American workers are demanding almost $80k a year to take a new job(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
American workers are demanding almost $80k a year to take a new job
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/21/american-workers-are-demanding-almost-80000-a-year-to-take-a-new-job.html
184 comments
> The western world has gone from single income homeowners in the 80s to dual income homeowners today
This is largely the result of 3 things, a giant shortfall of building where population growth has outpaced new home starts for 40 years, women joining the workforce in greater numbers since the 60s, and houses on average are much larger and feature more amenities.
This is largely the result of 3 things, a giant shortfall of building where population growth has outpaced new home starts for 40 years, women joining the workforce in greater numbers since the 60s, and houses on average are much larger and feature more amenities.
> women joining the workforce in greater numbers since the 60s
In the most literal sense yes, of course the increase in dual income homeowners is because of a greater number of women joining the workforce. But that masks the true reality, which is that those families require two incomes to a lifestyle that used to be achievable with one.
It’s a result of the lack of affordability, not a cause.
In the most literal sense yes, of course the increase in dual income homeowners is because of a greater number of women joining the workforce. But that masks the true reality, which is that those families require two incomes to a lifestyle that used to be achievable with one.
It’s a result of the lack of affordability, not a cause.
I don't accept that the initial primary motivation behind more women joining the workforce was out of financial necessity. But I can see that once you have a certain critical mass of households with dual incomes then it becomes very difficult for single income households to compete in the same buyers market for housing especially (given its uniquely inelastic supply and it being a fundamental need for all of us), hence essentially forcing them to convert into (or remain as, after having children etc.) dual income households even if they wouldn't otherwise choose to be so.
This is correct. Humans are competitive, and if your peers are competing with two incomes and you are chasing after the same scarce resources they are, then prices will rise accordingly.
Scarce examples would be homes in the best school district you can afford near the best job markets. Or the best doctors, tutors, etc. And if the majority of people opt to be in dual income households, then the price of even average products/services will rise so that single income households will have to settle for less.
Scarce examples would be homes in the best school district you can afford near the best job markets. Or the best doctors, tutors, etc. And if the majority of people opt to be in dual income households, then the price of even average products/services will rise so that single income households will have to settle for less.
This would imply that women work and get paid, but do not contribute. The reality is that woman who work DO contribute. That is, they produce things for all of us, including themselves. Introducing women to the workforce does not mean there is more money chasing "the same scarce resources" - in fact there is much more stuff for us to buy with our money now, and in fact (all else equal) woman working may drive DOWN the price of good and services.
> there is more money chasing "the same scarce resources" - in fact there is much more stuff for us to buy with our money now
Humans are status seeking, so stuff is not just stuff. People value obtaining products/services that others cannot afford. The most basic example of this is the common advice to “buy the cheapest home in the most expensive neighborhood”.
Meaning, if you want your kids to hang out with kids of parents who earn at least as much or more than you, then you bid up housing prices as much as you can to minimize the number of families under a give income level that can afford the homes in the school district.
> in fact there is much more stuff for us to buy with our money now, and in fact (all else equal) woman working may drive DOWN the price of good and services.
This is also true, and it did drive down the price of many goods and services, including the price of labor itself. But it can also be true that prices for average or below average product/service decline, and above average products/services to increase.
Humans are status seeking, so stuff is not just stuff. People value obtaining products/services that others cannot afford. The most basic example of this is the common advice to “buy the cheapest home in the most expensive neighborhood”.
Meaning, if you want your kids to hang out with kids of parents who earn at least as much or more than you, then you bid up housing prices as much as you can to minimize the number of families under a give income level that can afford the homes in the school district.
> in fact there is much more stuff for us to buy with our money now, and in fact (all else equal) woman working may drive DOWN the price of good and services.
This is also true, and it did drive down the price of many goods and services, including the price of labor itself. But it can also be true that prices for average or below average product/service decline, and above average products/services to increase.
Goods and services did get cheaper relative to incomes, but there is more money to bid up land prices. I think this aligns with what we have seen happen?
Except prior to women joining the workforce they were providing essential services that they weren't being financially remunerated for.
I think you have it backwards.
Houses could only be priced such that a single income could buy them when most women did not work. Or nobody could buy them.
Once you have couples competing to buy that same housing stock, it becomes increasingly hard for a single income to compete and the price rises to match what the market can support.
Houses could only be priced such that a single income could buy them when most women did not work. Or nobody could buy them.
Once you have couples competing to buy that same housing stock, it becomes increasingly hard for a single income to compete and the price rises to match what the market can support.
> Houses could only be priced
> the price rises
ah, the swirling anonymity of "market forces"! These are all active decisions made by people, not forces of nature. The money from these increased prices doesn’t just disappear into the ether.
You're not wrong, of course, but it's worth looking at it from another angle. A house for a dual income family does not cost more to build than a house for a single income family. In a world where housing is considered more of a human right than an investment vehicle prices could have stayed low, more could be built, faster. Instead we live in a world where everyone must work more in order for their quality of life to stand still. I think it's permissible to be angry about that.
> the price rises
ah, the swirling anonymity of "market forces"! These are all active decisions made by people, not forces of nature. The money from these increased prices doesn’t just disappear into the ether.
You're not wrong, of course, but it's worth looking at it from another angle. A house for a dual income family does not cost more to build than a house for a single income family. In a world where housing is considered more of a human right than an investment vehicle prices could have stayed low, more could be built, faster. Instead we live in a world where everyone must work more in order for their quality of life to stand still. I think it's permissible to be angry about that.
Oh, I completely agree that it's reasonable to be angry we have to pay more for the same or less. And our family is single income so it's been really hard for us.
It doesn't take houses to be considered investment vehicles by anyone though for this to happen (even if some people do). Just more and cheaper money available to throw at the same things.
It doesn't take houses to be considered investment vehicles by anyone though for this to happen (even if some people do). Just more and cheaper money available to throw at the same things.
That assumes that women working weren’t producing anything, and the construction industry didn’t get more workers as women joined the workforce. Neither are true, our society is actually wealthier with more production, but because land is limited (and doesn’t expand with working population growth), we use some of that more wealth to bid up desirable housing.
> That assumes that women working weren’t producing anything, and the construction industry didn’t get more workers as women joined the workforce.
No such assumptions are necessary or intended. It doesn't make sense to assume working women produced nothing. I have no idea whether the construction industry took on more workers or not when women joined the workforce.
Regardless, most couples tend to buy one house, and two people's incomes can outbid one person's. That is all that it is necessary to assume.
No such assumptions are necessary or intended. It doesn't make sense to assume working women produced nothing. I have no idea whether the construction industry took on more workers or not when women joined the workforce.
Regardless, most couples tend to buy one house, and two people's incomes can outbid one person's. That is all that it is necessary to assume.
Yes, but that income should equal production, so either more housing is produced, or something else more is produced, and either gets cheaper or we have more stuff. I guess it’s a combination of all three, our society is definitely wealthier with more people working, we are better off than we were in the 1950s. But that wealth maybe is spread out less evenly.
I think that sounds about right. We are wealthier than in the 1950s. We have super computers in our pockets and a global information network, for example!
For housing though, the economic unit is the household, not the individual, and land and location are not really affected by how much stuff we can produce. So housing costs will always occupy a large fraction of household wealth, no matter how wealthy we become.
For housing though, the economic unit is the household, not the individual, and land and location are not really affected by how much stuff we can produce. So housing costs will always occupy a large fraction of household wealth, no matter how wealthy we become.
This is exactly the point I'm making. Home ownership rates are still at about 66% of households in the US but median household income has risen dramatically and interest rates have been very low so there has been a lot of room for home prices to increase. Supply has also lagged and labor costs have also risen.
> It’s a result of the lack of affordability, not a cause.
Probably not. If you're familiar at all with the history of women entering the workforce, it was driven largely by women wanting to have careers and professional fulfillment and not financial necessity.
Probably not. If you're familiar at all with the history of women entering the workforce, it was driven largely by women wanting to have careers and professional fulfillment and not financial necessity.
The history, yes. Today’s reality, no. If it were purely about a desire for career we’d see more stay at home dads, for example. In my social circle there are a great many working parents who would like to be full time carers.
Also that the reality of caring for children in our fragmented society without extended family present being so difficult that working and outsourcing childcare to a non-family third party is much easier than caring for the children yourself. I think this one is under appreciated.
Maybe not financial necessity, but certainly economic necessity when the men went off to war.
Rosie the Riveter, etc.
Rosie the Riveter, etc.
Do you have a citation for this? My historical understanding was that throughout the late 18th, 19th and very early 20th centuries the Industrial Revolution and urbanization made it a financial necessity for (non-farming) women to work outside of the home. Then, the enormous wealth gains in the early to mid-20th century made it possible for many to stop working or never join the workforce at all, and they took up that opportunity. I would be interested in reading more.
Looking at the labor force participation rate for women, since 1950 it's gone from 1/3 to 2/3.
Looking at the labor force participation rate for women, since 1950 it's gone from 1/3 to 2/3.
It's a tipping point, isn't it. If enough couples jump to dual-income for reasons of self-actualization, the rest have to follow just to keep up. It's a Red Queen's Race.
[deleted]
It drives the average wage down as well, as now employers have almost twice as many potential candidates and therefore don’t have to offer as competitive pay.
