3 ms·

So does housing(0)=a cave? We've been improving ever since. I understand your point that for a buck we get more today than previously, but really what is happe

So does housing(0)=a cave? We've been improving ever since. I understand your point that for a buck we get more today than previously, but really what is happening is that the wages for the bulk of people are stagnant or shrinking relative to the measure of inflation (which over 20 years really hasn't changed that dramatically, especially when it ignores gas prices which have gone up 300% in nominal dollars in 15 years) while the tippy top are seeing their wages grow relative to that same measure of inflation. You are argueing the point on "real wages", which I see you point, but really the problem is that "real wages" are increasing very quickly for a tiny fraction of people, and not for everyone else. How you actually define real wages doesn't matter so long as it is the same for both groups you are comparing.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Yes. The fact that a suburban house with electricity, running water, heating and assorted other amenities costs more than a cave with a firepit is not inflation. Similarly, it's also not inflation for cheese fries to cost more than french fries. How you actually define real wages doesn't matter so long as it is the same for both groups you are comparing. This is true only if you want to make a relative comparison. I wasn't making a comparison at all, I was simply pointing out that everyone in the US, in every decile, has a lot more today than they did in 1980.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
really the problem is that "real wages" are increasing very quickly for a tiny fraction of people, and not for everyone else Mr. Fajitas's distinction is important. Without it, the picture being drawn is one of a declining middle class; a trend that, if continued, will see us all digging in the dirt just to live. But this is woefully incorrect. We're all better off. The middle class has much more goods and leisure time. Even the poor have more. Really, I have trouble seeing the problem here. As far as I can tell, the real objection is simply that the rich are getting richer at a faster rate than everyone else. And that seems like nothing but simple envy.
- rue 16y ago
  It implies that there is a disparity in effort vs. reward, which to many seems unfair (not to mention the truly rich have no need nor use for all their money). It is not that rich people do not deserve riches (well, some don't). It is that the rest of the people do not deserve any less.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Not necessarily. It could also mean that people put in different levels of effort, and this determines their income. At the bottom it is certainly true - the poor barely put in any effort at all. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2008.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2008.pdf

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Yes. The fact that a suburban house with electricity, running water, heating and assorted other amenities costs more than a cave with a firepit is not inflation. Similarly, it's also not inflation for cheese fries to cost more than french fries. How you actually define real wages doesn't matter so long as it is the same for both groups you are comparing. This is true only if you want to make a relative comparison. I wasn't making a comparison at all, I was simply pointing out that everyone in the US, in every decile, has a lot more today than they did in 1980.

CWuestefeld 16y ago

really the problem is that "real wages" are increasing very quickly for a tiny fraction of people, and not for everyone else Mr. Fajitas's distinction is important. Without it, the picture being drawn is one of a declining middle class; a trend that, if continued, will see us all digging in the dirt just to live. But this is woefully incorrect. We're all better off. The middle class has much more goods and leisure time. Even the poor have more. Really, I have trouble seeing the problem here. As far as I can tell, the real objection is simply that the rich are getting richer at a faster rate than everyone else. And that seems like nothing but simple envy.

rue 16y ago
It implies that there is a disparity in effort vs. reward, which to many seems unfair (not to mention the truly rich have no need nor use for all their money). It is not that rich people do not deserve riches (well, some don't). It is that the rest of the people do not deserve any less.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Not necessarily. It could also mean that people put in different levels of effort, and this determines their income. At the bottom it is certainly true - the poor barely put in any effort at all. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2008.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2008.pdf