excess supply translates to soaring prices, plus, other factors are at play.
It also isn't a good idea ignore subjective experiences in general. Not only are people almost always right to be unhappy on some level, invalidating their lived experiences isn't a good idea. Democrats will not be successful if they don't listen to people's displeasure. Basic economic measures are essential, but not sufficient to make voters happier.
There's not much I disagree with in your post. However, this all stems from a poster saying that (effectively) they don't want deflation, but for wages to out-pace inflation, and I pointed out that this is already happening. By their own metric they should be happy with the economy, even if they haven't personally benefitted from it, but instead they are unhappy with it but that's based on a false belief.
It also isn’t a good idea ignore subjective experiences in general. Not only are people almost always right to be unhappy on some level, invalidating their lived experiences isn’t a good idea. Democrats will not be successful if they don’t listen to people’s displeasure. Basic economic measures are essential, but not sufficient to make voters happier.
And this is basically what the article is all about, that the economy is actually going in the right direction, but everyone thinks it isn't. Spreading the false belief that we are still in situation where inflation is out-pacing wages is just further spreading the false belief that is making people upset. I get that people still have a ways to go before they make up for what was lost to inflation, but being constantly grim about the state of the economy for bad reasons isn't helping anyone. It's probably just making it worse.
It's the fine line of not saying people are correct in their specific criticisms, while still validating their lived experience. I don't expect most conservative liberals to do this, but Democratic politicians must to win elections.
Sure, but people should also try to be accurate when they are making claims as to why they are upset with the economy, especially if they are making a very general claim as to why people are upset.
And this is basically what the article is all about, that the economy is actually going in the right direction, but everyone thinks it isn’t. Spreading the false belief that we are still in situation where inflation is out-pacing wages is just further spreading the false belief that is making people upset. I get that people still have a ways to go before they make up for what was lost to inflation, but being constantly grim about the state of the economy for bad reasons isn’t helping anyone. It’s probably just making it worse.
Okay, so this actually misses how this "false belief" has spread.
The thing about inflation is it doesn't go away when it goes down. There hasn't been deflation, so when prices rose they just stayed high even as inflation cooled. It doesn't matter that prices aren't rising as fast as they were before because the prices are still high. Wages, on the other hand, lagged behind inflation for so long that they're still behind even if the rates are more even now. This has to keep up for several years to give wages have time to catch up; until then people are still going to be mad about inflation even if it is getting better.
Wages, on the other hand, lagged behind inflation for so long that they’re still behind even if the rates are more even now.
This is what I meant when I said:
I get that people still have a ways to go before they make up for what was lost to inflation
But, again, the claim is that they just want wages that won't be beaten by inflation (again, effectively) and that is the case now. So what they want is what is happening now, yet still unhappy. Your post is a movement of the goal-posts. I get it that it still sucks, but we're going in the right direction, especially on the point they made. This should result in a more cheery-outlook for people basing their opinion on wages out-pacing inflation.
They want the pain to stop now. That's my point. Only people with a financial cushion can sit around and wait for things to get better, everyone else is suffering. People are not going to be patient for relief.
I'm coming late to this rodeo. I see minimum wage as relevant if the recent statutory raises of the minimum wage are behind the "wages are rising faster than inflation" point. I need to see a distribution chart showing which raises are rising faster, because a lot of pay went from $10 to $15 in the last few years, and that's a 33% pay increase for those people. What if the people earning between $30 and $60 saw no raises, or worse, lost their jobs and got new ones for less?
I need to see a distribution chart showing which raises are rising faster
I'd be curious to see what your research finds on this too.
Most of the places around me pay way less than the actual cost of living
This is mathematically impossible, unless you live in a place that's a combination of heavy commuting and like, tourism.
And this is in suburban/rural Georgia
Yeah it's definitely mathematically impossible. Your standards of living are out of whack with local standards of living.
Even worse, most establishments are actually choosing to short-staff themselves to save money
You live in a dying town.
"Mathematically impossible" my ass, everyone commutes 2 hours to the nearest city because work outside of urban areas is unsustainable. And no, the county has had a steady high growth rate for around 3 decades by now because of the prestige from Atlanta rubbing off + low cost to buy a house make Georgia seem appealing to middle class people, and aggressive advertising by the county makes people move here, it's not "dying".
"Local standards of living" are what I gave you, that's what statistics say. If you don't like science you can just say so. Hell, it's not that hard to just Google "median income in Georgia" (spoiler alert: median personal income is $30,000, which is very clearly unsustainable).
In this day and age, it's near impossible to survive out of school if you don't have family willing to pay for you. Hell, if I didn't have family to fall back on I would probably have been in the streets starving rather than be getting my degree.
Wages may be outpacing inflation, but so have prices for a long time, and wages haven't reflected increases in productivity since around the 70s or so. In about 2015, I remember looking up some statistics and finding out that wages for the average worker had decreased about 5% since the 70s while CEO compensation had more than doubled, when you account for inflation. The most absurd example I can think of off the top of my head is that, when adjusted for inflation, the cost of a taco from Taco Bell has doubled since the 90s. There's some great comparisons out there, but some stuff has increased at more than double the rate of inflation since the 80s, with the biggest offender being the cost of college, which has increased by something like 1,153% (if I remember right, it's been several years since I've looked at those statistics).
Plus, local conditions never reflect the national averages/medians, so there are probably areas and industries that are seeing massive booms in wages and work to life balance and such, but there's others that aren't and some areas where even booming industries are seeing a decline. The IRS report for 2021 says that 51% of Americans made $15,000 or less that year. During my 20s (around the 2010s), I made $20,000-$30,000 a year working at a local fish market. This would put me probably somewhere around the top 45% of Americans by annual wages comparatively, but due to the high CoL in my hometown, I couldn't afford to rent a studio apartment. The lowest rent I found in that time was a single room in somebody's house with "occasional kitchen access" for $1,000 a month. Studio apartments started at $2,000 a month. The average American has something like $20,000 in their bank account, while the median American has $600.
I'm reminded of all the articles I see about people spending their "pandemic savings" where I think to myself, "What savings? The $1,000 check we got that some idiot of a politician said that everybody would be using to go buy a brand new car? 2 years ago they were talking about how we had all gone through the majority of our savings just to keep up with CoL increases."
Those charts are federal data, and you are correct about the winners of productivity gains. I can tell you why "wages are going up" - many states raised minimum wages from as low as $10/hr to $15, over a period of 3 years. The working poor got raises and are still working poor. Also, these people can't save their raises. They spend them on basic necessities, so there is a good chunk of economic growth right there. That's an example of an economic multiplier effect >= 1.0.
Yeah, the "fight for $15" has been going on so long that if minimum wage had kept up with inflation, it would be more like $24-30 an hour now. Just another example of people twisting the numbers to show the conclusions that they want.
Because interest rates are insane trapping people in homes they no longer want but can't afford to leave?
Speaking of... My car got totalled at the end of October, shopping for a new one, I saw interest rates for me between 7 and 8%, for other folks, I saw one as high as 12.25%(!) On a CAR LOAN.
Because interest rates are insane trapping people in homes they no longer want but can’t afford to leave?
I'm in this comment and I don't like it.
Least you got a home. I am on a very long lease and landlord is getting offers. I got about 2.5 years until someone just offers him a million bucks in cash. Then I am out thousands of dollars in moving expense plus changing my kids school. Plan to fight it but I am sure I will lose.
Sorry bro.
Try to own property as quickly as you can. Unfortunately, even the market for that has gone to shit thanks to investment companies.
This is what we get for breeding for greed. Gotta stop rewarding shitbags just because they have money and start holding them accountable for how they got it.
It won't happen, though, lol. These problems won't get solved just like global warming 🤷. We don't want to solve them.
Well there's one way to solve these problems 🤠👉
Yeah, I'm aware it can be worse. I could go into details about how I got boned, but that's not the point either of us were making. I have friends that rent and the only ones that didn't get their nuts put in a vice were already under section 8. One couple just had to uproot again because the landlord sold. Again. Second time in three years. I can't help them, and I hate it.
Interest rates should never have been that low to begin with. It was basically free money for the wealthy, and it's how housing became such an investment for big businesses. The rates we have now are still at historic lows, they just feel high compared to the bonkers low rates of the last couple decades. I understand the frustration 100%, but lowering the rates again is NOT the answer at all.
For Christmas dinner I vote we just eat the fucking rich
I agree, but we gotta be more thoughtful about it.
I recently had a crazy interaction where I was apparently "The Rich" that needs eaten because I landed a job with a good salary.