> houses on average are much larger and feature more amenities
A lot of truth in this. I was raised in the 60's in a 3-BR house with 1 bath, a kitchen, and a living room. There were 5 of us including parents, in 850 sq ft, without central air in a climate that definitely needs it. My dad would come home from work and lay under the living room window air conditioner. We had 1 car, mom did odd jobs from home (ironing, cleaning, babysitting) and took care of us, and most other kids were in the same situation. A few moms worked but it was unusual. Quite a different living situation than most families today.
A lot of truth in this. I was raised in the 60's in a 3-BR house with 1 bath, a kitchen, and a living room. There were 5 of us including parents, in 850 sq ft, without central air in a climate that definitely needs it. My dad would come home from work and lay under the living room window air conditioner. We had 1 car, mom did odd jobs from home (ironing, cleaning, babysitting) and took care of us, and most other kids were in the same situation. A few moms worked but it was unusual. Quite a different living situation than most families today.
Is it though? Most of the large cities are ... mostly the same, with the same apartments like in 60s. Modern apartments are even smaller than back then.
I can't find a quote but square footage per capita has barely moved in last 40 years.
Couple of McMansons are not changing the stats that much apparently.
[deleted]
We need anti-trust, break up these companies into smaller competitors and give workers a chance to buy into the American dream again.
While I don't disagree with the notion of breaking up big companies, a have a small bone to pick about the last thing you said. The American dream was never intended to apply to more than a very specific subset of the population; those that we see with the majority of wealth today. It's already worked for those it was meant to work for, and consequently it will never be fought for again. At least, not by those with any real power today; they got what they wanted and have been pulling up the ladder on everyone else ever since. Let's quit trying to buy into the American dream, and try buy into a just and fair society for all. If only that were the goal all along :/
> The American dream was never intended to apply to more than a very specific subset of the population
In recent times it's still been sold to everyone as if it were equally obtainable and anyone who found themselves unable to get ahead despite their hard work was told it was their own fault and they should have tried tugging harder on their bootstraps.
I agree it's time we stop thinking about the American Dream the same way. We need to either accept that it'll be out of reach for many no matter how hard they try or we change things so that's no longer the case. We can't fix it as long as we continue to buy into the fantasy that it's not broken.
In recent times it's still been sold to everyone as if it were equally obtainable and anyone who found themselves unable to get ahead despite their hard work was told it was their own fault and they should have tried tugging harder on their bootstraps.
I agree it's time we stop thinking about the American Dream the same way. We need to either accept that it'll be out of reach for many no matter how hard they try or we change things so that's no longer the case. We can't fix it as long as we continue to buy into the fantasy that it's not broken.
The American Dream to me is a just and fair society for all and I see equitable (as is feasible) ownership of the means of production as being foundational. We need everyone to be cut back into the deal somehow and anti-trust is one way to do that. I think we are looking for the same things.
It's true, though, that consumer price inflation is mostly regulated by customers at the lower end of the income range.
For instance: the supply of eggs is somewhat variable, so in times of shortage the price has to go up to make demand = supply. The rich aren't eating fewer eggs when this happens, the poor are. If everyone was rich, the price of eggs would go to infinity. (This seems to be happening to private school tuition.)
For instance: the supply of eggs is somewhat variable, so in times of shortage the price has to go up to make demand = supply. The rich aren't eating fewer eggs when this happens, the poor are. If everyone was rich, the price of eggs would go to infinity. (This seems to be happening to private school tuition.)
In a lot of cases in Canada it's dual-income renters.
And there's a ridiculous amount of cognitive dissonance among the Boomers I've talked with on this topic. There was a real confidence in their feeling that things were just as hard back then and there's just as much opportunity today for people to work hard and buy a home.
In their defense: every single one of them, when we got the pen and paper out and did the math to show it's not even remotely close, were shocked.
And there's a ridiculous amount of cognitive dissonance among the Boomers I've talked with on this topic. There was a real confidence in their feeling that things were just as hard back then and there's just as much opportunity today for people to work hard and buy a home.
In their defense: every single one of them, when we got the pen and paper out and did the math to show it's not even remotely close, were shocked.
That's not a defense. They could have gotten the pen and paper out themselves and ran through some numbers to quickly verify their view of the world was way out of alignment with reality - but they didn't do it. Why? Because they preferred their view of the world, reality be damned.
I think the past number of years has shown us that anyone willing to change their world view should be applauded. Standards are now very low. Maybe they'll go back up with the interest rates.
So… they’re boomers? This isn’t just a Canadian phenomenon. Makes you wonder why they by and large are that way.
It’s expected generational behavior.
Younger generations want to change things and think they are unique and special, older generations are like “nah you don’t get it just wait until you are older”.
Both are right to varying degrees and depending on the circumstances. But those seems like the default views, and it takes effort to see when they don’t apply.
Younger generations want to change things and think they are unique and special, older generations are like “nah you don’t get it just wait until you are older”.
Both are right to varying degrees and depending on the circumstances. But those seems like the default views, and it takes effort to see when they don’t apply.
And you’d think Boomers would understand how that mentality is bullshit.
There are other drivers of inflation, but they'd likely involve hurting the interests of one group of elites over another - e.g. land owners seeing their asset values and rents slide, industrial magnates watching their profits decline or imperialists being forced to sign peace deals they really don't want to.
Wages are a good compromise they can all agree on.
Wages are a good compromise they can all agree on.
Economists have failed policy makers with their narrow focus on neoliberal economic policies and mathematical models grounded in fairy dust.
If anyone wants to understand what effective economic policy is read Ha-Joon Chang’s work.
If anyone wants to understand what effective economic policy is read Ha-Joon Chang’s work.
The increase in hours worked is somewhat illusory. Primary care giver (eg. in the past, usually mothers) worked full time to look after the children, cook, organize family life.
We now mostly work the same hours for money, then pay someone to do what mothers used to do for free; except possibly with some extra friction (tax, stress, commutes etc.).
Even nowadays, in the UK for example, many families are pushed to realize the soaring cost of childcare is greater than post tax earnings for one parent and skip employment to save money.
We now mostly work the same hours for money, then pay someone to do what mothers used to do for free; except possibly with some extra friction (tax, stress, commutes etc.).
Even nowadays, in the UK for example, many families are pushed to realize the soaring cost of childcare is greater than post tax earnings for one parent and skip employment to save money.
> IMO we’re trending towards multigenerational home ownership where it may require 4-6 income earners to own a house.
Nah, don't think so.
We went from multigenerational homes and kids living with their parents, inheriting their houses, and if buying -- doing it after they grew up and saved / got help to buy their own house. To a situation where everybody thinks the first thing you have to do after you get your first job is to get expensive mortgage and buy your own house. And parents basically waiting for their kids to leave the house so that they can enjoy freedom.
You suddenly need way more houses for the same number of people because people no longer want to live together. And that is what has largely been driving housing prices.
The times of prosperity caused this change but also for a long time were masking the effects.
Then multiply it by people's inflated expectations on how large their living space needs to be (houses are much larger than in the past even as they are less affordable),
It does not help that people are brainwashed that borrowing money is the way to go. It is not. It is a way to stay a slave to the bank. As a side note it is funny that there is so much debate about freedom and yet completely miss the fact that the biggest reason people are not free is that most people owe money to a bank and and most are not making good progress paying the debt.
So I think this wave of growth in the need for housing space will pass and at some point it will get more affordable.
I think future is very much to be written. In ideal world people would get educated on how to deal with debt, how to pay it and stay debt free. Also how to not get overboard buying stuff you don't really need (which I am very guilty of myself). I know this last one might cool the economy a little bit but I actually think it would be fine if it meant people had healthier financials.
What I think is likely, though, is formation of a new class which will essentially be free people in name only. Slaves to the bank from the day they are born to the day they die. Monitored and controlled at every step (which is already happening -- with banks and insurance companies digging through your private data to figure out how big risk you are). Poorly educated with both parents working, with attention grabbed by a shiny rectangle from the first years of their lives, with a noise of AI generated "media". Unable to reach real information through the noise. With no real friends, no real social interactions, no hope to upend the system because of no way to gather critical mass of people to do anything of note.
Nah, don't think so.
We went from multigenerational homes and kids living with their parents, inheriting their houses, and if buying -- doing it after they grew up and saved / got help to buy their own house. To a situation where everybody thinks the first thing you have to do after you get your first job is to get expensive mortgage and buy your own house. And parents basically waiting for their kids to leave the house so that they can enjoy freedom.
You suddenly need way more houses for the same number of people because people no longer want to live together. And that is what has largely been driving housing prices.
The times of prosperity caused this change but also for a long time were masking the effects.
Then multiply it by people's inflated expectations on how large their living space needs to be (houses are much larger than in the past even as they are less affordable),
It does not help that people are brainwashed that borrowing money is the way to go. It is not. It is a way to stay a slave to the bank. As a side note it is funny that there is so much debate about freedom and yet completely miss the fact that the biggest reason people are not free is that most people owe money to a bank and and most are not making good progress paying the debt.
So I think this wave of growth in the need for housing space will pass and at some point it will get more affordable.
I think future is very much to be written. In ideal world people would get educated on how to deal with debt, how to pay it and stay debt free. Also how to not get overboard buying stuff you don't really need (which I am very guilty of myself). I know this last one might cool the economy a little bit but I actually think it would be fine if it meant people had healthier financials.
What I think is likely, though, is formation of a new class which will essentially be free people in name only. Slaves to the bank from the day they are born to the day they die. Monitored and controlled at every step (which is already happening -- with banks and insurance companies digging through your private data to figure out how big risk you are). Poorly educated with both parents working, with attention grabbed by a shiny rectangle from the first years of their lives, with a noise of AI generated "media". Unable to reach real information through the noise. With no real friends, no real social interactions, no hope to upend the system because of no way to gather critical mass of people to do anything of note.
