4 ms·

Even if that's true, you're average person on earth is generally better off than their parents were. In the United States it's not quite as cut and dry, but in

by enjo 11y ago

Even if that's true, you're average person on earth is generally better off than their parents were. In the United States it's not quite as cut and dry, but in general you are likely at least as well off as your parents. Inflation adjusted wages have been relatively flat, not decreasing (unless new data I haven't seen suggests otherwise). At a macro scale people in the United States aren't getting poorer, they're just not getting relatively richer over time.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Inflation adjusted wages have been relatively flat, not decreasing Inflation adjusted median household income peaked in 1999, and its current level is below what it was in 1997. [0] Mean household income has done better, because the very good results at the top influence the mean, but have no impact on the median. Real hourly wages for middle- and low-income workers have been stagnant for decades; over a ~3 decade period dropping slightly for low income workers and gaining slightly for middle-income workers. (And lower for both categories than they were a decade ago.) And real hourly wages for young college graduates are below what they were in the late 1990s. And, in the same time as wages have dropped, the key non-wage benefit (employer health coverage) has also dropped, with fewer recently-employed young graduates (of high school and college, measured separately) having employer-sponsored insurance than in the past. [1] > At a macro scale people in the United States aren't getting poorer, they're just not getting relatively richer over time. No, other than capitalists and a narrow slice of elite workers, they're actually getting poorer. [0] https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N [1] http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
- chillwaves 11y ago
  It's worth noting that "wealth" can be measured by standard of living which is undoubtedly increasing in some aspects. You can't deny how enriching the internet is for most people, as an example (and it is extremely cheap and easy to acces). That said, people are being squeezed in other aspects of life that create very low standards of living. Maybe they have to work multiple jobs and do not get a set schedule, so they can never plan time off. Maybe they are struggling with crushing debt and working a min. wage job. There are a lot of ways that society can be broken, that a person's life can be devalued even if their standard of living rises by some specific metrics.
  - ragnarok451 11y ago
    Something I've been thinking about - why do we deserve the chance to not have to work long hours/multiple jobs? Most of the world has no such opportunity. They spend long hours for even the chance to put food on the table, with no internet access or modern luxuries that we have! They would give so much even for access to that. Meanwhile, it seems most Americans feel entitled to not only their high standard of living but a relaxed (in comparison) work environment and scheduling freedom. Perhaps the answer is that we all need to adjust to the reality that such freedoms only come with hard work, good planning, and some luck. It seems to be the reality that most of the world has already dealt with.
- refurb 11y ago
  Not sure I'd be referencing a study by EPI.... There are several reasons why the Top 1% has done so much better, says Josh Bivens, EPI’s research and policy director. These include tax cuts for the rich, deregulation of Wall Street and big increases in executive compensation. At the same time, the weakening of unions and the failure of the minimum wage to keep up with inflation depressed the wages of the middle class.
  - tanderson92 11y ago
    > Not sure I'd be referencing a study by EPI.... Why not? Besides which, the rest of your post is not a defense that the bottom 99% has fared well, it is itself an explanation for why the 1% has done extraordinarily well. On the backs of union workers and the middle class I might add.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    You provide no reason not to reference EPI, except maybe an implicit reference to a conflict between their conclusions and your political preconceptions. If you have a rebuttal to the points I cited then for, including a substantive reason to distrust their numbers on those points, please present it.
chillwaves 11y ago
Because you are talking about different kinds of wealth. Yes, access to the internet and other services improves standard of living, but what does it matter the kind of luxuries being afforded the the poor when they still need to work 60+ hours a week and live insecure about the future, or their next pay check, or having solid health insurance. It's great we are getting richer, but not always in the ways that matter most.

by enjo 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Inflation adjusted wages have been relatively flat, not decreasing Inflation adjusted median household income peaked in 1999, and its current level is below what it was in 1997. [0] Mean household income has done better, because the very good results at the top influence the mean, but have no impact on the median. Real hourly wages for middle- and low-income workers have been stagnant for decades; over a ~3 decade period dropping slightly for low income workers and gaining slightly for middle-income workers. (And lower for both categories than they were a decade ago.) And real hourly wages for young college graduates are below what they were in the late 1990s. And, in the same time as wages have dropped, the key non-wage benefit (employer health coverage) has also dropped, with fewer recently-employed young graduates (of high school and college, measured separately) having employer-sponsored insurance than in the past. [1] > At a macro scale people in the United States aren't getting poorer, they're just not getting relatively richer over time. No, other than capitalists and a narrow slice of elite workers, they're actually getting poorer. [0] https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N [1] http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

chillwaves 11y ago
It's worth noting that "wealth" can be measured by standard of living which is undoubtedly increasing in some aspects. You can't deny how enriching the internet is for most people, as an example (and it is extremely cheap and easy to acces). That said, people are being squeezed in other aspects of life that create very low standards of living. Maybe they have to work multiple jobs and do not get a set schedule, so they can never plan time off. Maybe they are struggling with crushing debt and working a min. wage job. There are a lot of ways that society can be broken, that a person's life can be devalued even if their standard of living rises by some specific metrics.
- ragnarok451 11y ago
  Something I've been thinking about - why do we deserve the chance to not have to work long hours/multiple jobs? Most of the world has no such opportunity. They spend long hours for even the chance to put food on the table, with no internet access or modern luxuries that we have! They would give so much even for access to that. Meanwhile, it seems most Americans feel entitled to not only their high standard of living but a relaxed (in comparison) work environment and scheduling freedom. Perhaps the answer is that we all need to adjust to the reality that such freedoms only come with hard work, good planning, and some luck. It seems to be the reality that most of the world has already dealt with.
refurb 11y ago
Not sure I'd be referencing a study by EPI.... There are several reasons why the Top 1% has done so much better, says Josh Bivens, EPI’s research and policy director. These include tax cuts for the rich, deregulation of Wall Street and big increases in executive compensation. At the same time, the weakening of unions and the failure of the minimum wage to keep up with inflation depressed the wages of the middle class.
- tanderson92 11y ago
  > Not sure I'd be referencing a study by EPI.... Why not? Besides which, the rest of your post is not a defense that the bottom 99% has fared well, it is itself an explanation for why the 1% has done extraordinarily well. On the backs of union workers and the middle class I might add.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  You provide no reason not to reference EPI, except maybe an implicit reference to a conflict between their conclusions and your political preconceptions. If you have a rebuttal to the points I cited then for, including a substantive reason to distrust their numbers on those points, please present it.

chillwaves 11y ago

Because you are talking about different kinds of wealth. Yes, access to the internet and other services improves standard of living, but what does it matter the kind of luxuries being afforded the the poor when they still need to work 60+ hours a week and live insecure about the future, or their next pay check, or having solid health insurance. It's great we are getting richer, but not always in the ways that matter most.