Working people aren't the enemy, needs to be made clear as well. Hell, even corporate headwigs raking in a few million aren't even close to your enemy in this regard either.
Sounds like jealousy honestly. I've had a couple conversations here in the past that because I went out and started my own electrical contracting business instead of working for someone that all of a sudden in the bourgeoise. Like, dude, why in the hell would I keep myself in a position of struggling when I have the skillset and knowledge to make a lot more money, though I'm in a small tourist town so it's not like I have a bunch of commercial contracts. I have one employee, who makes damn good money for an apprentice. I don't have health insurance because I can't fucking afford it without being back in the poor house. I ain't affording a house anytime soon, and my rent is $2k/month. Most of my gains for this year are going to be diminished because I have to buy a new truck to replace my old car with almost 200k miles on it, and interest rates are fucked. And then taxes take the rest because this country hates people striking out on their own. I make just enough to be slightly ahead of myself year over year, but my wife and I aren't on a beach in Bora Bora eating bons bons.
Point is, people are angry, and I get it, I'm pretty irritated too. But don't let people drag you down for your successes just because they're subscribing to the crabs in a bucket mentality.
"Why Americans feel gloomy about the economy despite paying a lot more for things than the official inflation numbers claim and having a wage that isn't rising as high as official numbers claim"
Not to leave out unemployment has run out for thousands, making the numbers look good.
Exactly. When my benefits ran out 2 months ago, I no longer showed up as unemployed. Thankfully, I finally got a job after nine months of anxiety.
While I have a better income than before, it's only about 10%, while prices on everything (that i need for daily survival) went up at least 20%, and food nearly doubled. No way I can get a house - those prices went up at least 40% here in the last 4 years. New car? Fuggettaboutit. Basic sedans going for 30k! Used ones probably for $24k, from what I read. Since when does COBRA at $1900 per month for one person make sense? It's a slap in the face.
Didn't the student loan moratorium also end? Something started back, maybe evictions too. None of it is good.
"falling inflation" means prices are still rising...the rate of increase is what has decreased. What we need is negative inflation...or said differently, price decrease.
You don't actually want that. It encourages people to "invest" by sticking hard cash in a mattress. It rewards people for doing absolutely nothing but taking money out of the economy.
Ideal (if we're keeping a monetary exchange society, anyway) is low (<3%), predictable inflation combined with wages increasing in proportion to productivity. We had a period of relatively low inflation followed by a giant spike, plus wage gains that are nowhere near matching productivity gains over the last 50 years, and that's where things hurt. Capitalism doesn't seem capable of this, however, as it's always chasing the next hype cycle that leads to these spikes and lulls.
As opposed to what we have going on right now, which is to punish working class people so ruling class people can still have prosperity.
Deflation means stagnation or crash in economic terms
Cool, working class people aren't really thriving right now anyway. Maybe an economy crash could result in a restructuring of wealth and new tax policy.
Sure. I don't believe in infinite growth either, I'm unsure however who'd come up on top. The new aristocracy?
And yet it is exactly what the people need to be happy
Meditate on that point
For every economic problem, the burden falls on the working class. Deflation makes people unhappy, high inflation makes people unhappy, and low inflation is the "best" because things get worse more slowly. Capitalism only helps workers when large enough innovations happens. Otherwise, the owners capture all the benefits of growth, or squeeze the workers to make the appearance of it.
The majority of people are in debt. If you owe $1000, you'll still owe $1000 but $1000 will be more money than it is now.
If prices drop then you have more money to pay for that 1000 dollars is how proponents are looking at it, i assume
You don't though. Wages don't rise to keep up with inflation, but they'd sure as shit drop to keep up with deflation.
"falling inflation" means prices are still rising...the rate of increase is what has decreased. What we need is negative inflation...or said differently, price decrease.”
Im not arguing validity, but just commenting on how i think people en masse will hear what top comment actually said.
You very well may be correct. But it requires the inclusion of wage change which the top comment didnt include. Minimum wage is a protection against employers lowering wages. So for those who are already at that minimum, they will be in a better position
Assuming they still have a job. Which im sure you would argue they wouldnt. And i wouldnt bet against you if you did argue that would happen
People have always been, in the grand sense, pretty dumb.
True
Wages need to keep up with inflation, else it's a bubble. 😉 But we fundamentally agree
What you are describing is deflation and it's only happened twice during the history of the United States. It is also generally looked at as a bad thing.
Is inflation generally looked at as a good thing or a bad thing?
Ive only ever heard people complain about inflation.
If they are both bad things im willing to give the bad thing that improves my life a try over the bad thing that makes everything more expensive.
Granted i have nothing so im probably on the side of things that is least effected by the bad side of deflation.
If i can spend more money on the things i want to, it will absolutely help small local businesses near me
A small amount of inflation is healthy. You REALLY want to avoid deflation, because that means the value of your money is increasing. If people know their money will be worth more in the future, they won't spend it, incentivized to save and sit on it. That means on average everyone spends less, slowing the economy down and starting into a recession/depression.
Gonna slap this with the good old "I am not an economist" disclaimer, juat what I remember from economics class in high school
Only problem that right now people also may decide against buying because they can't afford it. Also, I'm not sure world is producing goods at a healthy rate either, more like we've got a bit of an overproduction
Yeah, obviously wages SHOULD be keeping up with inflation and inflation should be a low, stable amount. That's the problem, not inflation in general.
What you learned in high school puts you miles ahead of 99% of these comments
People still have to spend money, hoarding wealth makes no sense if you can't eat and pay for services and utilities.
The idea is that deflation affects the investor class. Assuming a "healthy" 3% inflation rate, the value of your savings decreases by 3% per year. That means you lose money if you can't invest in something earning more than 3%. Traditionally interest rates have been around 0%, which means bonds and savings accounts also pay 0%. So, your only options to not lose the value of your savings is to invest in the stock market, risky businesses, or real estate.
As a middle class person that means that it mostly affects my 401k, but for millionaires and billionaires, deflation means that they would sit on their hoard instead of investing it. Traditionally that means no funding for new businesses, inventions and ideas, and that's also why the investor class pays much lower taxes than the working classes.
But nowadays "investment" seems to mostly be buying good companies and enshitifying them or bribing politicians, so maybe it would be better if we encouraged the rich to sit on their money instead of using it to make society worse.
Japan has been struggling with deflation (=decrease of prices) for a good 25 years now... you really don't want that happening. Ideally you want something around 2% inflation.
What are the issues with deflation other than that people wouldn't want to invest in whatever is available?
You also shouldn't purchase, since goods will get cheaper over time. Also don't take loans for the same reasons. Basically you should take your money in cash and sit on it.
That falls apart with necessities like food and medicine, doesn't it?
Those are considered inelastic goods, yes. They are also way too small an amount to keep an economy going. Most things we spend money on aren't like that, and demand going down like so will affect markets; companies not producing necessities or for export will fold if it lasts too long, etc.
Deflation is a death spiral. China is going through it rn. The currency gets stronger, but then people wait to buy stuff like houses because it will be cheaper in a few months. It creates a snowball effect as people all start holding off on buying and selling stuff, wanting the best deal possible, or then being unable to buy things if people hold off on selling.
I can't remember the last time people felt good about the economy.
I can... but I was born in the 70s
I'd say it was pre-2008, but I was born in the 90s.
Doesn't take a genius to figure out that when the economy restabilizes, that doesn't mean the cost of consumer goods go down or wages go up, it just means the billionaires running the show aren't losing millions
My son graduated with a degree in economics in 2020 and still hasn't found a job. He's not counted in the unemployment numbers because he hasn't filed for benefits. We need to look at labor participation as well as underemployment instead of the useless stats being used in this article. Real wages have tanked. People are running up debt just to buy groceries. It's desperate out there.
He’s not counted in the unemployment numbers because he hasn’t filed for benefits.
In the Current Population Survey, people are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
They were not employed during the survey reference week.
They were available for work during the survey reference week, except for temporary illness.
They made at least one specific, active effort to find a job during the 4-week period ending with the survey reference week (see active job search methods) OR they were temporarily laid off and expecting to be recalled to their job.
There are other statistics measuring unemployment claims, but when you hear, "the unemployment rate for Oct 2023 is 3.9%", that is unrelated to benefits.
Maybe it's because everyone is struggling with high costs of housing, food, and healthcare, among other things, while wages have remained flat and stagnant for decades.
I really wish news outlets would stop pretending this is some big mystery. Shit is too expensive.