> We went from multigenerational homes and kids living with their parents, inheriting their houses, and if buying -- doing it after they grew up and saved / got help to buy their own house. To a situation where everybody thinks the first thing you have to do after you get your first job is to get expensive mortgage and buy your own house
the situation is pretty much the opposite of this, we went from where folks could afford a house pretty quickly, sometimes even on a single salary, to double incomes not being enough, and the only hope of housing for some now being multigenerational and/or inherited
the situation is pretty much the opposite of this, we went from where folks could afford a house pretty quickly, sometimes even on a single salary, to double incomes not being enough, and the only hope of housing for some now being multigenerational and/or inherited
Isn't this mean reversion? The US seems to have exhausted much its cheap developable land near major city centers, and I think you'll eventually see the same pattern that seems to play out through the bulk of the world: Extremely expensive land relative to salary, and an entrenched (hereditary?) land-holding baronage.
We have not done that. There's still plenty of developable land close to cities, and plenty of inefficient uses of space that can be better utilized. The problem is who owns it.
> still plenty of developable land close to cities
Hell, there's plenty within cities [1].
[1] https://escholarship.org/content/qt5gc6w0vd/qt5gc6w0vd_noSpl...
Hell, there's plenty within cities [1].
[1] https://escholarship.org/content/qt5gc6w0vd/qt5gc6w0vd_noSpl...
"On average, 22% of all land in city centers of metropolitan areas with over a million people was dedicated solely to parking." https://parkingreform.org/resources/parking-lot-map/
> The wealthy are buying up all the tangible assets and price gouging everyone with high rent
Why hasn't this happened in the past? A lot of property makes a lousy investment unless you get value by living in it.
Why hasn't this happened in the past? A lot of property makes a lousy investment unless you get value by living in it.
Unless you buy a lot of rental properties and take some of them off the market. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/29/blackstone-...
Also, Boomers are aging out of the job market - they're either unwilling to work any longer and/or unable to work any longer. This has been known for decades. Guess what? The day of reckoning has come. As the labor market contracts the cost of labor will rise.
This is just basic market economics.
This is just basic market economics.
What's interesting is that neither of those drive inflation. Inflation is the expansion of the money supply, and there is a sudden attempt to redefine it as increased costs of goods and services. Money supply goes up, costs of assets follow, then costs of goods and services, and then wages. None of the things downstream from expansion of the money supply "drive" inflation.
No, inflation is a generalized increase in prices / decrease in purchasing power for goods and services. Many people believe that this kind of broad increase in prices can only be driven by the expansion of money supply, but this is a contested thesis, not the definition of inflation. (For what it's worth, I tend to think it's correct.)
I am not sure if this is accurate.
I think money "throughput" matters more than absolute money supply.
I think money "throughput" matters more than absolute money supply.
The voltage supply doesn't matter at all if the resistance or impedance of a circuit is wrong.
Except historically there have been periods where increasing the money supply hasn't driven up inflation particularly (because most of the increased supply was used to fund increases in productive output) and times where high inflation has been triggered without any significant increase in money supply (often due to unusual factors restricting supply of key goods/services). But at a sufficiently large scale, then sure, inflation will tend to follow money supply. But arguably such baseline inflation is largely a reflection of the fact that the overall output of the economy has grown, and not any indication of general decreased affordability.
The most successful government propaganda ever is all the supposed reasons for inflation, anything but the real reason.
God Save the Rentiers is the American way. Everyone is trained from birth to aspire to be one.
> price gouging everyone
That's called cost-push inflation, and is an invalid theory. Inflation comes from government running the money printing press overtime.
That's called cost-push inflation, and is an invalid theory. Inflation comes from government running the money printing press overtime.
Inflation is going to keep getting worse as the government has to print more and more excess money to service the national debt.
Meanwhile, the government will blame inflation on greedy corporate profiteers and excessive wage demands by workers. Oh, and the oil companies.
Meanwhile, the government will blame inflation on greedy corporate profiteers and excessive wage demands by workers. Oh, and the oil companies.
> the government will blame inflation on greedy corporate profiteers and excessive wage demands by workers.
That's exactly what happens in Argentina.
The democrats are following the steps of Juan Domingo Perón.
That's exactly what happens in Argentina.
The democrats are following the steps of Juan Domingo Perón.
According to "in 2013 dollars" [0], $80,000 today is worth roughly $68,000 in 2020 dollars. Inflation is kicking everyone's ass. If you haven't gotten a significant raise in the last couple years, you've probably taken a rather large pay cut.
[0] https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2020?amount=68000
[0] https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2020?amount=68000
My salary is $25k higher than it was in 2021 and I have less disposable income than I did back then. It's insane.
I hear you. It's tough out there, getting tougher all the time. Fingers crossed that the rate-racking the fed is doing helps slow it down a bit. I talk to my family about it all the time -- we're very lucky where we're at. We wonder how many people are managing to keep food on the table with these prices and the inability of wages to keep up.
My mom works at a donation center focused on veterans, and they give out food several weekends out of the month. They're breaking records for visitors every month now.
My mom works at a donation center focused on veterans, and they give out food several weekends out of the month. They're breaking records for visitors every month now.
> Fingers crossed that the rate-racking the fed is doing helps slow it down a bit.
Along with finger crossing and hoping, we could look for causes of price increases, and then force the politicians to end the inflation-inducing military conflict in eastern Europe.
Along with finger crossing and hoping, we could look for causes of price increases, and then force the politicians to end the inflation-inducing military conflict in eastern Europe.
If this inflation is the price of liberty for Ukrainians and the price of independence from a dictator for Western Europe, then I am willing to pay that, personally.
I just don't think Ukraine explains that much beyond natural gas prices going up, as far as I'm aware, and even that I suspect is limited to Europe. (I am in the US).
I just don't think Ukraine explains that much beyond natural gas prices going up, as far as I'm aware, and even that I suspect is limited to Europe. (I am in the US).
I agree with you that it would be worth it, but it's also definitely not what caused inflation.
Historical timeline of USA central bank rates and world events:
March 3, 2020 -50 basis points
March 14-15, 2020 -100 basis points
Feb 19 2022 Zelensky speech puts in question 1994 nuclear disarmament agreement.
Feb 20 2022 VP Harris in Munich encourages Ukraine entry into NATO, "So I respect President Zelensky’s desire to be a member of NATO."
Feb 24 2022 Russia in to Ukraine.
March 15-16 2022 rate increases begin. Federal Reserve recognized war.
Zelensky nuclear ambitions speech translated: https://kyivindependent.com/zelenskys-full-speech-at-munich-...
Harris talking about Ukraine joining NATO: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20...
March 3, 2020 -50 basis points
March 14-15, 2020 -100 basis points
Feb 19 2022 Zelensky speech puts in question 1994 nuclear disarmament agreement.
Feb 20 2022 VP Harris in Munich encourages Ukraine entry into NATO, "So I respect President Zelensky’s desire to be a member of NATO."
Feb 24 2022 Russia in to Ukraine.
March 15-16 2022 rate increases begin. Federal Reserve recognized war.
Zelensky nuclear ambitions speech translated: https://kyivindependent.com/zelenskys-full-speech-at-munich-...
Harris talking about Ukraine joining NATO: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20...
Something can happen in the world and not be the causation for the other. It's totally possible.
It is possible. What other event caused Federal Reserve to suddenly raise rates in March 2022?
Do you remember that thing that happened where people started getting sick from a novel disease and then most people were told they needed to stay home for a few months and not consume any services and then that caused a huge number of people to be laid off and then that caused the government to inject a huge amount of fiscal stimulus to recover from all of that and then suppliers underestimated the pace of demand recovery and underinvested in supply and logistics to meet that demand and then that resulted in a bunch of ripple effects in supply chains? No? You missed all that?
(somewhat) interesting question, it might be worth discussing sometime
anyways, do you have any evidence for the causality you suggested here? so far it hasn't been very convincing
keep in mind, as you make your case, that most posters here are smart enough to not fall for a "post hoc ergo proper hoc" fallacy
anyways, do you have any evidence for the causality you suggested here? so far it hasn't been very convincing
keep in mind, as you make your case, that most posters here are smart enough to not fall for a "post hoc ergo proper hoc" fallacy
Federal Reserve is a private contractor to USA and sets the price of money (interest rates). Their recent statement timidly implied the war is causing inflationary pressures. As a contractor, they can't directly tell the White House to 'knock off the warmaking' so they wrote 'international developments'.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminu...
Page 9: "Members also agreed that their assessments will take into account a wide range of information, including readings on labor market conditions, inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and financial and international developments."
If you like to read books, this book about Russia has amazing references including FOIA documents. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-plot-to-seize-russia-ma...
https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminu...
Page 9: "Members also agreed that their assessments will take into account a wide range of information, including readings on labor market conditions, inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and financial and international developments."
