politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Wrong. If wages have grown relative to inflation, then it’s gotten easier.
Right?
You're ignoring previous inflation. Again. Wages beat inflation just this year. They are not higher relative to inflation over the last few years. They are certainly not higher relative to the wage-production split in the1970's.
Since the beginning of 2020 wages are down from inflation by seven points. And this is after decades of losing ground. Weasel wording the numbers from 2023 where wages beat inflation by 1 percent to gaslight people is disgusting.
Inflation-adjusted wages grew by 6% in 2020, 8% in 2021, and 6% in 2022. Here's the citation. Most of that growth happened at the lowest-wage end of the scale -- inflation-adjusted wages for the top 10% of earners actually fell by 5% from 2020-2022, meaning for the average to rise, quite a few of people in the lower percentiles saw their wages go up.
I suspect that a lot of the Lemmy community is tech people in that top 10%, which makes the anecdotal "IDK things are bad for me and my friends" resonate with them. And fair play if you want to say that's a problem, I won't say it's not.
But it seems like you're just trying to create a narrative that wages for everyone have gone down, because of stacked year-on-year inflation, that simply doesn't exist anywhere in the data, even in any given year in isolation. What are you saying was the change in wages that justifies what you're saying? Where are you getting your actual numbers and what are they?
This is Business Insider. You really need to check the sources. And the OECD chart they linked does not show what they claim. OECD has a table for real wage growth. It's not nearly as fun to read.
OECD: Annual average wage growth
OECD: Table N2. Real wage growth of average gross annual wages per full-time equivalent employee
Now those do stop in 2022, which also makes BI's assertion in 2024 kind of suspect.
I think what you want to look at is something like Per capita income, inflation adjusted on the new site. It shows (in constant 2015 dollars):
So, substantial growth of income overall, even after adjusting for cost of living. I don't know if those are the exact numbers BI used (seems like not) or what the numbers after 2022 look like, but this so far seems very consistent to me with the economic outlook getting better for people at the bottom, back to and better than pre-Covid, and offset partially but not completely by some wage loss for the people at the top. If you can find some more recent ones or ones that tell a different story, I'd be happy to look at them though.
Well substantial growth in Average terms at least. Per Capita is the literal Average, total divided by population. Which is why we talk about medians and modes. Now finding a mode is hilarious, much less for each year. But median is actually pretty available. When even the Fed can't make the line go up, you know there's a problem.
Here's the Fed showing a 15 percent gap in inflation and wages up to 2022. Median Income / Inflation Consumer Price
Why do you want to use household / family income instead of individual income? Median personal income in constant dollars is independent of any confounding factors and doesn't show the same drop; it shows no change at all.
And yes, I could see this being consistent with what I was talking about. I actually already sent you data points (the link text is "fell by 5%") showing the 10th, 50th (i.e. median), and 90th percentiles, which showed -1% change in real income at the 50th percentile. The census bureau numbers show +0.01% instead at the 50th percentile, but pretty similar.
All of that is consistent with a boost for the lowest earners, which is what I've been saying this entire time. "Most of that growth happened at the lowest-wage end of the scale" is how I phrased it.
Because until that data says IRS, it's far easier to collect household income, and far more applicable to things like rent and grocery costs. It doesn't matter if one person's income goes up, if the household income has gone down.
...
I'm comfortable ending the conversation here
Dunno what else to tell you man, but that's why so much is measured in household. And it's not hard to create that situation either. One person gets promotion and the other person loses their Covid tax stimulus. And honestly anything for 2023 numbers is still preliminary. The final reports for 2023 don't get published until the summer.
You said that wages had gone down because of inflation from previous years
Then when we looked at that, and determined it wasn't true, you said average doesn't count and we need to look at the median
Then when we broke it down into percentiles and showed that the median income was steady and income compared with inflation was going up at the bottom end of the pay scale, you started saying it needed to be by household instead of by individual
The average low-income person is now making more than they used to. They can buy more at the grocery store than they could even pre-Covid. To me, that is economic progress.
I think when you're 0 for 3, you don't get to keep the goalposts that you've now moved to the 4th location based on whatever logic you're using to justify income going up only matters if it's per household. You can think what you like about it though.
No you tried some bullshit article with bad data. I showed you the charts they should have used. And explained that the average is heavily skewed because of high earners. That makes it a bad measure. I dare you to find an actual Economist arguing we should be releasing the Average instead of the Median.
You showed old data. And According to the Census 2022 Report, those gains are gone. We did actually decrease the Gini for the first time since 2007. Then we undid it. "However, the post-tax Gini index was 3.2% higher due to substantial declines in post-tax income among lower-income households."
And yes. We measure by household because that's how people live. Unless your prescription for financial troubles is to tell Grandma it's time for her kill herself.
You never showed anything to prove this. And the BLS Preliminary Reports for 2023 don't paint much of a rosier picture. Production and Non-Supervisory employees broke even with CPI-U in 2023.
The deal here is I do not have the time, mental power, or inclination, to teach you statistics in economics on a forum. There are free classes available online that are at your own pace. And saying I'm moving the goalposts is hilarious. You're the one who keeps looking for cherrypicked data to support your conclusions. I don't have goalposts except, Inflation still sucks. 5 years later, 10 years later, 50 years later. Wake me up when Biden comes out and says we need (checks inflation calculator) a $12.37 minimum wage.
Not sure who you're trying to fool here; I think it's pretty much just you and me at this point. You know (or you should) that the numbers I sent you were from your own sources (OECD and the St. Louis Fed respectively). You can accept or not the explanation I gave for why I chose different charts in those sources... but just moving the goalposts around instead of addressing it head-on when that happens doesn't leave me with a real good impression of your goal in the overall conversation.
All the data we've seen actually paints a pretty consistent picture of a single coherent world; there aren't, like, big contradictions between different sources. It's just how any given person chooses to interpret the information.
🙂
Buddy
Only other thing I'll add is:
January 2022 along with an executive order putting it into practice for all federal workers.
Those charts were for the article. And no. That's not how statistics works. These aren't special interest sites, one stat does not over rule another stat. You use the right stat for the right thing. You cannot say the working class is doing better while the production and nonsupervisory pay numbers and Census median income numbers don't support that.
And yeah I missed that, EO. That's great. To be fair I'm also remembering he nearly got a federal 15 minimum but for Kyrsten Sinema.
I want to try an experiment
Can you summarize my argument back to me? Like what I was saying and what sources I drew on to support it and how? There was one central thesis, and I supported that thesis from one of my sources and from both of yours. I'm gonna give you from 1-5 stars depending on how accurately you describe it. You don't have to agree with it or how I justified it, just show that you understood what I was saying.