8 ms·

> But is the majority of the population thriving? Looking at the numbers: low unemployment, strong consumer spending, average income increasing at a rate highe

> But is the majority of the population thriving? Looking at the numbers: low unemployment, strong consumer spending, average income increasing at a rate higher than inflation, I'd say the majority is doing better than most years. They might not feel that way though, and we've been in a continuous vibes-cession since COVID.

buffet_overflow 2y ago
> strong consumer spending I’d like to see that plotted against average consumer debt
- gruez 2y ago
  https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CDSP https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CDSP slightly below pre-pandemic levels, and significantly below 2005-2008 levels.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    It's always fun to see a graph like this and realize that (aside from the pandemic), that the last time people were significantly better off by this metric was 30 years ago, while many of us were children, or not even born yet. And yet everyone is complaining that things are so bad, and that this is a new phenomenon.
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CCLACBW027SBOG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CCLACBW027SBOG The trend is basically back to where it would be if you just extrapolated 2019. You can even see the origin of the "vibe-session" here, things got pretty good for a lot of people in the money shower of the pandemic stimulus combined with low "stay at home" spending. Its the return to normal that has people spun with "the economy sucks".
  - coldtea 2y ago
    >The trend is basically back to where it would be if you just extrapolated 2019 So crap going crappier, with a short reversal for a couple of years.
DonnyV 2y ago
Family needs to make $107,700 a year to own a home. Apartment in a moderate-cost area is about $70,000-$100,000/year. Median salary in the US is $59,300 What considered poverty level in the US for: 1 person: $15,060 2 people: $20,440 3 people: $25,820 4 people: $31,200 According to recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau, around 50% of Americans make $70,000 or more annually. That means about 50% of the US can not afford a place to live.
- NikolaNovak 2y ago
  I'm misinterpreting something here: "Apartment in a moderate-cost area is about $70,000-$100,000/year." Are we saying apartment rental is between 5 and 8 thousand dollars a month? What is the definition of this moderate cost area??
  - DonnyV 2y ago
    This is to own an apartment or condo. What your mortgage is a month is going to be different for everyone depending on what they put down.
    - NikolaNovak 2y ago
      Right. I was born in Europe and am still struggling with North American cultural assumption that "place to live" == "own property". Back to the original post I think there are several statistics that apply to different geographical areas or demographics in the same post, leading us to conclusion that half the continent is out on the street, and demonstrating risk of back of the napkin calculations on policy decisions, even if we assume good will and honest effort :-/
      - bpt3 2y ago
        To be clear, the parent poster is not using these terms as a native American would either. He's arguing below that about 50% of the US population is homeless, which is not even close to accurate.
      - 2y ago
webdood90 2y ago
> low unemployment I feel that this is pretty well established as a misleading metric https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0609/what-the-unemployment-rate-doesnt-tell-us.aspx https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0609/what-the-un... > strong consumer spending how does this track against consumer debt? > average income increasing at a rate higher than inflation but has it caught up? https://www.bankrate.com/banking/federal-reserve/wage-to-inflation-index/#bankrate-s-2024-wage-to-inflation-index https://www.bankrate.com/banking/federal-reserve/wage-to-inf... > I'd say the majority is doing better than most years most years being the past 2 or 3? because I feel like we were all doing a lot better before 2020
- gruez 2y ago
  >I feel that this is pretty well established as a misleading metric https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0609/what-the-un https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0609/what-the-un... I fail to see how it's "misleading". U3 doesn't include people who don't want a job. That seems... fine? If you don't want a job, and don't have a job, why should you be factored into the health of the labor market? Isn't it more misleading to lump people who want a job but can't find a job, with people who don't want a job and aren't working? >but has it caught up? https://www.bankrate.com/banking/federal-reserve/wage-to-inf https://www.bankrate.com/banking/federal-reserve/wage-to-inf... The linked article says: >Source: Bankrate's Wage To Inflation Index using the Department of Labor's employment cost index (ECI) and consumer price index (CPI) Using BLS's weekly wage data adjusted by CPI gets the opposite conclusion, so my guess is that there's something funky going on with the employment cost index. For one, it includes benefits, so if health insurance costs go down, then "average income" (as computed by bankrate's index) will go down, even if your take-home is the same. At best, the only thing you can conclude from that is "employers' spending on employees is rising slower than inflation", which is slightly different than "employees' incomes are rising slower than inflation". https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
- sangnoir 2y ago
  > but has it caught up? Which year is your baseline, and why?
- 2y ago
lolinder 2y ago
HN in particular has a deflated view of the economy because our sector was going through such a big bubble from 2014 on, which got even bigger for a brief window around the pandemic. We in particular had a long way to fall back to reality, so our personal economic outlook is worse than it's been for a while, even if the rest of the economy is looking up.
