3 ms·

That's intentional, to incentive people investing their money instead of stuffing it in their mattress, where it doesn't help anyone. As long as wages raise as

• Mistletoe 2y ago
  Wages don’t seem to have raised at the same rate at all. https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ Weirdly, most graphs start getting off in the 1970s when the US left the gold standard. This is to be expected due to the Cantillon Effect. https://river.com/learn/terms/c/cantillon-effect/ https://river.com/learn/terms/c/cantillon-effect/
  • gruez 2y ago
    >>As long as wages raise as well, it's not a problem. You shouldn't compare prices to prices 100 years ago, but purchasing power 100 years ago to purchasing power now. >Wages don’t seem to have raised at the same rate at all. >https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ Figure 1 from that link is compares actual income with "projected assuming no growth in inequality"... whatever that means, not inflation. Figure 2 compares hourly compensation with productivity, not inflation and on and on... Real wages (ie. inflation adjusted) has gone up, albeit slowly[1]. Even your link suggests this. "Stagnation" implies staying in the same place, not falling behind. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
  • WithinReason 2y ago
    A good website on this: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
• wesammikhail 2y ago
  yea yea we've all heard it. your spending is my income therefor I get to steal your wage from you if you don't spend it. "we'll encourage consumerism by taking the money from them if they don't spend it" Sometimes I wonder how people have come to accept this line of thinking as anything but malicious. As to your second point, yes. PP is more important, so let's use that. I'm sure the picture will look a whole lot better... /s