IMO it's the inverse, we don't make enough. The 1% have been keeping wages stagnant. We can't stop the price of goods from going up, but we can increase pay from it sharing the bottom line. As soon as interest rates re-appeared, all the free money that was sitting around for the taking disappeared. Sooner than later, we'll be paying micro-transactions for crap that was previously able to be paid for by selling us ads. But that money isn't coming back to us.
Part of what's happening on this front (things are expensive) is antitrust-related.
Mergers and Acquisitions among competing companies, and 'vertical integration' along supply chains (both of which ought to get a lot more antitrust attention than they have for a long time) often means the resulting companies control supply enough that they can throttle supply and look, there's not enough of the things! Prices then go up- and the loss in productive capacity that happens when competing firms consume each other is behind those mysterious 'supply chain issues' that led to empty shelves during the pandemic.
The election wave immediately following Watergate swept a lot of then-young, centrist Democrats into the halls of congress- and in so doing, also retired the Democrats' institutional interest in anti-monopoly enforcement. Since then, neglecting antitrust enforcement on boring things like commodities and pharmaceuticals has been a bipartisan affair.
Someone feel free to explain these two simultaneous headlines-
People who feel bad buy things to feel better. They might not be able to afford a new house or a car or medical care, but they’ll spend something on gifts.
Also, maybe it’s members of the owning class buying things. They’re getting more money all the time, whether the economy does “good” or not. So they’ve always got money to blow on shit.
Plus it specifically says online sales. Online sales could be up 7.5%, but brick and mortar store sales could be down 50% for all we know.
You can buy a tv for cheaper than a loaf of bread.
Jesus, what kind of bread are you eating?
Only the best ritziest! I saved all year for it.
Sure, no problem. Spending rose by 7.5%, inflation until recent months was at 10%. Net real sales is down by 3.5%. People are spending more for less. This is why we are gloomy. Still, I recognize things are getting better on the macro level.
The unemployment is low because people have a gun to their head. Inflation is falling, but it's not zero, therefore everything is still getting more expensive.
eCoNoMiCs.
"most prices are high and still rising"
Pretty obvious that corporations are price gouging to get their friendly fascist lifetime dictator back in power.
My wife and I are making more money than we ever have in the past. However, before that I was unemployed and was forced to find some way to keep being able to buy groceries, gas for the car, and helping my wife pay bills. As such, the only way I saw to do so was to take out a credit card or two, and they quickly got maxed out. So now I’m stuck paying $700/month in credit card bills, as well as dealing with the increasing food and rent prices. Our bills take a larger percentage of our total wages than before. And sure, part of that’s my own fault, but at the time it was do what I did or starve and get evicted. I wasn’t about to let that happen to my wife.
We’re still able to survive, but it’s by the skin of our teeth.
I'm in a similar boat. Had to float on credit for months. When I eventually manage to get a job it means I'll be able to start digging myself out of a hole. Forget about being ahead.
Yeah, even utility bills are through the roof. I just got my October gas bill in the new house I'm renting, $150. I'm nervous to see what that's going to be in January, it's already cold and the furnace has been cranking.
Dang, it must be rough living on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
Not quite to that degree, but not far off.
$4 for a bag of potato chips.
25ct for 3 decent potatoes at my town.
SACK of 50 pounds for 12$
Wanna start a business?
Oh boy inflation is falling.
Unless it's greedy C-level execs falling out of windows there won't be a change in the cost. The issue is greed, inflation was just the scapegoat.
It also kinda glances over the fact that the boost of inflation is there permanently and this is the new baseline, and no wages have kept up to it at all while everyone is getting nickel and dimed to death.
100% this. It's great that inflation is only 4% now, but the price of nearly everything doubled since 2019, and wages, particularly for middle class and upper middle class have not increased enough. And the modest wage increases for the poor were used to further justify the price increases. And prices never go down, because "deflation=bad".
But, I will say that greedflation hit worldwide and the USA weathered it better than many other countries.
I don’t get this argument. If everything is greedily overpriced why not just go into business for yourself? Like if eggs are so overpriced, go buy chickens and start selling eggs. Prices will go down. Complaining about greed or expecting the government to do something won’t help anything. That’s the real reason Americans feel gloomy, they keep expecting someone else to do something, like the government or c-level executives.
I wish I lived in your fantasy world where individuals who are being adversely affected by the cost of eggs can still somehow magically not only afford the startup costs of a farm, and manage to not only sell eggs at prices beating out major agribusiness, but can also do so at a sufficient scale to affect system-level change. What absolute starry-eyed naivete.
I wish I lived in your fantasy world where individuals who are being adversely affected by the cost of eggs can still somehow magically not only afford the startup costs of a farm, and manage to not only sell eggs at prices beating out major agribusiness, but can also do so at a sufficient scale to affect system-level change. What absolute starry-eyed naivete.
You can raise chickens in about a square meter of space, you don't need a farm...plus you missed the point, that was merely an example. Point is, stop complaining and expecting things to be fixed for you. Do something constructive.
Alright, so what individual actions are you personally undertaking to affect the kinds of systemic change we need for our economy to work for all of us? Surely if your ideology is founded on reality, you're making real change, right?
For me, personally, I am advocating for policy changes that would benefit us. My efficacy is limited, because my only real option is to bother my elected officials about it when I'm not busy working longer hours for lower real wages just to survive, but given that I believe policy changes are the only way to actually solve any of our systemic problems, I am at least ideologically consistent.
I grow a lot of my own produce and am looking into a chicken coop, funnily enough.
I don't expect handouts or the government to step in. My point was that I'm not gonna cheer about inflation falling because the problem is something different entirely. Inflation is just a symptom of the real issue.
You can stop being obtuse and trying to deflect blame away from greedy corpo twats whenever you'd like.
THIS JUST IN!People raked over coals for nearly 4 years are feeling charred!
CEO's struggle to find uncharted adjacent talking points about the future economy as the middle class shrinks like a dick in a cold stream, as they unforgivablely pretend to scratch their heads while literally stealing babies from mothers. The statistics are IN, and they show that corporations do not care to provide safe as advertised products. Mothers, as expected, should be uneasy to have children since their offspring are not only more likely to have developmental problems due to microplastics in their bloodstreams, PFAFs in their bloodstream, and Teflon in their...um..everything... Along with the volatile markets, and sub standard pay increases that specifically affect everyone, except the A+ class that have trust fund money and live without feelings or care for any individuals, but the mothers must give birth for jesu... I mean for milit... I mean population contr...I mean moral values that age demographics that can't medically have children uphold. Wait. I meant because Jesus. I almost had it the first time. I really meant for Jesus. He was a swell guy, as long as you don't call him a middle eastern jew. Anyways, here's Jim with the latest CTE-ffective tackles from last night's game.
Because the 'numbers' that neoliberals have decided are the indicators of a "good" economy mean almost nothing to, in all likely hood, 95% of Americans.
Measuring the right thing leads to inconvenient conclusions (age till retirement, income at retirement, income independence, buying power, home ownership, business ownership, union membership, etc.)
Bloody well hate the neoliberals. One was arguing with me on reddit that because people in Kenya are better off, compared to the 80s, I should stop complaining.
Like ok I am happy for the people of Kenya. I got nothing against them. So yeah good job. Now can my healthcare costs please go down? Because I am pretty confident that they can and the people of Kenya can also be doing well. One really doesn't impact the other that much.
No, you see, because TVs have gotten consistently cheaper (they're like the only thing to have done so), everything's working!
And the main reason they're cheaper is because all of them are data harvesting machines. What a fun world where even your habits are a commodity!
Like they even give a shit about Kenya. Just blatant manipulation.
I love that they chose a term to further muddy the waters between conservatives and liberals.
I hear neoliberal and I think, “huh, is the a new liberal?” Nope. It’s the exact fucking opposite.
That term isn't new nor is it meant to muddy any waters. Liberals are not leftists.
That’s exactly what leftists are. The left is liberal. The right is conservative.
Outside the US, "liberal" often means "libertarian", not leftist. The Liberals in the UK and in Australia are very pro-business. The leftist parties in both countries, and elsewhere, call themselves "Labor" not "Liberal".
In the US, "neo-liberals" often refers to people who wanted to install pro-business regimes in other countries, like Iraq...
Whenever you see reference to neoliberalism or someone mentions 'leftists' relative to 'liberals' it is in context with classical liberalism.
The wiki page is a pretty good jumping off point to understand some of the distinctions and discourse.
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
No, the left is socialist, the center is liberal, the right is conservative
Fuck neoliberalism. Glad I found out what it was. It really highlights everything that is wrong with the American economy.