- llm_trw 2y ago
  Hn has a highly inflated view of the economy because we only see the top of the economic pie. I shop at cheap ethnic stores because I grew up with that food and the prices that poor people see are two to three times what they were 5 years ago. Telling this to someone who buys premium organic free range eggs is like trying to explain to a fish that a flood doesn't benefit everyone.
  - rmbyrro 2y ago
    Loved the fish analogy
  - throwup238 2y ago
    It’s funny you mention eggs because I live in one of the highest cost of living areas in the country with legally mandated cage free eggs and Trader Joes has them for $2.99 a dozen when people keep complaining about $6+ a dozen in the rest of the country (which is what I’d pay if I wanted the premium organic free range shit). When a famously expensive grocery store for yuppies has cheap eggs in Southern California, I figure the OP is right in their word choice: it’s a vibe-cession. I also shop mostly at ethnic grocery stores (Superking, Ranch 99, H mart, etc) and IMO the problem isn’t inflation but general consolidation across many industries. I’m always shocked when I travel to less populated regions (even in California) and see their grocery availability, usually dominated by a single major chain like Albertsons or a local one like Publix. SoCal has competitive prices for groceries despite the high cost of living because there are so many people (and immigrants) to support many competitors, none of whom have real pricing power. My grocery budget hasn’t gone up significantly in the last five years despite switching to Costco for my meat rather than the cheaper halaal butcher. Eggs are always more expensive at the ethnic stores here but cheap at TJs because they use it as a competitive loss leader. A lot of the country can’t support such competition so there’s zero incentive for suppliers to drive down costs.
coliveira 2y ago
Well, let's go: > low unemployment In an economy where you can easily deliver packages or drive uber, there will always be close to zero unemployment. This number stopped making sense a few years ago. > strong consumer spending In a high inflation environment, one has to consume "strongly" just to maintain the same standards of living. > average income increasing at a rate higher than inflation If you underreport inflation, then the average income will increase faster. But even if not, average is not what you and I receive, and it is determined by some people making lots of money while others have stagnating salaries. > majority is doing better than most years You cannot prove this from the above points. Average income doesn't mean that the majority is doing better. Something called inequality will not allow that to happen. > They might not feel that way though That is pop psychology at its worst. Nobody cares about feelings, you just need to look at the numbers in a critical way.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  > In an economy where you can easily deliver packages or drive uber, there will always be close to zero unemployment. This number stopped making sense a few years ago. Part time employment is roughly where it was in absolute numbers (not even per capita) in 2009. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12600000 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12600000 > In a high inflation environment, one has to consume "strongly" just to maintain the same standards of living. You're wrong here too. Here's a chart that's inflation-adjusted: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEC96 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEC96 > If you underreport inflation Ah I see... your entire worldview is predicated on just assuming different facts than what your interlocutors are. Feel free to substantiate this rather fundamental claim. > That is pop psychology at its worst. Nobody cares about feelings, you just need to look at the numbers in a critical way. "Look at the numbers in a critical way" is an interesting framing of "make shit up."
  - coliveira 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - 2y ago
narski 2y ago
>Looking at the numbers I'm reminded of this excerpt from 1984: But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connexion with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connexion that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version. A great deal of the time you were expected to make them up out of your head. For example, the Ministry of Plenty's forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at 145 million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston, however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down to fifty-seven millions, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been overfulfilled. In any case, sixty-two millions was no nearer the truth than fifty-seven millions, or than 145 millions. Very likely no boots had been produced at all. Likelier still, nobody knew how many had been produced, much less cared. All one knew was that every quarter astronomical numbers of boots were produced on paper, while perhaps half the population of Oceania went barefoot. And so it was with every class of recorded fact, great or small. Everything faded away into a shadow-world in which, finally, even the date of the year had become uncertain. --- Of course, I'm sure none of that would ever apply to our numbers, only to those of our opponents.
- no_wizard 2y ago
