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
Do you have citations for all this detailed rebuttal? Even just explaining verbally why it is you think their inflation numbers wouldn't include housing, healthcare, energy, or food?
The fact that they specifically said that wages are higher now even accounting for inflation, and you're saying that wages in real terms are now lower because of inflation (without commenting on the discrepancy), makes me think that maybe you're just throwing out claims instead of having done your own detailed point-by-point analysis of what they're saying.
If you click on the inflation link to the treasury, it says it excludes food and energy.
And if you play around with this calculator, you'll see that food inflation is currently at 2.2%, the lowest it's ever been since February 2020, when it was 1.8%. Energy has had some wild fluctuations around a fairly constant mean, including a big spike after Covid, but it's currently actually back down to a negative 1.9%. It's actually pretty interesting to look at the different metrics on that page, because they all show variations of the big spike after Covid but the return of pre-Covid levels afterwards. Housing is also an interesting one to look at, just bear in mind that it shows pure value (i.e. going steadily up) and not the percent change year by year like the other inflation metrics.
So... the argument is perfectly accurate, and the numbers shown good economic performance, but because one particular metric doesn't include some numbers (because those numbers need to be excluded to do apples-to-apples international comparisons which is what they're specifically talking about there), let's throw the whole thing out and say Biden must actually doing a bad job because obviously the numbers that aren't included are bad (even though when you look at them they're not)? Kinda sounds like that's the argument.
Just because food inflation is low now doesn't mean that I can leave Costco for less than $200 for absolute basics. So, to your point, if they included food in the inflation estimate, it doesn't seem like it would change much. To the articles point, and the point of the comment above us, people don't believe the economy is doing well because they can't afford food.
Part of the point of the article is that wages, compared with inflation, have gone up.
There were people who couldn't afford food before Biden, and now even though he got handed an absolute economic shit show, there are quite a bit less of them than there were before. Surely that's relevant?
You're right. The comment above appears to be bullshit.
So when was deflation? If you're not worried about the inflation of previous years there must have been deflation. So when did that happen?
Or is this just more ignoring the reality of inflation to gaslight people?
It stacks, year after year, unless there's deflation.
I got a pop quiz for you
If wages have grown relative to inflation
Then has the stacked impact of the reality of wages combined with the stacked impact of the reality of inflation made it easier for the average person to buy groceries? Or harder?
To any given person, it'll just seem like groceries are more expensive. That's always true (because, they are) and when inflation has been high for a couple of years it'll feel really true and really tangible. That's why these "I don't know what you're talking about I'm struggling, fuckin grocery bills and rent" talking points are so relatable. Because almost certainly the person you're talking to will feel some version of that. And grocery prices are an easy touch-point to make it feel true.
But to a person who didn't have a job before, and now does, it doesn't feel like "the economic program" got better. It feels like they got a job. To someone who joined a union as those are making a start at a comeback for the last couple of years, or someone who was able to get one of those $15/hr entry level jobs that used to be impossible during and before Trump and are now becoming the standard, it doesn't necessarily feel like things are "easy" now. And of course you can't say Biden's really fully responsible for that all happening, because he's not.
If inflation at the grocery store is partly Biden's fault, though, then why can't the growth of unions and increase in wages at the bottom end of the scale be partly to his credit?
That's the whole point of the OP article. The reality is, those $15/hr jobs and that union membership came about under Biden, and the wage growth that's happened has been large enough to outpace even a couple years of massive inflation as Covid's supply-chain issues and government spending really came home to roost. The fact that the growth is actually larger than the pain, even with those challenges, is really remarkable. And it's weird that that's not really any kind of significant narrative in the media. And it's definitely weird that the inflation is somehow Biden's fault while the wage growth that outpaced it isn't to his credit.
Yes it's harder. That's the point. And deflecting it with, "why doesn't he get credit for good stuff?!?" Is bad faith. People are pissed off he's trying to gaslight them, just like you just tried to do with your example where people only pay attention to groceries. When in reality they know what's left over at the end of the month. They can see it shrinking. They can see the day where they can't pay rent coming.
Treating people like they're dumb is not a winning move in the Democratic party. It hasn't been one since my dad was my age.
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.
Food inflation of 2.2% now doesn't mean anything when it was 5% in 2023.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/food-prices-and-spending/
That's what's killing Biden. People are spending more at the grocery store week after week or they're getting less.
2.2% on top of 5% in 2023 on top of 9.9% in 2022...
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-price-outlook/summary-findings/
Tru dat. My point (and the OP article point I think) is that the stacked impact of wage growth, especially at the bottom, has actually outpaced even the significant amount of inflation. And that the latter gets talked about all the time but not the former (which doesn’t have to be nefarious - everyone feels grocery price even if nothing has changed, whereas wage growth a lot of times feels like “well yeah but I got a new job, of course I’m making more now”).