If you like to read books, this book about Russia has amazing references including FOIA documents. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-plot-to-seize-russia-ma...
you're saying you think that quote means russia's war on Ukraine is causing inflation?
if so, it doesn't – not only does it not even mention russia's war on Ukraine, it doesn't even mention a rate increase, much less a correlation between the two
not only THAT, but you conveniently ignored all the 4 other factors they listed first
and before you go down the conspiracy theory route of "X can't/won't say the REAL truth but I'll tell you what it is", a lack of evidence for a theory isn't evidence of the theory, and while I'm sure you're a great person, your word in this situation is unconvincing
if so, it doesn't – not only does it not even mention russia's war on Ukraine, it doesn't even mention a rate increase, much less a correlation between the two
not only THAT, but you conveniently ignored all the 4 other factors they listed first
and before you go down the conspiracy theory route of "X can't/won't say the REAL truth but I'll tell you what it is", a lack of evidence for a theory isn't evidence of the theory, and while I'm sure you're a great person, your word in this situation is unconvincing
Trump both railed against the low rates at the end of the Obama presidency and then railed against raising them when he took office. The idea that it was a sudden event that caused rate hikes is only seen by someone not paying attention to it for a decade.
Lok at the big rate cuts in 2020 because virus. Out of nowhere seemingly, actually a few weeks after Ukraine fighting started, the Fed hiked rates. The Fed knows war is inflationary and jumped into rate hiking.
By the time the war in Ukraine began, people had been arguing for months that the Fed was waiting too long to increase rates, that inflation expectations were becoming unmoored, that the Fed's conclusion that inflation was "transitory" was incorrect.
Here's Larry Summers from November 2021[0]. Note that his argument there is that the "transitory" inflation argument had already been shown to be incorrect, because by three months prior to the beginning of the war in Ukraine, inflation had already been progressing for months, along with the will-they-or-won't-they debate over rate increases.
Here is a Fed statement from April 2021[1], which I think is the first one that uses the word "transitory".
Point being that no, the rate hikes that happened a few weeks after the war started in absolutely no way came "out of nowhere seemingly". Everyone had been talking about it for a year.
0: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/15/inflation...
1: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/mone...
Here's Larry Summers from November 2021[0]. Note that his argument there is that the "transitory" inflation argument had already been shown to be incorrect, because by three months prior to the beginning of the war in Ukraine, inflation had already been progressing for months, along with the will-they-or-won't-they debate over rate increases.
Here is a Fed statement from April 2021[1], which I think is the first one that uses the word "transitory".
Point being that no, the rate hikes that happened a few weeks after the war started in absolutely no way came "out of nowhere seemingly". Everyone had been talking about it for a year.
0: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/15/inflation...
1: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/mone...
People have been talking about the need for higher interest rates for a decade. 2020 happened and they dropped them, again. That caused the people saying we needed higher rates to continue to say we need higher rates. The fact they were so low for so long is the anomaly.
> Zelensky nuclear ambitions speech translated: https://kyivindependent.com/zelenskys-full-speech-at-munich-...
I must be missing something because I cannot see a single part in there that says Ukraine wants to acquire nuclear weapons.
All it says is that Ukraine willing gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees (from the US, France and Russia) and that those countries are not really abiding by the agreement.
If you could quote part of the speech that mentions Ukraine wanting nuclear weapons that would be great.
I must be missing something because I cannot see a single part in there that says Ukraine wants to acquire nuclear weapons.
All it says is that Ukraine willing gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees (from the US, France and Russia) and that those countries are not really abiding by the agreement.
If you could quote part of the speech that mentions Ukraine wanting nuclear weapons that would be great.
When evaluating inflation levels the Fed as a matter of policy uses a price level measure that doesn't directly account for food and energy costs.
unfortunately, no matter how much we want the conflict to end, it won't without the commitment of russia to end it, which means withdrawing their Ukrainian-toddler-raping troops* from Ukraine and ending their attempted 3rd russian genocide of Ukrainians**
* - per a UN investigation
** - with the Holodomor and the deportation of the Crimean Tatars being at least 2 previous russian genocides of Ukrainians
* - per a UN investigation
** - with the Holodomor and the deportation of the Crimean Tatars being at least 2 previous russian genocides of Ukrainians
What worries me is this "we're lucky" sentiment is only temporary. In my situation, if my pay drastically changes due to emerging technologies causing future job cuts and order of magnitude competition over jobs, "we're lucky" can turn to "we're worried" in a year and "we're screwed" in 10... if "we're lucky".
Compound that with property taxes: I just heard a neighbors condo's taxes go up from 8k to 18k in a single year.
Compound that with property taxes: I just heard a neighbors condo's taxes go up from 8k to 18k in a single year.
> Compound that with property taxes: I just heard a neighbors condo's taxes go up from 8k to 18k in a single year.
This must be a special case of not having the correct assessed value, or an error and they are including condo association costs in their property tax.
Even at a 3% property tax rate, which very few Americans have, a $10k increase means a $333k increase in assessed value for a condo. 1% to 2% property tax rates are more likely, which would mean a ~$667k increase in assessed value.
This must be a special case of not having the correct assessed value, or an error and they are including condo association costs in their property tax.
Even at a 3% property tax rate, which very few Americans have, a $10k increase means a $333k increase in assessed value for a condo. 1% to 2% property tax rates are more likely, which would mean a ~$667k increase in assessed value.
In my own situation, it's gone from "we're blessed" to "our kids generation is fucked" in the span of 5 years.
If you think this is bad then you should have been around in the mid-70's to early 80's after Nixon unilaterally bended Bretton Woods and threw the global monetary regime into chaos. I still remember mortgage rates of 12% to 15% and lots of young families being shut out of the housing market - at the same time apartment complexes were being built everywhere. Sound familiar?
The idea that it was worse back then has been thoroughly debunked. The unfortunate truth is that property values have soared (due to lack of supply), inflation continues as it does, and wages have totally stagnated. Those combined together mean that however bad it was for families back then (and I'm sure it was bad! Housing insecurity is something folks should never have to face, and I'm sorry you went through it too), it's just worse for people today, full stop. This isn't the oppression olympics, I don't want to tell you that you didn't have it bad, or anything like that. But it just sucks to be facing a very real problem today and have people incorrectly tell you that it was worse before. Not only does the existence of a problem 50 years ago not negate the existence of a problem today, but people in politics and on the internet want to tell us that it's not as bad as we think it is, when in reality it's much worse than they think.
You're only looking at one aspect - housing. What's missing in this analysis is that fuel costs had risen 400% in a very short time frame, and in an economy that was much more fuel-dependent than it is today. Imagine if gasoline were to rapidly rise to over $12 per gallon? Natural gas was even worse, we had actual shortages, so you can imagine what that did to the market. I still remember the president of the United States addressing the nation from the Oval Office wearing a cardigan to set an example that it was okay to turn the thermostat down and bundle up. The speed limit on the interstate had been dropped to 55 MPH to encourage people to driver slower and conserve fuel.
Housing was just yet another problem at the time.
The problem with housing today is an amazing lack of foresight from our so-called leaders then. Everyone accommodated the Boomers (I'm Gen X). They didn't have enough houses for the Boomers - let alone the kids the Boomers would have (the Millennials) who would be living as adults at the same time as their parents. There was a rash of home-building in the 40's, 50's and 60's, and then it slowed way down, never to reach those levels again. Meanwhile, advances in healthcare increased people's lifetimes, exacerbating a housing shortage that all the experts were warning about even back in the 70's and yet nothing was being done about.
I say all this to say I see the same thing happening with the climate "debate" today. We know what's coming. What know what the economic impacts are going to be. But we sit and equivocate and do nothing. If you think today's housing crises is bad, wait until you see what hits us in 30-40 years!
Funny too how the ever-vaunted market failed to solve the housing issue...but that's a story for another time.
Housing was just yet another problem at the time.
The problem with housing today is an amazing lack of foresight from our so-called leaders then. Everyone accommodated the Boomers (I'm Gen X). They didn't have enough houses for the Boomers - let alone the kids the Boomers would have (the Millennials) who would be living as adults at the same time as their parents. There was a rash of home-building in the 40's, 50's and 60's, and then it slowed way down, never to reach those levels again. Meanwhile, advances in healthcare increased people's lifetimes, exacerbating a housing shortage that all the experts were warning about even back in the 70's and yet nothing was being done about.
I say all this to say I see the same thing happening with the climate "debate" today. We know what's coming. What know what the economic impacts are going to be. But we sit and equivocate and do nothing. If you think today's housing crises is bad, wait until you see what hits us in 30-40 years!
Funny too how the ever-vaunted market failed to solve the housing issue...but that's a story for another time.
That's what always happened in Argentina. Government prints money so they have more to spend, but it's not without consequences. Then they blame businessmen for the rising prices, and uneducated voters believe them.
And now with the US media promoting insane ideas like 'modern monetary theory' it may become more common.
And now with the US media promoting insane ideas like 'modern monetary theory' it may become more common.
I believe this setup works (until it does not, but does work for a very long time) in Argentina in large part due to currency controls making it hard to purchase dollars.
Should the same high-inflation state come to the US it would be a very interesting state (technically interesting, not meaning this in a nasty "I plan to watch this show from the outside" way). With current opportunities to easily move between the dollar, other currencies, gold, BTC, etc. should the high (20+%) inflation expectation become entrenched the government will find it hard to force people to buy dollars.
When anyone can move a large hedging sum from dollar to Swiss franc or Norwegian krone, forcing the local citizenry to buy rapidly depreciated fiat is virtually impossible. My 2c.
Should the same high-inflation state come to the US it would be a very interesting state (technically interesting, not meaning this in a nasty "I plan to watch this show from the outside" way). With current opportunities to easily move between the dollar, other currencies, gold, BTC, etc. should the high (20+%) inflation expectation become entrenched the government will find it hard to force people to buy dollars.