  I think you may have a point. Nobody wants to believe they’re living in a peak, and it is hard to predicate. People claiming economic downturns are near are a dime a dozen. That said, there are possible indicators. Yes, unemployment is low, but what form is employment taking? Is it generally trending toward fulfillment, growth and/or rewarding or is it trending toward mundane, unfulfilling and/or unrewarding? Is everyone benefitting from the official economic growth? Or are the gains statistically lopsided? Let’s take a common mentioned stat about wage growth. Yes since 2020 wages finally raised. But if you look at it overall since 1970[0], it still behind productivity gains. Wages are not keeping up with overall productivity growth and people are still going to notice that in some form. Everyone talks about since 2020, but that misses the broader story. (As an aside, I suspect by the end of 2025 wages will significantly stagnant again. Growth won’t continue on the best take of the current trajectory) Then there’s inflation. Regardless of cause, an entire generation+ of people have never experienced such rapid prices rising, particularly with groceries. People aren’t going to forget this, no matter what the official line is. This also eats away at wage growth which as noted above, has not kept paced with productivity gains. The official sources though say everything is great, or heading toward it. Maybe, especially if you’re seeing the benefits, but if you’re locked out of the majority of gains, what if any you do get will feel meaningless. This shouldn’t be discounted. It is entirely possible that wealth inequality combined with the world political climate is starting to show more cracks in the system and this might be peak. We may be seeing the warning signs of a big changes, whether it manifests itself as mostly political or economic is anyways guess I suppose [0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/heres-how-labor-dynamism-affects-wage-growth-in-america.html% https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/heres-how-labor-dynamism-aff...
bbqfog 2y ago
Looking at the numbers the interest rate is almost 7% making most things very unaffordable for people who can't buy things like houses and cars with cash. Until that number dramatically goes down, regular people will suffer.
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  Maybe. the 15% interest rates in the 80s made a lot of working class families a shitload of money due to the magic of compound interest.
  - cfraenkel 2y ago
    You obviously didn't live through it, or you wouldn't be spouting such offensive, naive nonsense. How many working class families do you know that can afford to buy economically significant amounts of T-bills, as opposed to, you know, eating, or paying for car repairs, or kid's back to school supplies. When is the last time you saw a bank paying anywhere close to the prime rate on savings accounts, which is all a working class family typically has access to. (as opposed to pocketing the difference as profit, thank you very much)
    - ericd 2y ago
      All of the online banks pay pretty close to 4 week T-bill rates, maybe 1% off. Chase/etc are only worth keeping a small amount in, everything else should be transferred to Ally/Marcus/Fidelity Cash Management/Vanguard/etc.
    - chii 2y ago
      It's because people look back in time with rose tinted glasses. They imagine the amount of money they have today, but at yester-decade's interest rate.
    - forgetfreeman 2y ago
      I absolutely did live through it. I also watched my grandfather who had a 7th grade education double his money twice through the insanely technical investment strategy of...wait for it...driving down to the bank to renew CDs. I'd entertain an explanation of what's either offensive or naive about that.
grogenaut 2y ago
People seemed to vote on how they felt not what these numbers said. So the vibes seem more valid than the stats at least on their real world impact in many ways. Continuing to yell at people about the numbers doesn't seem to be an effective strategy, maybe try a different approach?
- sangnoir 2y ago
  I suppose those voters don't have to wait for too long: the economy is going to start doing great for them again at noon on January 20, 2025.
  - newhotelowner 2y ago
    You are not wrong. By February 2025, 90% of Republicans will start believing that the economy is thriving. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/23/briefing/economy-inflation-housing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/23/briefing/economy-inflatio...
    - chii 2y ago
      If this belief is strong enough, they would act on it. The fact that they act means the economy starts rolling, and produce the type of thriving that they come to believe! Ala, a self-fulfilling prophesy. Therefore, it's important to find out why people believe things, despite being contrary to empirical evidence.
TeaBrain 2y ago
Real wages (adjusted for inflation) have fallen since November 2020. https://www.statista.com/chart/32428/inflation-and-wage-growth-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/chart/32428/inflation-and-wage-grow...
- epistasis 2y ago
  But choose 2019 or 2021 as the base and wages have kept pace with or exceeded inflation: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/has-pay-kept-up-with-inflation/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/has-pay-kept-up-with-infl...
  - cfraenkel 2y ago
    If you only want to see what you want to see, it's easy to find evidence. On the other hand, look at the commonly posted wages vs productivity graphs (productivity goes up pretty much unbroken, but wages flatline since roughly mid-70s), or compare the 'US is #1!!' GDP per capita numbers against the *median* income numbers. Bit of a difference when you remove Musk, Gates, Bezos et al income from the comparison.
    - bpt3 2y ago
      Why would you expect wages to track productivity in an environment where automation increasingly drives productivity gains and the means of automation are provided by employers?
  - TeaBrain 2y ago
    This rise since 2021 can be easily seen in the graph in the article I posted also, but the catch is that the increases have been relatively flat where they can been found, and that increase followed a lowering in real wages. Whichever way the data is looked at since 2020, it isn't very reassuring to the general public that wages have essentially stayed flat with inflation, when US productivity growth has been going up. I was actually surprised about the article I referenced in the comment above. The figure I'd read of previously was that real wages had cumulatively increased around 2% since 2020, which the Brookings article seems to reference. 2% real increases in wages is strikingly low considering US productivity growth. It was the figure I was originally looking up.