... because my purchasing power is much lower than two years ago and my wages aren't remotely keeping up with profiteering inflation? Because I have to be very careful around Christmas to not overspend and I get to explain to the kids why there's only a few presents under the tree? They'll be okay with it, but as a person who has children to take care of it, it's crushing to go backwards year to year in what you're able to provide? Because a 3/4 full shopping cart today (not much meat) was $179 today? And we have a fixed rate mortgage! I can't envision the pressures people who are renting or trying to buy a home right now are going through. Anyone saying "it's all good out there!" can get fucked.
No kids to take care of, but my fridge just went out today. This spoiled most of the food in the fridge as I can't pick up a new one until tomorrow, and the of a new fridge and restocking my fridge pretty much cancels Xmas gifts for the family. I feel bad every year because they get my wife and I all kinds of cool stuff and it seems like every year I'm stuck telling them, "Maybe I'll be less broke next year" Not quite the same, I know, but it still makes me feel aweful...
Meanwhile the owner of my company just bought a 5th wheel camper trailer and hitch for his truck in June because he felt like going camping, and is having a 6 bedroom house built for his son on his ranch because his sons wife is having a baby.
This world is fucked for the working class truly.
This isn't probably what you want to hear right now, but I've been much happier giving homemade gifts to family and friends. I found a couple of things people really enjoy that I make and they all look forward to it every year. For me, it's pork jerky. That might not work for you because you need a dehydrator but I can post the recipe if you want. It's a lot of work so no one ever makes it, but when they receive it for Christmas they know I put a lot of time and love in and I really think that's what Christmas should be about. It's really cheap... Mostly two or three large pork loins covers my entire Christmas list.
Other family members have started to do the same. My brother makes really good homemade caramel popcorn. My sister made some rum infusion to give out. Another sister even one time even made Dominoes somehow with resin.
If you are able to find time and energy to spread your love for your family and friends Christmas is a lot of fun.
This is a great idea! But I will have to go with something other than meat. A fair amount of my wife's side of the family is vegetarian. I'm also not that great at cooking lol one of my thoughts this year was to do some of my stencil spraypaints on canvas, as I have a huge stock of canvases and spray paint I never used when I stopped doing it years ago. I just wish I had more time to create some stencils.
Wait... All your food spoiled in a single day? Was your fridge made of cardboard? It should be able to remain cold for at least a day, probably 2-3.
It's from 1986 and not insulated well. Between that and my wife keeping the thermostat and mordor temp, and opening the fridge for long periods of time not knowing it wasn't working, it turned into a hotbox.
I can't believe how expensive thanksgiving shopping was this year. I hit nearly 200 dollars.
We hit $200 very easily just buying household essentials, it seems like. Heaven help us if we need paper towels, toilet paper, contact solution, the 'cheap' shampoo and conditioner, plus a few cleaning supplies all at the same time. $200 comes at you fast on those shopping days.
Dang, I was just thinking about how my mom got a raise years ago when I was still a kid and it practically changed our life. All of a sudden we were eating out more. All of a sudden we had nicer things. All of a sudden my mom wasn't stressed anymore.
It's sad to see how people are now experiencing the opposite of that. It's sad they're experiencing that when, in absolute terms, we are more productive than ever.
Greed really is the worst thing we face as a species in the modern age. It's a shame so many people are gung-ho about supporting it.
The disparity in wealth needs to shrink instead of grow. Otherwise, these problems will only get worse over time.
I feel like I have been seeing the same article once a month since 2007.
A. Unemployment numbers are basically a lie at this point. The only number that comes even close to representating the situation is the workforce participation rate. Question: what percent of people are employed? Answer: what percent of people are employed. It is simple as that. If you look at pretty much every month the US hits a new low. Over a third of the adult population did not earn $20 dollars last week. There was a slight trending down right before 2007 crash but not significant. A deep dive into the numbers shows that this is not the result of retirement, it is the result of prime working age males dropping out.
B. Who cares if inflation is low at this moment? That is like arguing that everything is fine the previous 5 minutes when a car crash happened 6 minutes ago.
Peices of garbage keep telling us that everything is fine when it fucking isnt
I really like that car crash analogy or whatever you want to call it. It isn't like sudden positive changes in inflation or job numbers magically fixes QOL for people overnight. It can take weeks...months, maybe even years (maybe even never?)
This is it exactly. Positive changes in inflation mean prices aren't going up as fast. They're still going up. They're never going to go down because businesses don't charge less when the alternative is making more money. They only ever charge more with inflation.
Checks out. Not a huge change but a definite trend.
Source: https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm
Corporate profits ≠ my wallet
Corporate profits <- your wallet
Because it's a bullshit narrative. Cost of living keeps going up. But inflation doesn't count rent, groceries, or gas.
For what it's worth gas has come down quite a bit the last few weeks.
Rent is going to go up as long as it's able.
As soon as people have more money to spend, landlords increase rent.
Renting is one of the biggest scams this generation has convinced itself into falling for.
I wasn't able to afford to buy a house until I was over 50 years old, it took a global pandemic, a complete shutdown of the economy, and working from home for multiple years to bank the cash to make it happen.
People don't rent because they CHOOSE to.
How much was your house?
Listed for $374,000, but I had to bid up to $390,000 to get it.
Yeah, you didn't have to spend anywhere near that much.
But you wanted to, so you did.
To buy a house where I live, that's a bargain!
Yeah, there are plenty of other places you can live though.
There are, but you can't make a living there.
It's all proportional.
Let's say you want to live in a low cost of living state:
https://www.ramseysolutions.com/real-estate/cheapest-states-to-live-in
Mississippi.
OK, I don't know why anyone would want to live there, but sure, let's look at the numbers.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/MS/BZA115221
Per capita income in past 12 months (in 2021 dollars), 2017-2021 - $26,807
Persons in poverty, percent - 19.1%
https://www.zillow.com/home-values/34/ms/
"The average Mississippi home value is $174,932."
You aren't buying a $175K house making $12.54 an hour. It's not happening.
Good maths but do it again with median, not average
You need to use median household income, not per capita. It's $49,111 in Mississippi according to your source.
The ratio of home price to household income is typically between 4 and 5 in the US, so the median family should be able to afford the median house in Mississippi.
Household income is absolutely not the right metric to use here, because it'll always be proportional to the cost of the house out of necessity.
For example, if the cost of a house goes up relative to individual income, then more people in the family need to start working more hours, and more people live with roommates.
Household income stays proportionally the same, always, but individual income shows you how much people are struggling.
No, it's not the right metric. Which is why people don't use it.
Imagine you make $160K and buy the nicest house you can afford with that income.
Then you get married, and your spouse makes $100K. Your household income has increased to $260K, which means you can afford an even nicer house.
Your per capita income has decreased to $130K. By your logic, you can't afford a nicer house. In fact, with a second income you might no longer be able to afford your current house. That's nonsense.
When multiple people live in a house they all have the opportunity to contribute to paying for it. Some may contribute a lot, some (like children) may contribute nothing. The house you can afford depends on the total amount everyone contributes, aka household income.
This doesn't make sense. The cost of a house is fixed when you buy it. It won't ever go up while you live there.
Yeah, my house was only $60k. 1,200 square foot. Wasn't the best deal I could get, but I'm satisfied with my purchase.
I was also looking at houses in a similar price range in Mississippi.
You don't "need" to spend 'average price' for a nice house. You choose to because you want the luxuries that cause the price to go up.
"If you want to move to a shithole, you can get a good deal on a house" is not the persuasive argument you think it is.
EDIT: Just so you know where this person is coming from, they've moved on to talk about how fascism isn't so bad from a "global perspective" and being anti-fascist is just "tribalism."
That's because it's not my argument. You're being reddit-brained again.
Sure sounds like your argument to me. But do tell us the non-shithole places you can live where houses are less than $300,000.
Places with median home prices under 300K and Democrats in state government:
(Since you live in IN, you don't need me to tell you that Michigan is a pretty nice state to live in).
@jordanlund already linked saying the average price for a home is 170k in Mississppi, and even that isn't necessary to find a nice place.
My house was only $60k and it's 1,200 sqft and 10 minutes from a hospital.
The real issue here is your entitlement. You think you're 'too good' to live in places that many others do because you think you're better than them.
Well, if you're so much better than them then pay up, lol. The problem with you people is that you think you're entitled to live in expensive places, but you're not actually valuable enough to society to have a salary that can pay for them. Then you want other people to foot the bill so you can continue to have more than those living in what you deem 'shitholes.'