When anyone can move a large hedging sum from dollar to Swiss franc or Norwegian krone, forcing the local citizenry to buy rapidly depreciated fiat is virtually impossible. My 2c.
Democtrats may be already evaluating the benefits of currency controls.
I am sure they are, but with the options built up during the globalization it will be much, much harder than in Argentina (Cuba, Soviet Union, etc.) in the last century. Not impossible, but very hard.
Also, after three decades of globalization currency controls will hit virtually every business, so this will likely be broadly unpopular. Again, not impossible, but I personally view it as very unlikely without dictatorial powers held by one, or a very few, strong individuals. But we shall see...
Also, after three decades of globalization currency controls will hit virtually every business, so this will likely be broadly unpopular. Again, not impossible, but I personally view it as very unlikely without dictatorial powers held by one, or a very few, strong individuals. But we shall see...
Exactly. People are only trying to keep up with inflation created by easing monetary policy and supply-demand imbalances during COVID and post-COVID.
People keep repeating this like this is a self-obvious truth. Both of these factors are long gone. IMO, there are two major components to inflation.
1. The war in Ukraine spiked energy and food prices. People don't fully grasp how fundamental energy costs are to prices. Energy costs are X1% of the cost of a good, X2% of the cost of the parts in that good, X3% of the cost of the materials in those parts, X4% of the factory and tooling, X5% for transport of all those goods, parts, materials, tooling, et cetera. It takes a while to ripple through. The energy cost spike in 1973 caused the inflation crisis of the late 70s and early 80s IMO.
2. Housing, which is a systemic issue that far predates COVID.
1. The war in Ukraine spiked energy and food prices. People don't fully grasp how fundamental energy costs are to prices. Energy costs are X1% of the cost of a good, X2% of the cost of the parts in that good, X3% of the cost of the materials in those parts, X4% of the factory and tooling, X5% for transport of all those goods, parts, materials, tooling, et cetera. It takes a while to ripple through. The energy cost spike in 1973 caused the inflation crisis of the late 70s and early 80s IMO.
2. Housing, which is a systemic issue that far predates COVID.
Energy/material costs and money-printing are not unrelated, in that the latter is being used to paper over extremely worrying trends in the former. 2008-induced QE and covid-induced direct payments are both can-kicking strategies which do not address underlying problems, just temporarily plug leaks in the facade.
And temporarily plugging leaks was exactly the right thing to do during a temporary world-wide crisis like COVID.
I make no claim either way on that, just responding to your other point on inflationary forcings.
You forgot corporate profiteering. Even the Wall Street Journal now admits it: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-is-inflation-so-sticky-it-c...
Congratulations, you sound like a standard Argentinian politician now. Trying to minimize the impact of increasing the money supply.
If we are talking about the US, I really don't think (1) was a big contributor. Perhaps ironically, the energy price shock in the early days of the war in Ukraine was the thing that actually was "transitory". (I think this is likely less true in Europe, but I haven't paid as much attention to that.)
Oil prices are global.
And yet, this does not contradict what I said. Oil prices, and thus gas prices, did go up quite a bit in the US, but that was clearly "transitory". Certainly this had a large impact on the perception of inflation, since gas prices are very visible. But high gas prices didn't last very long, went up well after inflation had taken root, and went back down well before inflation had begun to ease.
I think it's possible that other energy prices (like natural gas, which is not a global market) may have driven inflation outside the US in a more meaningful way, but like I said, I'm not sure that's true either because I just haven't followed that so much.
I think it's possible that other energy prices (like natural gas, which is not a global market) may have driven inflation outside the US in a more meaningful way, but like I said, I'm not sure that's true either because I just haven't followed that so much.
Oil prices are not particularly high and have taken actual effort by producers to cut down production.
Ofc, they are higher than during pandemic, but still not really that high.
Ofc, they are higher than during pandemic, but still not really that high.
So they’re asking for their wages to roughly keep pace with inflation, and maybe get slightly ahead of inflation, knowing their raises after they accept the job may be below inflation? Seems reasonable to me.
Workers want to be able to live as well as they did last year. I’m shocked.
Workers want to be able to live as well as they did last year. I’m shocked.
That's what I took away from this.
I'm not sure I really see anything interesting here, except this:
> The numbers are significant in that wages increasingly have been recognized as a driving force in inflation
Rising wages aren't the driving forces of inflation. The problem is exactly the opposite it seems.
The Federal Reserve and "easy money" policies put a lot of money into the system trying to deal with the pandemic. The fallout of that is inflation.
The fallout of THAT is people need more money to get by. Not just to deal with the inflation, but to deal with raising interest rates and everything else that comes along with trying to "fix" that issue.
So people demand higher wages.
I'm not sure I really see anything interesting here, except this:
> The numbers are significant in that wages increasingly have been recognized as a driving force in inflation
Rising wages aren't the driving forces of inflation. The problem is exactly the opposite it seems.
The Federal Reserve and "easy money" policies put a lot of money into the system trying to deal with the pandemic. The fallout of that is inflation.
The fallout of THAT is people need more money to get by. Not just to deal with the inflation, but to deal with raising interest rates and everything else that comes along with trying to "fix" that issue.
So people demand higher wages.
Somebody's got to pay for all that extra money Biden has been printing. Nothing is free.
Inflation is how we pay the bill.
Inflation is how we pay the bill.
For Argentinian citizens what you say is common sense, backed by the experience of living with inflation for more than 50 years.
For a liberal HN reader living in an expensive apartment in SF, what you say is a cause for downvotes.
For a liberal HN reader living in an expensive apartment in SF, what you say is a cause for downvotes.
I know. But I don't care about karma points, and so feel free to speak the truth.
Could pay for government spending with taxes.
Yes, and if that was done, there'd be no inflation. Of course, then people would be aware of those huge costly tax increases, and the government would be unable to shift the blame.
We could cut spending on our massively bloated military and stop with the tax cuts for rich. Republicans are hardly fiscally conservative these days, we have a choice between the “tax and spend” party and the “spend and cut taxes” party.
A lot of our problems simply come from low interest rates, and our inability to raise them as the economy got better; now we are stuck with raising interest rates because we basically broke the lever. Both parties are at fault here, I guess we are just getting what we asked for.
A lot of our problems simply come from low interest rates, and our inability to raise them as the economy got better; now we are stuck with raising interest rates because we basically broke the lever. Both parties are at fault here, I guess we are just getting what we asked for.
All of the world economically viable nations have been printing more money after the recession of the 2000s, not just "Biden." Increased liquidity has incidental effects on inflation, which comes from different factors, like resource scarcity, tariff increases and price gouging.
You're right that all countries switched from the gold standard to fiat money so they could inflate it, and inflate it they did.
What Biden did recently, however, was a truly massive spike in deficit spending, thus spiking inflation a few months later.
What Biden did recently, however, was a truly massive spike in deficit spending, thus spiking inflation a few months later.
Deficit spending has actually been falling under Biden when compared to Trump. But of course, that comes from a huge spike at the end of the Trump administration (the same situation for Obama after Bush).
No, they brought down inflation rate, which spiked after the pandemic and increase of international tariffs. But maybe you are the type blinded by political outrage
You might want to look at a chart of deficit spending:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD
What do you think a $3,200,000,000,000 deficit in just one year might mean to the economy? Do you see the part where the deficit dropped to $1,300,000,000,000 and "they brought down the inflation part"?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD
What do you think a $3,200,000,000,000 deficit in just one year might mean to the economy? Do you see the part where the deficit dropped to $1,300,000,000,000 and "they brought down the inflation part"?
Your chart shoes deficit spending going down since Biden took office (lower means more negative). The -$3,200,000,000,000 deficit number you quote happened in 2020, Biden was sworn in in 2021. I’m not clear about the point you are trying to make.
> While goods prices have abated since pushing overall inflation to its highest level in more than 40 years in mid-2022, other factors continue to keep it well above the Fed’s targeted rate of 2%.
The linked article is more explicit. Shelter costs are a huge factor in why inflation hasn't settled down.
This isn't explicit because this article plays the "if people accepted lower wages inflation would be lower" idea which doesn't apply to shelter costs like it does to luxury goods.
When the primary driver of inflation is housing the supply demand side of the equation is only the solution if you accept that forcing people to be homeless while employed is an acceptable way to reduce demand and thus prices.
The linked article is more explicit. Shelter costs are a huge factor in why inflation hasn't settled down.
This isn't explicit because this article plays the "if people accepted lower wages inflation would be lower" idea which doesn't apply to shelter costs like it does to luxury goods.
When the primary driver of inflation is housing the supply demand side of the equation is only the solution if you accept that forcing people to be homeless while employed is an acceptable way to reduce demand and thus prices.
> When the primary driver of inflation is housing
I thought price increases were being driven by fiat money printing, sending pallets of that money to Ukraine, and high energy prices due to that conflict.
I thought price increases were being driven by fiat money printing, sending pallets of that money to Ukraine, and high energy prices due to that conflict.
Price increases were driven by supply issues resulting in price increases. Then companies realized that customers don't react to the amount of price increase, merely to a price increase.
Why bump up prices by 5% when you could bump them by 20%?
Fiat money printing didn't directly impact pricing unless you consider a lack of demand during a drop in supply but put another way "people didn't starve during the market problems" doesn't sound so bad...
Certainly a lot of money was given to investors which certainly made the housing crisis worse given it was considered a safe investment for the excess money.
Ukraine is mostly getting old equipment and listed at its purchase price...
