4 ms·

> As a group of workers, some of the lowest paid service sectors like hotel workers and restaurant workers saw some of the biggest real wage gains [1]. Not to

> As a group of workers, some of the lowest paid service sectors like hotel workers and restaurant workers saw some of the biggest real wage gains [1]. Not to ignore your other point, but an 18.4% increase (to $482 a week) is only a big number if you ignore that many were and still are making peanuts. Someone making significantly more receiving a 5 or 10 percent increase will receive substantially more "real wage gain" — and that's the point of the OP. In terms of real money, the top 1% and 0.1% receive a far larger slice of the pie. > That tracks with a 40-year-long trend of wages for the top 1% and 0.1% rising by 206.3% and 465.1%, respectively, between 1979 and 2021, while wages for the bottom 90% grew by a far more modest 28.7%.

saurik 4y ago
Sure, but to me the point of the comment you are responding to is that absolute wage gain is a pointless metric: the percentage increase is the correct metric, as it shows how "the pie" is being skewed.
- richbell 4y ago
  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but I don't see how a relative metric (percentage increase) that does not account for the existing disparity is 'correct'. If I make $7/hr and receive a 100% increase, and you make $100/hr and receive a 10% increase, things are still skewed in your direction.
  - gizmo686 4y ago
    Skewed is not a binary. Pre-raise, you made 7% of my salary. Post raise, you make 13% of my salary.
    - richbell 4y ago
      That's true, and perhaps a bad example in the context of the article. The difference is orders of magnitude, so not $7 vs $100 but $10,000+. But even in my prior example your wages are increasing more and faster, and are likely to continue increasing regularly compared to lower-earning jobs. It's also the distribution of that money: why does one person receive more than the hundreds or thousands of people that do the actual work? Percentage wage increase is a shallow metric that does not account for all these things, not to mention cost-of-living, inflation, assets, the ultra-wealthy not earning money via income or other comparable methods, etc.
      - jelliclesfarm 4y ago
        [..]It's also the distribution of that money: why does one person receive more than the hundreds or thousands of people that do the actual work?[..] Because wages are taxed. You can’t tax the low wage earners. But an increase to those in the higher tax bracket pumps money back into public money spending while also it keeps the economy humming. People don’t understand that wages paid is mostly for the running of the economy. As a wage earning employee, one is merely a cog in the wheel of the larger economy. Distribution of money in an economy occurs when businesses thrive and the economy is fueled by the wages. Distribution of wealth is an entirely different subject. This is why interest rates are always controlled by the central bank. If they don’t, countries will spiral into complete economic collapse. I would rather high tax payers get hikes in a strained economy than low wage earners. Economic welfare should only be borne by those who can afford to pay higher taxes.
        richbell 4y ago
        I have to run out so I don't have time to write a thoughtful response. I tend to agree, but there's a glaring issue. > I would rather high tax payers get hikes in a strained economy than low wage earners. Economic welfare should only be borne by those who can afford to pay higher taxes. This is only true up until a point. The tax burden in many countries is held by the middle and upper-middle class. The ultra-wealthy do not pay an equivalent or fair share; Warren Buffet famously claims he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Someone going from $100,000 to $200,000 is still going to re-circulate a lot of money into taxes and local businesses. Someone who has $1,000,000,000 already has more money than they can reasonably spend in a lifetime, and can leverage their tremendous wealth to avoid paying their fair share of taxes (and in many cases any taxes whatsoever).
        NoRagrets 4y ago
        The tax burden is held by the middle class only in countries like Scandinavian and EU countries where capitalism has a heavy dose of socialism. Which only proves that it’s not a potent enough mix and just capitalism alone will keep the engines of a society running. Like in the United States. Hands down, quality of life is better in the United States. It is a combination of low population density and commitment to capitalism. One can consider long vacations and lunch breaks as ‘better quality of life’, but I am mostly talking about access to material things and things like power and energy. Generally access to free and/odd cheap energy is the gateway to better quality of life and abundance. Everything else is a solvable problem with policy and legislation. United States may be lacking in certain social metrics but it’s solvable. But where cheap energy is lacking, the economy( and eventually society) will decay and die. Scandinavian flavour of socialism works because most have access to energy and have low population density. But even so, the burden is on the middle class. In California, otoh, [..] The richest 1% of California tax filers pay the largest share of their income in state and local taxes (12.3%), but the 20% of filers with the lowest incomes pay the next highest share (11.4%). [..] This is why capitalism has single handedly raised quality of life world over(think India, Africa rather than Western Europe)than socialism or communism. Even China benefited from capitalism. + https://calmatters.org/explainers/the-open-secret-about-california-taxes/ https://calmatters.org/explainers/the-open-secret-about-cali...
    - tnel77 4y ago
      That’s true, but people saying “look at your raise as a percentage, it’s huge” is wildly misleading when we are talking about using that money to actually live your life. People at the bottom are still suffering, even if their raise was a relatively large percentage.
    - akira2501 4y ago
      Pre-raise, I made 14x what you made. Post-raise, I still make 7x what you make. I'll take your point that relative comparisons are useful, but perhaps representing this as a percentage rather than a multiple isn't particularly helpful when considering the gaps.
coldtea 4y ago
>Not to ignore your other point, but an 18.4% increase (to $482 a week) is only a big number if you ignore that many were and stil are making peanuts. Not to mention the inflation and skyrocketing other (non measured as part of the inflation index) costs...