You'd come across as more genuine if you just admitted it. But you won't. Nobody wants to acknowledge their entitlement, lol.
Do those places have even remotely comparable work, laws, or amenities? Because yeah you can buy a dirt cheap house 5 mountains from the nearest city in rural Tennessee, but it’s a terrible place to live and you won’t be able to find work.
That’s not a crazy price, that’s like outskirts of reasonably sized city price.
This generation? Fucking Romans were complaining about high rent for shitty apartments over 2000 years ago. Don't be a dumbass.
Right... and no generation since has ever seen the value of owning property, right? Lol.
Mark Twain was right. It's easier to fool someone than to convince them they'd been fooled.
See how mad people get in this comment section when someone points out they're being taken for a ride? One person even said they won't get off the ride if it isn't "easy." Lol.
Supply and demand. You're not exempt from them.
Are you under the impression that modern renters are choosing to rent instead of own?
60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck making saving for a down payment impossible for over half the country, and with rates being what they are, mortgages are expensive af.
People are renting because it's the only way to live, not because they think it's neat. People are getting upset at you not because you're pointing out that rent is a scam, but because you're implying it's the fault of the victims
Quoting someone much smarter than you doesn't enhance your unintelligible argument. It makes it dramatically worse.
Oh boy, we got one.
slaps forehead wait I can just buy a house? What a solution!! So easy!
You are being sarcastic but a lot of people who are convinced they can't afford it actually could afford to own the place they rent and have just never crunched the numbers.
Before the rate hike this was probably true, but most areas haven't adjusted to people having about 100k less buying power.
I never said it would be easy.
Do you only do things if they are easy?
I make about $75k a year, but to afford a $700k house (which is a "reasonable" price) near my city (Seattle), I'd have to make $150k per year. The only affordable houses are two hours' drive away, and there are no "starter" homes to buy. I can skrimp and save for the rest of my life (and I am). But unless I get a huge raise (and I'm already above the median national income), buying a house is impossible. Not just hard, economically impossible.
Have you tried just making more money?
Jeez, you poors are just so lazy.
(I really wish this weren't needed, but I think it is) \s
I'm also in Seattle and it's bad out here. I was looking at townhouses last year before the rates went up but couldn't get a mortgage because of a limited amount of work experience since getting my second degree during the pandemic. I was actually surprised that I could have afforded a decent townhouse in like Edmonds or Shoreline until the rates shot up - going from 3.5% to 7% adds something like $1000 a month in interest on a $400k mortgage. Then I realized I have never lived alone before and wasn't sure if buying a place was the best way to try that out lol. Average rent in Seattle right now though is like $2300-$2400 a month which is close to 50% of the take-home income of someone making $100,000 per year. It's insane.
lol yeah dude, I convinced myself to rent
I mean, you live in a major city so yeah.
You're probably never going to leave major cities, nor are you ever going to own property in them.
Yeah. You convinced yourself to rent.
I live in rural Iowa wtf are you talking about? We rent out here too!
I actually am paying off my trailer, though, so someday I could maybe put this on a piece of rural property somewhere and do remote work or something? But like, I never chose this shit - I just stayed where I grew up and got a factory job when my neurosis and undiagnosed dysphoria caused me to flunk out of college. I guess I could go squat in the woods though lol
Its pretty insane we don't invest in our cities anymore when they're the powerhouse of the economy. Not to mention they're a way better use of land than suburbs and rural living. You can find affordable places in Tokyo and so many other cities worldwide that dwarf ours in almost every metric. Cities really aren't the problem, they are actually the potential solution if we change our policies around them and attempt to catch up with countries like Japan.
Hold on everyone, this 17 year old is gonna explain why we're all idiots
Because those two metrics are meaningless for the average person.
Inflation is trending down... After it skyrocketed and is still way above affordable ranges.
Employment rates are high... But those jobs don't pay living wages.
Go check how much savings the average American has, check what an average doctor's visit costs, and then maybe you'll understand the gloom.
Median figures are more accurate and scarier than average.
No one is asking for deflation. They're asking for wages that don't decrease every year due to inflation and companies not giving raises or giving raises so small that it's still a pay decrease since it's not keeping up with inflation.
Wages are now out pacing inflation. So it sounds like you're saying your gloomy about the economy because the president hasnt come in and forced your boss to give you a raise, or hand you a different job with more pay.
Where are you that minimum wages are going up?
Less than 1% of people make minimum wage, so minimum wage isn't really relevant to any discussion.
Edit: Wrong by a tiny bit. It's 1.3%
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2022/home.htm
Yes it is, it is the absolute floor that someone can be paid.
Yes I am aware. That's still not relevant whatsoever.
But it is relevant?
Just like when massive unions get better pay rates (or weekends) it raises the bar for what all other workers expect, except the min wage has MORE effect since it applies across all employment.
"A rising tide lifts all boats"
Yeah sure, less than 1% of working Americans make minimum wage. Gonna need a citation for that one.
It's 1.3%
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2022/home.htm
And that's counting all laborers, including young people and the heavily disabled who have work programs
And $7.50 is a pointless figure to use as representative of minimum wage. When established, the minimum wage was equivalent to $26 today, and most states had higher minimums even before they went up to $15.
I think we should tie the minimum wage to local (probably generally county/parish) COL, updated biannually.
But the minimum wage currently shapes a miniscule amount of people's bargaining power.
Your number leaves out all of the people whose pay rates are above minimum wage, but are still poverty wages. There is quite a large gap between minimum and poverty, and not in the direction that benefits the working class.
Furthermore, raising the minimum wage leads to people in that gap also getting raises. People can and do benefit tremendously from the minimum wage being raised, even if they have never personally worked at minimum wage. As such, the minimum wage is relevant to far, far more workers than are actually getting it.
This is because minimum wage has nothing to do with this discussion
This is my original point.
They're already getting raises because wages are up across the board. There are two jobs for every person right now and that isn't likely to change for a long time.
I'm sorry, how in the fuck is the minimum wage not related to the fact that rising prices and inflation are causing people to struggle financially? That's like saying the tides have nothing to do with surfing.
And sure, wages are up, the problem is that if you bother to account for inflation and COL, the purchasing power they provide is down. That's what people mean when they say "real wages." I'm sure you know that on some level, even if for purposes of this discussion, you're pretending not to.
Because a small enough people make.minimum wage that it has no bearing on overall price pressures for labor.
Idk why you think I'm "pretending" anything.
I think you're pretending not to understand the relevance of the minimum wage because two comments ago I said this:
And you proceeded to act like I didn't.
He's a troll and not a good faith interlocutor so don't expect honesty from him.
I understand you said it, but that doesn't make it true.
It would be true if any significant number of people made minimum wage, but they don't.
I mean, at least you acknowledged that I said it this time. Even if I'm now slightly less convinced that you deliberately aren't getting it, because you still didn't seem to understand what I was actually arguing.
They say it takes exponentially more effort to debunk bullshit than it does to spread it, and when I'm making a real effort to make a point and your rebuttal is basically "nuh uh," that seems to hold true. Fortunately, I don't have to type out the argument myself when I can just post Charlynn Teter's excellent essay, sources included, about it instead. https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2021/01/30/no-more-lies-the-truth-about-raising-the-minimum-wage/ I look forward to how you "nuh uh" this.
Told ya he's a troll.
A verbose troll, but still a troll.
So, couple things.
First, and least important (but still important), this article is out of date
This data is not accurate after wage increases
Second, this article has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I have nothing against raising the minimum wage. I think it should be tied to local cost of living and reassessed every 2 years.
What we're talking about is that raising the minimum wage would not provide the price pressure on the labor market you think it will, because there are already more jobs than people and wages are already rising as a result (though slowing, in which case your argument may someday become relevant again).
The market is unlikely to shift away from labor for over a generation, barring some ludicrous advancement in AI and robotics. Our population is shrinking while our economy is growing. That's bad for employers in price-sensitive markets but great for literally all employees (until they get old, but whatcha gonna do).
Raise the minimum wage. Go nuts. It won't affect average wages in any significant way, because not enough people are on the minimum wage.
While it's true that less than 1.3% of people make minimum wage, it's important to recognize that the minimum wage sets a baseline for the broader labor market. Even though a small percentage of workers are directly affected, the minimum wage often serves as a reference point for wage negotiations and can have a cascading effect on wages above the minimum. While the direct impact may be limited to a specific percentage of workers, the broader implications of minimum wage policies are relevant to a much larger economic context.