High energy prices are due to increased demand due to global warming increasing climate control costs hugely.
Why bump up prices by 5% when you could bump them by 20%?
Fiat money printing didn't directly impact pricing unless you consider a lack of demand during a drop in supply but put another way "people didn't starve during the market problems" doesn't sound so bad...
Certainly a lot of money was given to investors which certainly made the housing crisis worse given it was considered a safe investment for the excess money.
Ukraine is mostly getting old equipment and listed at its purchase price...
High energy prices are due to increased demand due to global warming increasing climate control costs hugely.
The US economy is hardly as isolationist as you seem to think. Do you have any idea what the embargo on Russia did to the EU economy (hint: we didn't build those massive pipelines because we liked looking at them)? Let alone the massive loss of productivity in Ukraine, which had a relatively high level of education compared with other Eastern European countries while having very low wages? Not to mention the hit to world food supplies (which of course has less of a direct impact on the Global North as most of the food produced in Ukraine goes to the Global South).
And this is while we're still in a global pandemic that was still causing occasional lockdowns and shutdowns in China by the end of last year, causing ripples through global supply chains. Plus the short outage from the accidental blockade of the Suez Canal and the lasting effects from the 2020 disruptions of supply chains and mass death of small businesses. Not to forget the increase (and increase in severity) in droughts and floodings and wildfires and other natural disasters which have also been messing with production and supply (e.g. I know of several major insurance companies in Germany that are currently completely backlogged over claims relating to recent severe weather incidents).
There's a global ongoing financial crisis and it's neither concentrated in nor entirely caused by the United States. Yes, individual incidents (e.g. the SV Bank failure) have global knock-on effects but this cuts both ways.
EDIT: I don't fundamentally disagree with you. I just want to point out that energy prices aren't the entirety of what's fueling the ongoing situation and that it's a bit bigger than just the invasion of Ukraine, which is already disruptive enough (after all this is why we didn't have any major land wars in Europe since WW2 excluding the fallout from the fall of the Soviet Union).
And this is while we're still in a global pandemic that was still causing occasional lockdowns and shutdowns in China by the end of last year, causing ripples through global supply chains. Plus the short outage from the accidental blockade of the Suez Canal and the lasting effects from the 2020 disruptions of supply chains and mass death of small businesses. Not to forget the increase (and increase in severity) in droughts and floodings and wildfires and other natural disasters which have also been messing with production and supply (e.g. I know of several major insurance companies in Germany that are currently completely backlogged over claims relating to recent severe weather incidents).
There's a global ongoing financial crisis and it's neither concentrated in nor entirely caused by the United States. Yes, individual incidents (e.g. the SV Bank failure) have global knock-on effects but this cuts both ways.
EDIT: I don't fundamentally disagree with you. I just want to point out that energy prices aren't the entirety of what's fueling the ongoing situation and that it's a bit bigger than just the invasion of Ukraine, which is already disruptive enough (after all this is why we didn't have any major land wars in Europe since WW2 excluding the fallout from the fall of the Soviet Union).
We agree a lot. Like I wrote, "and high energy prices due to that conflict."
Stop getting your ideas from partisan mass media.
"Employers have been trying to keep pace with the wage demands"
There's no evidence for this characterization in the piece. The average FTE offer is $69,475, the average reservation salary is $78,645. Everything else here is either inference to paint employers as nobly struggling against the tide of unfairly high demands ("$80k a year?? The gall!") and blaming it for inflation.
So tired of this stuff that's just blaming labor for everything, from empty downtowns (maybe don't build commercial districts an hour's walk from any residential districts) to inflation (let's give taxing corporate windfalls a shot). The election cycle is so tedious.
There's no evidence for this characterization in the piece. The average FTE offer is $69,475, the average reservation salary is $78,645. Everything else here is either inference to paint employers as nobly struggling against the tide of unfairly high demands ("$80k a year?? The gall!") and blaming it for inflation.
So tired of this stuff that's just blaming labor for everything, from empty downtowns (maybe don't build commercial districts an hour's walk from any residential districts) to inflation (let's give taxing corporate windfalls a shot). The election cycle is so tedious.
Very Orwellian.
There is no evidence that employers have been trying to keep pace. There is ample evidence that they have tried to suppress wages.
For decades what they are calling 'keeping pace' has been performed by knocking the legs out of their employees.
There is no evidence that employers have been trying to keep pace. There is ample evidence that they have tried to suppress wages.
For decades what they are calling 'keeping pace' has been performed by knocking the legs out of their employees.
Wage suppression is directly rewarded by the way the system is set up because it reduces expenses and thus increases profits. The same goes for layoffs (short-term at least) and erosion of workers' rights. To expect a business to not engage in it is optimistic, to expect it to act in the opposite direction is delusional.
Yes, there are individual entrepreneurs who try to be "the good guys". But they're operating at a competive disadvantage and usually can only afford to do so for a limited time due to e.g. strong initial funding. If you want corporations to behave this way you don't want corporations, you want co-operatives where all workers are also owners of the company because this completely removes the dynamics caused by the conflict between the interests of the shareholders/owners and those of the employees/workers by turning both into the same group.
I think it's a perfectly legitimate political opinion to think that business owners should be allowed to roam freely and pursue profit over worker well-being, but I'd expect people who hold this opinion to at least be honest about it and not pretend employers are altruistic humanitarians.
Yes, there are individual entrepreneurs who try to be "the good guys". But they're operating at a competive disadvantage and usually can only afford to do so for a limited time due to e.g. strong initial funding. If you want corporations to behave this way you don't want corporations, you want co-operatives where all workers are also owners of the company because this completely removes the dynamics caused by the conflict between the interests of the shareholders/owners and those of the employees/workers by turning both into the same group.
I think it's a perfectly legitimate political opinion to think that business owners should be allowed to roam freely and pursue profit over worker well-being, but I'd expect people who hold this opinion to at least be honest about it and not pretend employers are altruistic humanitarians.
On the flip side, many people would not choose to invest in an investment fund that advertised lower returns because it was composed of businesses that pay employees well. Or shop at stores with higher prices because they pay employees well.
Yes, "being the good guys" is not rewarded in the system. Any reward happens external to the system (at least any reward that can't already be achieved by lying about it, i.e. having a PR budget instead of morals). That does not make "being the good guys" bad, it just means if we want people to be that, we can't have that under the system we have.
Founding a co-op arguably avoids some of that but as you correctly point out there is little incentive to do business with co-ops if you have to (or want to) act optimally within the system (which depending on your resource constraints can mean "being able to feed yourself and continuing to have a roof over your head"). This is why co-ops are somewhat incestuous: there are for example marketing co-ops which primarily do marketing for other co-ops, which in turn prefer paying co-ops to do their marketing, because they're all in the same boat. Alternatively many co-ops target the public sector or municipal governments as they're less profit-focussed and instead often hire for things co-ops can more easily guarantee (e.g. avoiding child labor in supply chains, "green energy", various sustainability metrics etc).
You can't outcompete unethical businesses when being ethical is a competitive disadvantage. No matter how many regulations we bolt onto it, the system will always reward those companies that try to game them rather than those that genuinely believe in their stated ethical goals. Of course that doesn't mean the regulations are pointless: often trying to do the bare minimum yields better externalities than not doing anything at all.
Founding a co-op arguably avoids some of that but as you correctly point out there is little incentive to do business with co-ops if you have to (or want to) act optimally within the system (which depending on your resource constraints can mean "being able to feed yourself and continuing to have a roof over your head"). This is why co-ops are somewhat incestuous: there are for example marketing co-ops which primarily do marketing for other co-ops, which in turn prefer paying co-ops to do their marketing, because they're all in the same boat. Alternatively many co-ops target the public sector or municipal governments as they're less profit-focussed and instead often hire for things co-ops can more easily guarantee (e.g. avoiding child labor in supply chains, "green energy", various sustainability metrics etc).
You can't outcompete unethical businesses when being ethical is a competitive disadvantage. No matter how many regulations we bolt onto it, the system will always reward those companies that try to game them rather than those that genuinely believe in their stated ethical goals. Of course that doesn't mean the regulations are pointless: often trying to do the bare minimum yields better externalities than not doing anything at all.
I love that a key point is that this drives inflation, instead of crazy inflation forcing people to look for higher paying jobs. /s
Wages have been a lagging indicator for almost 50 years now. Anyone who portends that wages drive inflation is not worth listening to. Wages have not kept up, today, nor will they tomorrow.
Wages have somewhat more than kept up with inflation.
1955-2017: https://www.statista.com/chart/18418/real-mean-and-median-fa...
1984-2021: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
(I couldn't find a single series that ran 1950s through 2021/2022, so had to use two above.)
1955-2017: https://www.statista.com/chart/18418/real-mean-and-median-fa...
1984-2021: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
(I couldn't find a single series that ran 1950s through 2021/2022, so had to use two above.)
Those charts show wages growing at an annualized rate of 1.5% at best. Any years with inflation greater than 1.5% were effectively years of wage LOSS, rather than growth. Most of those years had inflation greater than 1.5%.
Edit: this math is bad, see sokoloff's comment below.
Edit: this math is bad, see sokoloff's comment below.
Those charts show real wages, not nominal wages. "Real" in economics means "after taking inflation into account".
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/real-value.asp
A year showing any growth in real terms is a nominal growth that is higher than inflation.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/real-value.asp
A year showing any growth in real terms is a nominal growth that is higher than inflation.
