Fucking euphemisms for 'corporate greed'.
this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
314 points (96.2% liked)
News
23287 readers
5025 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
And the problem is that even if it goes back to 2%, it's still fresh in everyone's memory that CPI was 17.5% lower (1$ March 2020 = 1.21$ March 2024) and it's not very fair to the average person that the number they hear only compares to the previous year when it's not what they're feeling in their wallet as there's never been deflation.
What I'm saying is, we know when the high inflation period started, media should report both the year-on-year change and inflation compared to a specific month before the last major economy influencing event, that would help people understand the information presented to them and why it feels like prices are still up much more than 3%.
The media reports it that way because the guys who run the economy report it that way. We need an inflation tracker website that tracks the divergence of wages from inflation like the conservatives have for the national debt.
inflation would not be a problem if wages went up as well.
And then you think about it and you're like "If inflation goes up X% and all wages need to go up the same amount in order for people to keep up, why is inflation necessary again?"
There's an economic argument for steady inflation as a counterweight against compound interest and debt.
Inflation creates an economic incentive for productive investment. I'd rather own a $20 machine that generates $1/year of new valuable goods/services than a $20 bill in a vault, because the goods/services will inflate in value while the cash will not. And if I don't have $20, I'll be willing to borrow it if the value of the debt declines over time while the value of my annual production rises.
When wages match inflation rates and surplus cash can be productively invested, each new participant in the economy has an opportunity to grow their personal fortunes over time.
However, when wages lag inflation, only the early adopters get to see the benefits of new productivity. Old money compounds faster than new wage earn investment enters the pool. And eventually you get a Berkshire Hathaway / Goldman Sachs / Blackrock / Citadel style superfund that owns a significant percentage of virtually everything.
The same thing happens in deflation. People with access to cheap credit or liquid currency (banks, mostly) can horde capital while wages contract. And then, again, you end up with an economy in which a handful of feudal aristocrats hold the titles on all the properties.
But when wages grow faster than inflation, you see the reverse. Earners can buy into property at a steady discount, while investment of new properties promise higher yields than simply sitting on old capital stock indefinitely.
There's an economist named Thomas Piketty who breaks it down thoroughly in Capitalism in the 21st Century, detailing why you want the economic growth of your national economy (G) to exceed the rate of return on investment (R) if you care about reducing overall economic inequality.
That's fine and all, and I wish it were so. We just live in an economic reality that has been steadily increasing the inequality with consequences such as unaffordable housing, healthcare, and education.
Inflating the debt away is advantageous only if the TCO keeps up. In this case the wealthy get the lion's share of inflationary increases while many people only see modest cost of living offsets that for two years fell behind inflation. We seldom see years where employers give a cost of living adjustment above the current inflationary rate beyond the current year index, to make up for prior years where they didn't.
E.g. I see a job posting from 2007 that advertised 65k/year, in the same company with the same role they currently only compensate that same role at about 73k. $65k from 2007 equates to approximately $97k in today's money. If things were truly equitable and commensurate, and I realize this is an isolated data sample, but it appears to be a common trend across the country.
For the numbers, that's $24k of income that would be really great to have today.
E.g. I see a job posting from 2007 that advertised 65k/year, in the same company with the same role they currently only compensate that same role at about 73k. $65k from 2007 equates to approximately $97k in today’s money. If things were truly equitable and commensurate, and I realize this is an isolated data sample, but it appears to be a common trend across the country.
I absolutely agree. And I'm willing to bet that the profit at that same firm has only grown over time. So here we have a classic case in which profit margins have outpaced the real volume growth at this firm, making it less efficient and more expensive to operate as a result.
For the numbers, that’s $24k of income that would be really great to have today.
Oh sure. Numbers get even worse when you consider how that $24k of income is buying even less housing, health care, and utilities than it did in 2007, and for all the same reasons.
As profit margin eclipses real growth, the real economy is subsumed by fictitious assets.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Wages are always and forever blamed on inflation, despite lagging inflation year after year after year.
That's the thing with greed: they find many names for it to distract from them personally. East the rich. But get on with it already.
Year 1 inflation: "We wanted to make sure your raise kept up." Year 2: "We're a fledgling company!"
load more comments
(2 replies)
"High cost of living/Inflation" so not simply "Inflation"
Also, when would that ever not be the top category? "Things cost too much" seems like kind of a supercategory covering most of the others. Maybe "lack of money" could compete.
The top is less important than the ratio. The top 2 answers are basically stuff costs too much. Over half the people are claiming that is their biggest problem. If times were better, it still might be the top, but it shouldn't be the majority. Debt concerns, and retirement would take a bigger chunk.
rent gauging. wildly insane property values. gas price gauging. it's not just food prices, tho that sucks too
load more comments
(4 replies)
Retailers jacked up prices and squeezed consumers. They might have just blinked I hope consumers still don't bat many eyelashes because capitalism best practices def looked to squeeze consumers. Record profits, stock markets riding high, rich got even richer, meanwhile ever more people struggle up and down 'main street'.
That's okay, because eventually we're just going to automate away the need for all those struggling people. And then we won't care if they participate in the economy anymore. We can... ahem... zero them out.
We're witnessing this process in areas like Yemen, Palestine, and Kashmir as we speak. If you get under the hood of MBS's 30 year plan for Saudi Arabia, you'll notice a sharp drop in the expected demand for labor. This, from a man who doesn't bat an eye at walking a guy into an embassy and dismembering him with a chainsaw.
Go ask Andreessen Horowitz or Peter Thiel or Bill Gates what they'd like to see happen to the human population going into the 22nd century, and you'll get similar speculative responses.
you would think money would be the primary financial issue.
last i checked nobody likes it. Weird how we still pretend like it's other shit.
view more: next ›