Dude, that is the federal minimum, which hasn't been raised in over 30 years. The states had minimums closer to $10 to $12 in the last 20 years, and many went up to $15 in the last 3 years. That is still much less buying power than minimum wage was at its establishment.
That's not relevant to any discussion tho. 1.3% of people are at the federal min
Dude I corrected you on this EXACT BS you posted earlier.
You might just be a chat bot.
If someone is claiming that the rise In minimum wages in many states does not impact the "wages are growing faster than inflation" assertion, it is entirely relevant as many of those people saw a 33% raise over the last few years, and that is way more than 1.3% of wage earners.
What rise in federal min wage are you talking about?
You are a troll, and I refuse to continue explaining things you refuse to understand.
Lol ok bud.
Words just don't mean anything to you at all, do they
You are one to talk.
I'm here to help and provide information or assistance on a wide range of topics. If something seems weird or if you have a specific question or topic you'd like to discuss, feel free to let me know, and I'll do my best to assist you!
--ChatSCB
Oh, I thought we were talking about actual wages, not the minimum wage. I'm not even sure how that makes sense in the context.
Most of the places around me pay way less than the actual cost of living, like the average is maybe $12 an hour max but I'd say it's more like $10. Cost of living estimates vary but for a single adult it's often around $2500/month, which is far more than you'll make working at almost anywhere here full time. Even worse, most establishments are actually choosing to short-staff themselves to save money, so most aren't even looking to increase employment.
So you can work full time and still not have enough to just survive, then if you want to do university/trade school and aren't elligible for e.g. HOPE then you could have to pick up 2 full time jobs and still somehow have the time/energy left to do college (which most people wouldn't after that and would just drop out). Some people are able to live with family to reduce or eliminate the housing cost, and a few people are privileged enough to have their family pay for their whole college, but if that's not the case you're completely fucked.
And this is in suburban/rural Georgia. I can only imagine how shit it is for someone who can't afford college, a car, whatever else in a shitty place like Texas or Florida.
One of the things that frustrates me the most about this site (and reddit but it seems even worse here) is the inability of people to follow the context.
The article is about how people, wide spread, are rating the economy as poor despite good economic data. The top level comment is talking about not wanting deflation, but rising wages so they don't lose out to inflation. I point out that wages are rising and outpacing inflation, so by the metric they used the economy is doing well. Then someone inexplicably brings in the minimum wage (FTR, "Workers in the bottom pay quartile also saw median "real" income gains of 6% since 2019, more than the rest of the income distribution."[https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-job-market-softens-gains-minority-groups-hang-balance-2023-11-27/#:~:text=Workers%20in%20the%20bottom%20pay,rest%20of%20the%20income%20distribution] But who cares about the facts? They don't really mean anything anymore.). I point out that this isn't about the minimum wage (BTW, I agree that it should be raised) and people still go off on how in their anecdotal experience minimum wage is not enough to get by.
It's like anything to ignore reality. It's the same ridiculousness I see from conservatives when I'm debating climate change: just ignore the facts, cherry-pick some data, throw in some anecdotes, and try to reframe the debate.
It's the subjective experience of not seeing the wage growth themselves, combined with things not being acceptable for a longer time than Biden or Trump's presidency. Things are improving right now, but haven't caught up to people having economic security. When you've sunk deep enough, it takes a longer period of rising to finally catch a breath. Basically, the current growth must sustain for longer to get more people into a good position. If things continue on their current path, people will calm down.
It's also true that necessities like housing have inflated in price far faster than other goods, again, for longer than a decade. Unnecessary goods might be cheaper than ever, but you NEED things like shelter and there are NO alternatives. Despite good competition, the demand is inelastic, so limited excess supply translates to soaring prices, plus, other factors are at play.
It also isn't a good idea ignore subjective experiences in general. Not only are people almost always right to be unhappy on some level, invalidating their lived experiences isn't a good idea. Democrats will not be successful if they don't listen to people's displeasure. Basic economic measures are essential, but not sufficient to make voters happier.
There's not much I disagree with in your post. However, this all stems from a poster saying that (effectively) they don't want deflation, but for wages to out-pace inflation, and I pointed out that this is already happening. By their own metric they should be happy with the economy, even if they haven't personally benefitted from it, but instead they are unhappy with it but that's based on a false belief.
And this is basically what the article is all about, that the economy is actually going in the right direction, but everyone thinks it isn't. Spreading the false belief that we are still in situation where inflation is out-pacing wages is just further spreading the false belief that is making people upset. I get that people still have a ways to go before they make up for what was lost to inflation, but being constantly grim about the state of the economy for bad reasons isn't helping anyone. It's probably just making it worse.
It's the fine line of not saying people are correct in their specific criticisms, while still validating their lived experience. I don't expect most conservative liberals to do this, but Democratic politicians must to win elections.
Sure, but people should also try to be accurate when they are making claims as to why they are upset with the economy, especially if they are making a very general claim as to why people are upset.
Okay, so this actually misses how this "false belief" has spread.
The thing about inflation is it doesn't go away when it goes down. There hasn't been deflation, so when prices rose they just stayed high even as inflation cooled. It doesn't matter that prices aren't rising as fast as they were before because the prices are still high. Wages, on the other hand, lagged behind inflation for so long that they're still behind even if the rates are more even now. This has to keep up for several years to give wages have time to catch up; until then people are still going to be mad about inflation even if it is getting better.
This is what I meant when I said:
But, again, the claim is that they just want wages that won't be beaten by inflation (again, effectively) and that is the case now. So what they want is what is happening now, yet still unhappy. Your post is a movement of the goal-posts. I get it that it still sucks, but we're going in the right direction, especially on the point they made. This should result in a more cheery-outlook for people basing their opinion on wages out-pacing inflation.
They want the pain to stop now. That's my point. Only people with a financial cushion can sit around and wait for things to get better, everyone else is suffering. People are not going to be patient for relief.
I'm coming late to this rodeo. I see minimum wage as relevant if the recent statutory raises of the minimum wage are behind the "wages are rising faster than inflation" point. I need to see a distribution chart showing which raises are rising faster, because a lot of pay went from $10 to $15 in the last few years, and that's a 33% pay increase for those people. What if the people earning between $30 and $60 saw no raises, or worse, lost their jobs and got new ones for less?
I'd be curious to see what your research finds on this too.
This is mathematically impossible, unless you live in a place that's a combination of heavy commuting and like, tourism.
Yeah it's definitely mathematically impossible. Your standards of living are out of whack with local standards of living.
You live in a dying town.
"Mathematically impossible" my ass, everyone commutes 2 hours to the nearest city because work outside of urban areas is unsustainable. And no, the county has had a steady high growth rate for around 3 decades by now because of the prestige from Atlanta rubbing off + low cost to buy a house make Georgia seem appealing to middle class people, and aggressive advertising by the county makes people move here, it's not "dying".
"Local standards of living" are what I gave you, that's what statistics say. If you don't like science you can just say so. Hell, it's not that hard to just Google "median income in Georgia" (spoiler alert: median personal income is $30,000, which is very clearly unsustainable).
In this day and age, it's near impossible to survive out of school if you don't have family willing to pay for you. Hell, if I didn't have family to fall back on I would probably have been in the streets starving rather than be getting my degree.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-minimum-wage-compares-to-median-wages-in-every-state-2021-2
What does this have to do with what we're talking about?
Wages may be outpacing inflation, but so have prices for a long time, and wages haven't reflected increases in productivity since around the 70s or so. In about 2015, I remember looking up some statistics and finding out that wages for the average worker had decreased about 5% since the 70s while CEO compensation had more than doubled, when you account for inflation. The most absurd example I can think of off the top of my head is that, when adjusted for inflation, the cost of a taco from Taco Bell has doubled since the 90s. There's some great comparisons out there, but some stuff has increased at more than double the rate of inflation since the 80s, with the biggest offender being the cost of college, which has increased by something like 1,153% (if I remember right, it's been several years since I've looked at those statistics).
Plus, local conditions never reflect the national averages/medians, so there are probably areas and industries that are seeing massive booms in wages and work to life balance and such, but there's others that aren't and some areas where even booming industries are seeing a decline. The IRS report for 2021 says that 51% of Americans made $15,000 or less that year. During my 20s (around the 2010s), I made $20,000-$30,000 a year working at a local fish market. This would put me probably somewhere around the top 45% of Americans by annual wages comparatively, but due to the high CoL in my hometown, I couldn't afford to rent a studio apartment. The lowest rent I found in that time was a single room in somebody's house with "occasional kitchen access" for $1,000 a month. Studio apartments started at $2,000 a month. The average American has something like $20,000 in their bank account, while the median American has $600.