Fair enough. There still seems to be a disconnect though, as the cost of various goods, such as housing, have far exceeded inflation. Are there any charts that try to track wages against a basket of goods?
That's what the CPI is and the real wage growth charts are exactly what you're asking for.
That being said, there's definitely a disconnect. The CPI metric is constantly changing, and is such a broad economic indicator that many people's experiences will not "feel" like what the federal data suggests.
The root of the growing wealth gap is the massive deficit we've been running. Especially since the GFC, the strategy has been to rack up a bunch of debt and inflate that debt away. This inflates the value of financial assets, property, and commodities...none of which is owned by the average joe whose cash savings gets destroyed in the interim.
That being said, there's definitely a disconnect. The CPI metric is constantly changing, and is such a broad economic indicator that many people's experiences will not "feel" like what the federal data suggests.
The root of the growing wealth gap is the massive deficit we've been running. Especially since the GFC, the strategy has been to rack up a bunch of debt and inflate that debt away. This inflates the value of financial assets, property, and commodities...none of which is owned by the average joe whose cash savings gets destroyed in the interim.
I agree with everything you say except for one point:
> none of which is owned by the average joe
About 66% of US households "own" a home (often with a fixed-rate mortgage, which makes rising inflation doubly good for those homeowners) and 58% of homes are owner-occupied. The median Joe is a homeowner, not a renter.
> none of which is owned by the average joe
About 66% of US households "own" a home (often with a fixed-rate mortgage, which makes rising inflation doubly good for those homeowners) and 58% of homes are owner-occupied. The median Joe is a homeowner, not a renter.
Yeah you’re right thanks for the correction. I’d rephrase to say among those three categories cumulatively most Americans own very little.
Doesn't the "adjusted dollars" mean the numbers are already adjusted for inflation? Pretty sure the median wage in 1984 was a lot less than 56K in 1984 dollars.
QED
This all started when the dollar stopped being indexed on gold
Not really. The divergence only became meaningful in the 80s which corresponds closer to Reagan's economic reforms and the massive chilling effect on unions that occurred in that period (ex: the 1981 PATCO strike and Reagan's subsequent retaliation).
We had inflation before the 1970s.
The divergence happened in 1914, starting the very next year.
That divergence reached 2:1 around 1929, and (as always happens when currency is inflated while being pegged to something else) a massive correction occurred (the banks collapsed). The response by FDR was to make it illegal to trade dollars for gold.
Then for decades there was the absurd fiction that the dollar was pegged to gold, but of course nobody was allowed to make such a transaction. This continued until the 1970s when that ersatz pegging was repealed.
That divergence reached 2:1 around 1929, and (as always happens when currency is inflated while being pegged to something else) a massive correction occurred (the banks collapsed). The response by FDR was to make it illegal to trade dollars for gold.
Then for decades there was the absurd fiction that the dollar was pegged to gold, but of course nobody was allowed to make such a transaction. This continued until the 1970s when that ersatz pegging was repealed.
"Inflation" really means "wage inflation" for planners and the media. Wage inflation is the bad kind of inflation, as opposed to the good kinds of inflation (e.g. food price gouging).
Anyone notice interest rates only started increasing when wages started going up but not when housing costs went up first?
I'm sure the people making decisions about interest rates did :)
indeed. compare what the media calls "price growth" (e.g. housing) and what it calls "inflation" (e.g. wages)
>> I love that a key point is that this drives inflation, instead of crazy inflation forcing people to look for higher paying jobs.
This type of argument makes it seem that workers are at fault for inflation. That isnt true. Workers are stuck in an inflation loop until inflation is tamed.
The inflation loop didnt start with greedy workers, it started with prices going up due to monetary policy...catalyzing the loop.
This type of argument makes it seem that workers are at fault for inflation. That isnt true. Workers are stuck in an inflation loop until inflation is tamed.
The inflation loop didnt start with greedy workers, it started with prices going up due to monetary policy...catalyzing the loop.
Called the wage price spiral. However data from fed doesn’t show we have one currently ongoing. With most workers getting screwed over.
The caveat to the "wage price spiral" is that we live in a system that demands ever growing profits. Given that profits are the surplus that remains after wages are paid, this means we expect the portion of prices that goes towards wages to be reduced over time. This means profit growth requires either wage suppression (easy) or a higher output per employee (difficult). If wages go up instead of being suppressed, this adds to the existing market pressure to increase profits while also removing and in fact inverting one of the two major mechanisms to increase profits. According to traditional economical theory this means the only thing left to do is increase prices to at least maintain profit if not profit growth as well.
In other words, the reason the system demands higher prices if wages go up (while the worker demands higher wages if the prices go up because they literally need money to survive) is not simply that higher wages drive up production cost but that businesses also need to maintain and increase their profits, i.e. the surplus that remains after all stock is sold, all services are rendered and all costs are paid.
There is no way to change this within the system but concluding that this means the problem is unsolvable mistakenly assumes the system can not be modified or replaced with one that does not have this resource allocation problem. Such a change just wouldn't benefit those currently holding a disproportionate amount of resources and wealth as much as the rest of us so it's not likely to happen without sufficient external force (and even then only if that energy is not directed elsewhere).
In other words, the reason the system demands higher prices if wages go up (while the worker demands higher wages if the prices go up because they literally need money to survive) is not simply that higher wages drive up production cost but that businesses also need to maintain and increase their profits, i.e. the surplus that remains after all stock is sold, all services are rendered and all costs are paid.
There is no way to change this within the system but concluding that this means the problem is unsolvable mistakenly assumes the system can not be modified or replaced with one that does not have this resource allocation problem. Such a change just wouldn't benefit those currently holding a disproportionate amount of resources and wealth as much as the rest of us so it's not likely to happen without sufficient external force (and even then only if that energy is not directed elsewhere).
Need to question why plebs dare to ask for more
“Highest level ever…” since 2014 is such weasel words. What did wage inflation look like in the 1980s?
It’s also weird because the article seems to posture that wanting a higher wage for yourself contributes to inflation, but it’s the most reasonable thing in the world. If the news media reports that there’s inflation, people demand higher wages to account for inflation, and inflation increases.
It’s also weird because the article seems to posture that wanting a higher wage for yourself contributes to inflation, but it’s the most reasonable thing in the world. If the news media reports that there’s inflation, people demand higher wages to account for inflation, and inflation increases.
According to the article's ending it's likely more complicated than just "wages going up".
It mentions that "Job seekers, or those who have looked for work in the previous four weeks, declined to 19.4% from 24.7% a year ago. That came as job openings fell by 738,000 to 9.58 million, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The likelihood of switching jobs fell, dropping to 10.6% from 11% a year ago, while expectations of being offered a new job also declined, to 18.7% from 21.1%."
If less people are willing and/or able to switch jobs, meaning there is less supply of labor, is it any surprise wages rise?
It mentions that "Job seekers, or those who have looked for work in the previous four weeks, declined to 19.4% from 24.7% a year ago. That came as job openings fell by 738,000 to 9.58 million, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The likelihood of switching jobs fell, dropping to 10.6% from 11% a year ago, while expectations of being offered a new job also declined, to 18.7% from 21.1%."
If less people are willing and/or able to switch jobs, meaning there is less supply of labor, is it any surprise wages rise?
> The numbers are significant in that wages increasingly have been recognized as a driving force in inflation.
They have their causality backwards for this one. It's already been shown (repeatedly) that the cause of inflation in the last few years has been primarily driven by increased corporate profits, meaning prices are going up.
People just want enough money to afford inflation.
They have their causality backwards for this one. It's already been shown (repeatedly) that the cause of inflation in the last few years has been primarily driven by increased corporate profits, meaning prices are going up.
People just want enough money to afford inflation.
There be another article titled "Landlords are demanding 20% more a year than two years ago" and that would explain a large portion of the American economy wonkiness.
Yeah, my in-laws rent went up nearly 40% and the property management claimed it was due to upgrades (the upgrade was a new coat of paint on the building). That took them out of the range of being able to afford their apartment and other necessities with social security and a meager retirement. They had to move to a new place in a bad area and my MIL had to start working again.
Yeah. Friend of mine has had her rent go up 25% over the last two years in DC.
I live in DC, it is ridiculously expensive but rent increases are capped, google says the formula is CPI + 2% but no more than 10%/yr. If she stayed in the same unit she might want to make sure her landlord isn't raising her rent illegally.
[deleted]
Economic growth raises property values, speculators pile on hoping to make money for nothing, property values rocket upward taking rents with them, rents exceed their productive value, businesses close and people leave because the rent is too damn high, and recession ensues. Expect property owners to hang on as long as they can.
Henry George laid this out 144 years ago in Progress and Poverty. Once you've seen it, you can't un-see it.
Henry George laid this out 144 years ago in Progress and Poverty. Once you've seen it, you can't un-see it.
> The numbers are significant in that wages increasingly have been recognized as a driving force in inflation.
Honestly shocked that anyone actually believes this nonsense.
Demand for wages is up because the price of not dying is up. Rent is skyrocketing, food is more expensive, literally every aspect of life is now a subscription or some other nickel-and-dime scheme. I won't even talk about the current state of medical billing.
But also, the premise just doesn't make any sense. How can higher wages cause inflation -at all-? Money isn't being printed to cover these wages, the money is transferred from employer to employee. No part of that is inflationary. No extra money is being created, the value of the dollar is not reduced.
If you want to insist that higher wages cause inflation, you must also accept that CEO wages and corporate profits are causing a proportional amount of inflation.