saurik 4y ago

Sure, but to me the point of the comment you are responding to is that absolute wage gain is a pointless metric: the percentage increase is the correct metric, as it shows how "the pie" is being skewed.

richbell 4y ago
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but I don't see how a relative metric (percentage increase) that does not account for the existing disparity is 'correct'. If I make $7/hr and receive a 100% increase, and you make $100/hr and receive a 10% increase, things are still skewed in your direction.
- gizmo686 4y ago
  Skewed is not a binary. Pre-raise, you made 7% of my salary. Post raise, you make 13% of my salary.
  - richbell 4y ago
    That's true, and perhaps a bad example in the context of the article. The difference is orders of magnitude, so not $7 vs $100 but $10,000+. But even in my prior example your wages are increasing more and faster, and are likely to continue increasing regularly compared to lower-earning jobs. It's also the distribution of that money: why does one person receive more than the hundreds or thousands of people that do the actual work? Percentage wage increase is a shallow metric that does not account for all these things, not to mention cost-of-living, inflation, assets, the ultra-wealthy not earning money via income or other comparable methods, etc.
    - jelliclesfarm 4y ago
      [..]It's also the distribution of that money: why does one person receive more than the hundreds or thousands of people that do the actual work?[..] Because wages are taxed. You can’t tax the low wage earners. But an increase to those in the higher tax bracket pumps money back into public money spending while also it keeps the economy humming. People don’t understand that wages paid is mostly for the running of the economy. As a wage earning employee, one is merely a cog in the wheel of the larger economy. Distribution of money in an economy occurs when businesses thrive and the economy is fueled by the wages. Distribution of wealth is an entirely different subject. This is why interest rates are always controlled by the central bank. If they don’t, countries will spiral into complete economic collapse. I would rather high tax payers get hikes in a strained economy than low wage earners. Economic welfare should only be borne by those who can afford to pay higher taxes.
      - richbell 4y ago
        I have to run out so I don't have time to write a thoughtful response. I tend to agree, but there's a glaring issue. > I would rather high tax payers get hikes in a strained economy than low wage earners. Economic welfare should only be borne by those who can afford to pay higher taxes. This is only true up until a point. The tax burden in many countries is held by the middle and upper-middle class. The ultra-wealthy do not pay an equivalent or fair share; Warren Buffet famously claims he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Someone going from $100,000 to $200,000 is still going to re-circulate a lot of money into taxes and local businesses. Someone who has $1,000,000,000 already has more money than they can reasonably spend in a lifetime, and can leverage their tremendous wealth to avoid paying their fair share of taxes (and in many cases any taxes whatsoever).
        NoRagrets 4y ago
        The tax burden is held by the middle class only in countries like Scandinavian and EU countries where capitalism has a heavy dose of socialism. Which only proves that it’s not a potent enough mix and just capitalism alone will keep the engines of a society running. Like in the United States. Hands down, quality of life is better in the United States. It is a combination of low population density and commitment to capitalism. One can consider long vacations and lunch breaks as ‘better quality of life’, but I am mostly talking about access to material things and things like power and energy. Generally access to free and/odd cheap energy is the gateway to better quality of life and abundance. Everything else is a solvable problem with policy and legislation. United States may be lacking in certain social metrics but it’s solvable. But where cheap energy is lacking, the economy( and eventually society) will decay and die. Scandinavian flavour of socialism works because most have access to energy and have low population density. But even so, the burden is on the middle class. In California, otoh, [..] The richest 1% of California tax filers pay the largest share of their income in state and local taxes (12.3%), but the 20% of filers with the lowest incomes pay the next highest share (11.4%). [..] This is why capitalism has single handedly raised quality of life world over(think India, Africa rather than Western Europe)than socialism or communism. Even China benefited from capitalism. + https://calmatters.org/explainers/the-open-secret-about-california-taxes/ https://calmatters.org/explainers/the-open-secret-about-cali...
  - tnel77 4y ago
    That’s true, but people saying “look at your raise as a percentage, it’s huge” is wildly misleading when we are talking about using that money to actually live your life. People at the bottom are still suffering, even if their raise was a relatively large percentage.
  - akira2501 4y ago
    Pre-raise, I made 14x what you made. Post-raise, I still make 7x what you make. I'll take your point that relative comparisons are useful, but perhaps representing this as a percentage rather than a multiple isn't particularly helpful when considering the gaps.

coldtea 4y ago

>Not to ignore your other point, but an 18.4% increase (to $482 a week) is only a big number if you ignore that many were and stil are making peanuts. Not to mention the inflation and skyrocketing other (non measured as part of the inflation index) costs...