I'm reminded of all the articles I see about people spending their "pandemic savings" where I think to myself, "What savings? The $1,000 check we got that some idiot of a politician said that everybody would be using to go buy a brand new car? 2 years ago they were talking about how we had all gone through the majority of our savings just to keep up with CoL increases."
Those charts are federal data, and you are correct about the winners of productivity gains. I can tell you why "wages are going up" - many states raised minimum wages from as low as $10/hr to $15, over a period of 3 years. The working poor got raises and are still working poor. Also, these people can't save their raises. They spend them on basic necessities, so there is a good chunk of economic growth right there. That's an example of an economic multiplier effect >= 1.0.
Yeah, the "fight for $15" has been going on so long that if minimum wage had kept up with inflation, it would be more like $24-30 an hour now. Just another example of people twisting the numbers to show the conclusions that they want.
Because interest rates are insane trapping people in homes they no longer want but can't afford to leave?
Speaking of... My car got totalled at the end of October, shopping for a new one, I saw interest rates for me between 7 and 8%, for other folks, I saw one as high as 12.25%(!) On a CAR LOAN.
I'm in this comment and I don't like it.
Least you got a home. I am on a very long lease and landlord is getting offers. I got about 2.5 years until someone just offers him a million bucks in cash. Then I am out thousands of dollars in moving expense plus changing my kids school. Plan to fight it but I am sure I will lose.
Sorry bro.
Try to own property as quickly as you can. Unfortunately, even the market for that has gone to shit thanks to investment companies.
This is what we get for breeding for greed. Gotta stop rewarding shitbags just because they have money and start holding them accountable for how they got it.
It won't happen, though, lol. These problems won't get solved just like global warming 🤷. We don't want to solve them.
Well there's one way to solve these problems 🤠👉
Yeah, I'm aware it can be worse. I could go into details about how I got boned, but that's not the point either of us were making. I have friends that rent and the only ones that didn't get their nuts put in a vice were already under section 8. One couple just had to uproot again because the landlord sold. Again. Second time in three years. I can't help them, and I hate it.
Interest rates should never have been that low to begin with. It was basically free money for the wealthy, and it's how housing became such an investment for big businesses. The rates we have now are still at historic lows, they just feel high compared to the bonkers low rates of the last couple decades. I understand the frustration 100%, but lowering the rates again is NOT the answer at all.
For Christmas dinner I vote we just eat the fucking rich
I agree, but we gotta be more thoughtful about it.
I recently had a crazy interaction where I was apparently "The Rich" that needs eaten because I landed a job with a good salary.
Working people aren't the enemy, needs to be made clear as well. Hell, even corporate headwigs raking in a few million aren't even close to your enemy in this regard either.
Sounds like jealousy honestly. I've had a couple conversations here in the past that because I went out and started my own electrical contracting business instead of working for someone that all of a sudden in the bourgeoise. Like, dude, why in the hell would I keep myself in a position of struggling when I have the skillset and knowledge to make a lot more money, though I'm in a small tourist town so it's not like I have a bunch of commercial contracts. I have one employee, who makes damn good money for an apprentice. I don't have health insurance because I can't fucking afford it without being back in the poor house. I ain't affording a house anytime soon, and my rent is $2k/month. Most of my gains for this year are going to be diminished because I have to buy a new truck to replace my old car with almost 200k miles on it, and interest rates are fucked. And then taxes take the rest because this country hates people striking out on their own. I make just enough to be slightly ahead of myself year over year, but my wife and I aren't on a beach in Bora Bora eating bons bons.
Point is, people are angry, and I get it, I'm pretty irritated too. But don't let people drag you down for your successes just because they're subscribing to the crabs in a bucket mentality.
"Why Americans feel gloomy about the economy despite paying a lot more for things than the official inflation numbers claim and having a wage that isn't rising as high as official numbers claim"
Not to leave out unemployment has run out for thousands, making the numbers look good.
Exactly. When my benefits ran out 2 months ago, I no longer showed up as unemployed. Thankfully, I finally got a job after nine months of anxiety.
While I have a better income than before, it's only about 10%, while prices on everything (that i need for daily survival) went up at least 20%, and food nearly doubled. No way I can get a house - those prices went up at least 40% here in the last 4 years. New car? Fuggettaboutit. Basic sedans going for 30k! Used ones probably for $24k, from what I read. Since when does COBRA at $1900 per month for one person make sense? It's a slap in the face.
Didn't the student loan moratorium also end? Something started back, maybe evictions too. None of it is good.
"falling inflation" means prices are still rising...the rate of increase is what has decreased. What we need is negative inflation...or said differently, price decrease.
You don't actually want that. It encourages people to "invest" by sticking hard cash in a mattress. It rewards people for doing absolutely nothing but taking money out of the economy.
Ideal (if we're keeping a monetary exchange society, anyway) is low (<3%), predictable inflation combined with wages increasing in proportion to productivity. We had a period of relatively low inflation followed by a giant spike, plus wage gains that are nowhere near matching productivity gains over the last 50 years, and that's where things hurt. Capitalism doesn't seem capable of this, however, as it's always chasing the next hype cycle that leads to these spikes and lulls.
As opposed to what we have going on right now, which is to punish working class people so ruling class people can still have prosperity.
Deflation means stagnation or crash in economic terms
Cool, working class people aren't really thriving right now anyway. Maybe an economy crash could result in a restructuring of wealth and new tax policy.
Sure. I don't believe in infinite growth either, I'm unsure however who'd come up on top. The new aristocracy?
And yet it is exactly what the people need to be happy
Meditate on that point
For every economic problem, the burden falls on the working class. Deflation makes people unhappy, high inflation makes people unhappy, and low inflation is the "best" because things get worse more slowly. Capitalism only helps workers when large enough innovations happens. Otherwise, the owners capture all the benefits of growth, or squeeze the workers to make the appearance of it.
The majority of people are in debt. If you owe $1000, you'll still owe $1000 but $1000 will be more money than it is now.
If prices drop then you have more money to pay for that 1000 dollars is how proponents are looking at it, i assume
You don't though. Wages don't rise to keep up with inflation, but they'd sure as shit drop to keep up with deflation.
Im not arguing validity, but just commenting on how i think people en masse will hear what top comment actually said.
You very well may be correct. But it requires the inclusion of wage change which the top comment didnt include. Minimum wage is a protection against employers lowering wages. So for those who are already at that minimum, they will be in a better position
Assuming they still have a job. Which im sure you would argue they wouldnt. And i wouldnt bet against you if you did argue that would happen
People have always been, in the grand sense, pretty dumb.
True
Wages need to keep up with inflation, else it's a bubble. 😉 But we fundamentally agree
What you are describing is deflation and it's only happened twice during the history of the United States. It is also generally looked at as a bad thing.
Is inflation generally looked at as a good thing or a bad thing? Ive only ever heard people complain about inflation.
If they are both bad things im willing to give the bad thing that improves my life a try over the bad thing that makes everything more expensive.
Granted i have nothing so im probably on the side of things that is least effected by the bad side of deflation.
If i can spend more money on the things i want to, it will absolutely help small local businesses near me
A small amount of inflation is healthy. You REALLY want to avoid deflation, because that means the value of your money is increasing. If people know their money will be worth more in the future, they won't spend it, incentivized to save and sit on it. That means on average everyone spends less, slowing the economy down and starting into a recession/depression.
Gonna slap this with the good old "I am not an economist" disclaimer, juat what I remember from economics class in high school
Only problem that right now people also may decide against buying because they can't afford it. Also, I'm not sure world is producing goods at a healthy rate either, more like we've got a bit of an overproduction
Yeah, obviously wages SHOULD be keeping up with inflation and inflation should be a low, stable amount. That's the problem, not inflation in general.
What you learned in high school puts you miles ahead of 99% of these comments
People still have to spend money, hoarding wealth makes no sense if you can't eat and pay for services and utilities.
The idea is that deflation affects the investor class. Assuming a "healthy" 3% inflation rate, the value of your savings decreases by 3% per year. That means you lose money if you can't invest in something earning more than 3%. Traditionally interest rates have been around 0%, which means bonds and savings accounts also pay 0%. So, your only options to not lose the value of your savings is to invest in the stock market, risky businesses, or real estate.
As a middle class person that means that it mostly affects my 401k, but for millionaires and billionaires, deflation means that they would sit on their hoard instead of investing it. Traditionally that means no funding for new businesses, inventions and ideas, and that's also why the investor class pays much lower taxes than the working classes.