Or maybe siphoning hundreds of billions of dollars out of the US economy to be hoarded forever in offshore bank accounts is having an effect on the value of the dollar? Nah, it's definitely 20-something's buying $12 store-brand eggs and paying $8,000/mo rent on a studio flat.
Honestly shocked that anyone actually believes this nonsense.
Demand for wages is up because the price of not dying is up. Rent is skyrocketing, food is more expensive, literally every aspect of life is now a subscription or some other nickel-and-dime scheme. I won't even talk about the current state of medical billing.
But also, the premise just doesn't make any sense. How can higher wages cause inflation -at all-? Money isn't being printed to cover these wages, the money is transferred from employer to employee. No part of that is inflationary. No extra money is being created, the value of the dollar is not reduced.
If you want to insist that higher wages cause inflation, you must also accept that CEO wages and corporate profits are causing a proportional amount of inflation.
Or maybe siphoning hundreds of billions of dollars out of the US economy to be hoarded forever in offshore bank accounts is having an effect on the value of the dollar? Nah, it's definitely 20-something's buying $12 store-brand eggs and paying $8,000/mo rent on a studio flat.
> siphoning hundreds of billions of dollars out of the US economy to be hoarded forever in offshore bank accounts is having an effect on the value of the dollar?
It's really hard for individuals or even corporations to "hoard" cash forever in offshore bank accounts and cause inflation (nor deflation).
The money isn't locked in vault (not physical, nor electronically). They generally end up right back into the market because those banks offers loans for a good chunk of their deposits. Or they buy bonds or MBS which are effectively the same thing.
Same for parking assets in a financial institution. Whatever assets you buy the original sellers gets the money you put in, and they use it on something else. The only real way you could personally take money out of circulation is to withdraw physical cash and burn it (Inadvisable, in some places this is illegal) or bury it in the ground.
It's really hard for individuals or even corporations to "hoard" cash forever in offshore bank accounts and cause inflation (nor deflation).
The money isn't locked in vault (not physical, nor electronically). They generally end up right back into the market because those banks offers loans for a good chunk of their deposits. Or they buy bonds or MBS which are effectively the same thing.
Same for parking assets in a financial institution. Whatever assets you buy the original sellers gets the money you put in, and they use it on something else. The only real way you could personally take money out of circulation is to withdraw physical cash and burn it (Inadvisable, in some places this is illegal) or bury it in the ground.
unless the gvt steps - in situations like these the invincible hand of the market isn't gonna work its magic.
for things that involve capital - the leisure class / owning class always has an advantage.
and btw - if you can't quit your job today and not work again for the next 10 years - while maintaining the same standard of living. you're part of the working class not leisure class. no matter how high your income is.
for things that involve capital - the leisure class / owning class always has an advantage.
and btw - if you can't quit your job today and not work again for the next 10 years - while maintaining the same standard of living. you're part of the working class not leisure class. no matter how high your income is.
"American workers are demanding the market pays them the market rate for their labor"
FTFY.
FTFY.
Normal mind: Money printing is to be blamed for inflation. Also women working.
Higher mind: MMT is to be blamed for inflation. Also there will be a cool down period (that will help exactly no one).
Megamind: Some no-name village bombing in buttfuck nowhere Ukraine is responsible across the board for all global inflation and perfectly explains why average house prices have gone up past a million dollars.
Higher mind: MMT is to be blamed for inflation. Also there will be a cool down period (that will help exactly no one).
Megamind: Some no-name village bombing in buttfuck nowhere Ukraine is responsible across the board for all global inflation and perfectly explains why average house prices have gone up past a million dollars.
Idea : the executives who paid for this article could instead choose to organically grow profits instead of using the cover-up of 'inflation' to price gouge and put money in their own pockets, instead of blaming the folks who are making the profits for the company.
Wages are just the price of labor. Our currency is worth less, so employees are demanding more in dollar terms for their labor.
I feel like people misunderstand/misrepresent what the fed officials say about the relationship between wages and inflation. The Fed doesn’t want to create unemployment or directly reduce wages. The ideal scenario is to curb inflation while keeping unemployment as low as possible (which is at a record low atm).
Raising rates restricts the supply of credit, which makes servicing debt more difficult and usually results in layoffs. It’s not like the Fed is conspiring to keep the working class poor from a smokey back room…which I feel has become the narrative being pushed by media outlets nowadays.
I feel like people misunderstand/misrepresent what the fed officials say about the relationship between wages and inflation. The Fed doesn’t want to create unemployment or directly reduce wages. The ideal scenario is to curb inflation while keeping unemployment as low as possible (which is at a record low atm).
Raising rates restricts the supply of credit, which makes servicing debt more difficult and usually results in layoffs. It’s not like the Fed is conspiring to keep the working class poor from a smokey back room…which I feel has become the narrative being pushed by media outlets nowadays.
> wages increasingly have been recognized as a driving force in inflation.
This is called the "wage-price" spiral. It is not the cause of inflation. Inflation is caused by the government diluting the value of money by printing lots and lots of extra money.
This is called the "wage-price" spiral. It is not the cause of inflation. Inflation is caused by the government diluting the value of money by printing lots and lots of extra money.
What you describe is exactly what has been happening in Argentina since the government of Perón more than 50 years ago. But as that economical dynamic is relatively new in the USA, it's not yet understood even by many highly educated HN readers.
[citation needed]
MMT would disagree with this claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_monetary_theory
Even among Keynesian economists and others the exact causes are disputed and most seem to agree that it comes down to a combination of factors with "making more money" not necessarily even being the most direct or biggest contributor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation
Opponents often cite historical examples of hyperinflation but arguably in most of those cases the government "making excessive amounts of money" was just a reaction to the hyperinflation itself. E.g. the collapse of the German "Papiermark" directly followed the defeat of Germany in the first World War, which also settled the country with extremely painful reparations and involved a republican revolution which preceded years of political instability (e.g. there were two different and conflicting Soviet republics in Bavaria alone).
So as correlation goes, states that go kerplunk tend to print a lot of money. This does not suggest that printing a lot of money makes them go kerplunk or vice versa. They might be going kerplunk for entirely different reasons and print a lot of money to address those reasons, desperately. It actually seems unscientific to assume societies work so trivially that printing too much money destroys them given how complex we know societies are (or failing that, at least how complex individual humans are and how complex therefore interactions between them must be).
MMT would disagree with this claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_monetary_theory
Even among Keynesian economists and others the exact causes are disputed and most seem to agree that it comes down to a combination of factors with "making more money" not necessarily even being the most direct or biggest contributor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation
Opponents often cite historical examples of hyperinflation but arguably in most of those cases the government "making excessive amounts of money" was just a reaction to the hyperinflation itself. E.g. the collapse of the German "Papiermark" directly followed the defeat of Germany in the first World War, which also settled the country with extremely painful reparations and involved a republican revolution which preceded years of political instability (e.g. there were two different and conflicting Soviet republics in Bavaria alone).
So as correlation goes, states that go kerplunk tend to print a lot of money. This does not suggest that printing a lot of money makes them go kerplunk or vice versa. They might be going kerplunk for entirely different reasons and print a lot of money to address those reasons, desperately. It actually seems unscientific to assume societies work so trivially that printing too much money destroys them given how complex we know societies are (or failing that, at least how complex individual humans are and how complex therefore interactions between them must be).
Oh, there are lots of explanations for inflation, usually one party or another raised prices (those bastards!).
Consider you have $100. You buy 10 items at $10 each. Now the running dog capitalist swine raises the price to $11. You now can buy only 9 items. Money doesn't appear in your pocket to cover the price increase, so simply fewer items get bought.
That's what's wrong with all those other inflation theories.
But with the increase in money supply theory, the extra money dilutes the value of the existing money, and money does appear in your pocket as you get an inflation raise.
This would not be possible without the creation of more money.
Consider you have $100. You buy 10 items at $10 each. Now the running dog capitalist swine raises the price to $11. You now can buy only 9 items. Money doesn't appear in your pocket to cover the price increase, so simply fewer items get bought.
That's what's wrong with all those other inflation theories.
But with the increase in money supply theory, the extra money dilutes the value of the existing money, and money does appear in your pocket as you get an inflation raise.
This would not be possible without the creation of more money.
Yeah man, it's almost like the poors want to be able to afford a house, a car, and the ability to reproduce. How dare they! /s
All you need to see is that the domain for the article is CNBC to know that it’s anti-worker bullshit.
So much for the idea that income levels would rise with inflation. Democrats have made us all poorer, treat them accordingly.
in much of california $80k/yr is poverty wages. everyone is getting squeezed tighter. no time or space for family/community. and for what? so your favorite billionaire can try to escape the planet
Rent Control Now
context? forty years of "illegal" Latino laborers, thirty years of dramatically rising CEO pay, now the outrage after firing 100,000 tech workers. seems like "submarine journalism" here edit
The wealthy are buying up all the tangible assets and price gouging everyone with high rent and subscriptions for everything imaginable, but it’s the workers asking for enough money to keep up that’s driving inflation. Ok.
The western world has gone from single income homeowners in the 80s to dual income homeowners today. That’s 80 hours of work per household per week instead of 40. IMO we’re trending towards multigenerational home ownership where it may require 4-6 income earners to own a house.
We’ll all be living paycheck-to-paycheck with 3 families to a house and the economists will still be blaming inflation on the working class having too much money. Maybe it’s time to start asking if a lack of competition is allowing the ownership class to manipulate supply so they can set unfair prices.