•  t3rmit3   ( @t3rmit3@beehaw.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    12
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    They’re catching up with the recent pace, which is back down (i.e. 3.3%), not the post-2020 pace. It still hasn’t caught up.

    As you quoted:

    Will consumers suddenly feel relieved from the burden of elevated prices? No.

    •  mozz   ( @mozz@mbin.grits.dev ) OP
      link
      fedilink
      7
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      Hm - I interpreted “recent” as one way, but yeah, that’s fair, you could interpret “recent” as him meaning the last year or something. Here’s a summary, then, of how wages at the bottom end have kept pace with inflation over the last few years. “Real wages of low-wage workers grew 12.1% between 2019 and 2023.” Cumulative inflation over that time span has been about 18% (which is massive), but low-end wages in current dollars also grew by 35% cumulatively in that time, well outpacing inflation.

      What numbers are you looking at that say low income wages haven’t kept pace with inflation? Like what kind of cumulative current-dollar wages, and what cumulative inflation, are you claiming? If my stuff is propaganda numbers, then what are the real numbers?

      Inflation-adjusted wages have ticked very slightly down at the median (like a few percent), gone down a bit at the top end, and gone up significantly both at the bottom end and in the average. It’s a complex topic and you can find a variety of numbers both on the income and inflation sides, but they generally all paint that same story (which is, itself, complex enough that you can paint a bunch of different narratives from it, by putting up the numbers for average vs. median vs. lowest-quartile or etc).

      • Not to be rude, but do you even read your own sources?

        Wage rates remain insufficient for individuals and families working to make ends meet. Nowhere can a worker at the 10th percentile of the wage distribution earn enough to meet a basic family budget.

        It’s literally at the top of your article, under “Key Findings”, probably because they knew that it’s easy to misunderstand statistical data, or to claim it says what you want it to.

        So the percentiles you are talking about still cannot keep their heads above water, despite the growth of wages in many of their jobs, and the other percentiles haven’t seen that level of wage growth, or have even lost ground to inflation, but you’re over here going, “I’ve got great news for you, you’re actually not in a bad financial position, stop taking your actual lived experiences over my big numbers!”

            • I mean, sure. 🙂 I was trying to consolidate comments into a single stream of conversation since it’s already sort of turning into a bickering sprawl, but if you’d like to reply to it here instead of there, then I’m fine with that too:


              Yes, lower income people in this country are still fucked. If anything I was saying made it sound like I thought they were not, that was not the intent. My point was that Biden has been helping them get out of it, to a certain degree, in a way that’s actually very unusual for an American president (they generally don’t give a shit about the working class). And that happened even during a historic level of economic challenge to tackle his way out of. And therefore that attacking him by pretending that the opposite is happening is erroneous at best and openly dishonest at worst.

              • I don’t think anyone here is claiming Biden is attempting to hurt the economy? I certainly haven’t seen that.

                But he is also not some kind of economic saviour, and most of the changes to the economy are not under his control anyways.

                But you’re the one who is trying to claim 1) the economy is good, 2) Biden is to thank.

                • Dude if you have a disagreement with the article, let’s have it. You tried to disagree with it in economic terms and it seems to me like you got tripped up on basic understanding of inflation-adjusted dollars versus non-inflation-adjusted dollars, which is why you’re recasting the whole thing in emotional terms like “not some kind of economic saviour,” but this new framing doesn’t leave a lot to actually discuss. It just takes it into the realm of bickering and fact free opinion judgements.

                  The majority of people in the country believe that Trump is better on the economy than Biden, even though Trump is a fuckin trade war starting PPP fraud factory closing disaster. The idea that Biden is hurting the economy is not just un-heard-of, it is a majority view, which makes worthwhile a factual discussion of whether or not it is true.

                  The last article I posted before this morning that dealt with Biden in any capacity was almost a month ago. The thing about me posting article after article you are literally just making up. Comments, I post a lot of.

                  The article is a little bit explicitly “rah-rah Biden,” I’ll grant you that. On the other hand, if it’s true, then that’s legit, and I haven’t really seen anything to illustrate that it might not be true other than a pretty large amount of obfuscation in the comments arguing other points that have more convenient answers (like “are low income workers doing okay yet” which they are not).

                  • My disagreement with the post’s article is that it is conflating the stock market with the economy, and the financial news sector is pushing this narrative very hard, or even saying it openly.

                    My issues with the article you linked about wages, in the comments, is that you’re omissively citing bits and pieces to different people in order to support the idea that the economy is doing well, as the post article claims, when the post article is really about the stock market, not wages or living standards.

                    If the wage growth at the bottom 10th percentile doesn’t mean they’re not fucked, why would you even cite it?