But nowadays "investment" seems to mostly be buying good companies and enshitifying them or bribing politicians, so maybe it would be better if we encouraged the rich to sit on their money instead of using it to make society worse.
I have no idea what this is in reference to
Japan has been struggling with deflation (=decrease of prices) for a good 25 years now... you really don't want that happening. Ideally you want something around 2% inflation.
What are the issues with deflation other than that people wouldn't want to invest in whatever is available?
You also shouldn't purchase, since goods will get cheaper over time. Also don't take loans for the same reasons. Basically you should take your money in cash and sit on it.
That falls apart with necessities like food and medicine, doesn't it?
Those are considered inelastic goods, yes. They are also way too small an amount to keep an economy going. Most things we spend money on aren't like that, and demand going down like so will affect markets; companies not producing necessities or for export will fold if it lasts too long, etc.
Deflation is a death spiral. China is going through it rn. The currency gets stronger, but then people wait to buy stuff like houses because it will be cheaper in a few months. It creates a snowball effect as people all start holding off on buying and selling stuff, wanting the best deal possible, or then being unable to buy things if people hold off on selling.
I can't remember the last time people felt good about the economy.
I can... but I was born in the 70s
I'd say it was pre-2008, but I was born in the 90s.
Doesn't take a genius to figure out that when the economy restabilizes, that doesn't mean the cost of consumer goods go down or wages go up, it just means the billionaires running the show aren't losing millions
My son graduated with a degree in economics in 2020 and still hasn't found a job. He's not counted in the unemployment numbers because he hasn't filed for benefits. We need to look at labor participation as well as underemployment instead of the useless stats being used in this article. Real wages have tanked. People are running up debt just to buy groceries. It's desperate out there.
That's untrue. From the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics:
There are other statistics measuring unemployment claims, but when you hear, "the unemployment rate for Oct 2023 is 3.9%", that is unrelated to benefits.
Maybe it's because everyone is struggling with high costs of housing, food, and healthcare, among other things, while wages have remained flat and stagnant for decades.
I really wish news outlets would stop pretending this is some big mystery. Shit is too expensive.
IMO it's the inverse, we don't make enough. The 1% have been keeping wages stagnant. We can't stop the price of goods from going up, but we can increase pay from it sharing the bottom line. As soon as interest rates re-appeared, all the free money that was sitting around for the taking disappeared. Sooner than later, we'll be paying micro-transactions for crap that was previously able to be paid for by selling us ads. But that money isn't coming back to us.
Part of what's happening on this front (things are expensive) is antitrust-related.
Mergers and Acquisitions among competing companies, and 'vertical integration' along supply chains (both of which ought to get a lot more antitrust attention than they have for a long time) often means the resulting companies control supply enough that they can throttle supply and look, there's not enough of the things! Prices then go up- and the loss in productive capacity that happens when competing firms consume each other is behind those mysterious 'supply chain issues' that led to empty shelves during the pandemic.
The election wave immediately following Watergate swept a lot of then-young, centrist Democrats into the halls of congress- and in so doing, also retired the Democrats' institutional interest in anti-monopoly enforcement. Since then, neglecting antitrust enforcement on boring things like commodities and pharmaceuticals has been a bipartisan affair.
Someone feel free to explain these two simultaneous headlines-
People who feel bad buy things to feel better. They might not be able to afford a new house or a car or medical care, but they’ll spend something on gifts.
Also, maybe it’s members of the owning class buying things. They’re getting more money all the time, whether the economy does “good” or not. So they’ve always got money to blow on shit.
Plus it specifically says online sales. Online sales could be up 7.5%, but brick and mortar store sales could be down 50% for all we know.
You can buy a tv for cheaper than a loaf of bread.
Jesus, what kind of bread are you eating?
Only the best ritziest! I saved all year for it.
Sure, no problem. Spending rose by 7.5%, inflation until recent months was at 10%. Net real sales is down by 3.5%. People are spending more for less. This is why we are gloomy. Still, I recognize things are getting better on the macro level.
The unemployment is low because people have a gun to their head. Inflation is falling, but it's not zero, therefore everything is still getting more expensive.
eCoNoMiCs.
"most prices are high and still rising" Pretty obvious that corporations are price gouging to get their friendly fascist lifetime dictator back in power.
My wife and I are making more money than we ever have in the past. However, before that I was unemployed and was forced to find some way to keep being able to buy groceries, gas for the car, and helping my wife pay bills. As such, the only way I saw to do so was to take out a credit card or two, and they quickly got maxed out. So now I’m stuck paying $700/month in credit card bills, as well as dealing with the increasing food and rent prices. Our bills take a larger percentage of our total wages than before. And sure, part of that’s my own fault, but at the time it was do what I did or starve and get evicted. I wasn’t about to let that happen to my wife.
We’re still able to survive, but it’s by the skin of our teeth.
I'm in a similar boat. Had to float on credit for months. When I eventually manage to get a job it means I'll be able to start digging myself out of a hole. Forget about being ahead.
Yeah, even utility bills are through the roof. I just got my October gas bill in the new house I'm renting, $150. I'm nervous to see what that's going to be in January, it's already cold and the furnace has been cranking.
Dang, it must be rough living on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
Not quite to that degree, but not far off.
$4 for a bag of potato chips.
25ct for 3 decent potatoes at my town.
SACK of 50 pounds for 12$ Wanna start a business?
Oh boy inflation is falling.
Unless it's greedy C-level execs falling out of windows there won't be a change in the cost. The issue is greed, inflation was just the scapegoat.
It also kinda glances over the fact that the boost of inflation is there permanently and this is the new baseline, and no wages have kept up to it at all while everyone is getting nickel and dimed to death.
100% this. It's great that inflation is only 4% now, but the price of nearly everything doubled since 2019, and wages, particularly for middle class and upper middle class have not increased enough. And the modest wage increases for the poor were used to further justify the price increases. And prices never go down, because "deflation=bad".
But, I will say that greedflation hit worldwide and the USA weathered it better than many other countries.
I don’t get this argument. If everything is greedily overpriced why not just go into business for yourself? Like if eggs are so overpriced, go buy chickens and start selling eggs. Prices will go down. Complaining about greed or expecting the government to do something won’t help anything. That’s the real reason Americans feel gloomy, they keep expecting someone else to do something, like the government or c-level executives.
I wish I lived in your fantasy world where individuals who are being adversely affected by the cost of eggs can still somehow magically not only afford the startup costs of a farm, and manage to not only sell eggs at prices beating out major agribusiness, but can also do so at a sufficient scale to affect system-level change. What absolute starry-eyed naivete.
You can raise chickens in about a square meter of space, you don't need a farm...plus you missed the point, that was merely an example. Point is, stop complaining and expecting things to be fixed for you. Do something constructive.
Alright, so what individual actions are you personally undertaking to affect the kinds of systemic change we need for our economy to work for all of us? Surely if your ideology is founded on reality, you're making real change, right?
For me, personally, I am advocating for policy changes that would benefit us. My efficacy is limited, because my only real option is to bother my elected officials about it when I'm not busy working longer hours for lower real wages just to survive, but given that I believe policy changes are the only way to actually solve any of our systemic problems, I am at least ideologically consistent.
I grow a lot of my own produce and am looking into a chicken coop, funnily enough.
I don't expect handouts or the government to step in. My point was that I'm not gonna cheer about inflation falling because the problem is something different entirely. Inflation is just a symptom of the real issue.
You can stop being obtuse and trying to deflect blame away from greedy corpo twats whenever you'd like.
Vibecession
THIS JUST IN! People raked over coals for nearly 4 years are feeling charred!
CEO's struggle to find uncharted adjacent talking points about the future economy as the middle class shrinks like a dick in a cold stream, as they unforgivablely pretend to scratch their heads while literally stealing babies from mothers. The statistics are IN, and they show that corporations do not care to provide safe as advertised products. Mothers, as expected, should be uneasy to have children since their offspring are not only more likely to have developmental problems due to microplastics in their bloodstreams, PFAFs in their bloodstream, and Teflon in their...um..everything... Along with the volatile markets, and sub standard pay increases that specifically affect everyone, except the A+ class that have trust fund money and live without feelings or care for any individuals, but the mothers must give birth for jesu... I mean for milit... I mean population contr...I mean moral values that age demographics that can't medically have children uphold. Wait. I meant because Jesus. I almost had it the first time. I really meant for Jesus. He was a swell guy, as long as you don't call him a middle eastern jew. Anyways, here's Jim with the latest CTE-ffective tackles from last night's game.