buffet_overflow 2y ago

> strong consumer spending I’d like to see that plotted against average consumer debt

gruez 2y ago
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CDSP https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CDSP slightly below pre-pandemic levels, and significantly below 2005-2008 levels.
- kelnos 2y ago
  It's always fun to see a graph like this and realize that (aside from the pandemic), that the last time people were significantly better off by this metric was 30 years ago, while many of us were children, or not even born yet. And yet everyone is complaining that things are so bad, and that this is a new phenomenon.
Workaccount2 2y ago
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CCLACBW027SBOG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CCLACBW027SBOG The trend is basically back to where it would be if you just extrapolated 2019. You can even see the origin of the "vibe-session" here, things got pretty good for a lot of people in the money shower of the pandemic stimulus combined with low "stay at home" spending. Its the return to normal that has people spun with "the economy sucks".
- coldtea 2y ago
  >The trend is basically back to where it would be if you just extrapolated 2019 So crap going crappier, with a short reversal for a couple of years.

DonnyV 2y ago

Family needs to make $107,700 a year to own a home. Apartment in a moderate-cost area is about $70,000-$100,000/year. Median salary in the US is $59,300 What considered poverty level in the US for: 1 person: $15,060 2 people: $20,440 3 people: $25,820 4 people: $31,200 According to recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau, around 50% of Americans make $70,000 or more annually. That means about 50% of the US can not afford a place to live.

NikolaNovak 2y ago
I'm misinterpreting something here: "Apartment in a moderate-cost area is about $70,000-$100,000/year." Are we saying apartment rental is between 5 and 8 thousand dollars a month? What is the definition of this moderate cost area??
- DonnyV 2y ago
  This is to own an apartment or condo. What your mortgage is a month is going to be different for everyone depending on what they put down.
  - NikolaNovak 2y ago
    Right. I was born in Europe and am still struggling with North American cultural assumption that "place to live" == "own property". Back to the original post I think there are several statistics that apply to different geographical areas or demographics in the same post, leading us to conclusion that half the continent is out on the street, and demonstrating risk of back of the napkin calculations on policy decisions, even if we assume good will and honest effort :-/
    - bpt3 2y ago
      To be clear, the parent poster is not using these terms as a native American would either. He's arguing below that about 50% of the US population is homeless, which is not even close to accurate.
    - 2y ago

webdood90 2y ago

> low unemployment I feel that this is pretty well established as a misleading metric https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0609/what-the-unemployment-rate-doesnt-tell-us.aspx https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0609/what-the-un... > strong consumer spending how does this track against consumer debt? > average income increasing at a rate higher than inflation but has it caught up? https://www.bankrate.com/banking/federal-reserve/wage-to-inflation-index/#bankrate-s-2024-wage-to-inflation-index https://www.bankrate.com/banking/federal-reserve/wage-to-inf... > I'd say the majority is doing better than most years most years being the past 2 or 3? because I feel like we were all doing a lot better before 2020

gruez 2y ago
>I feel that this is pretty well established as a misleading metric https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0609/what-the-un https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0609/what-the-un... I fail to see how it's "misleading". U3 doesn't include people who don't want a job. That seems... fine? If you don't want a job, and don't have a job, why should you be factored into the health of the labor market? Isn't it more misleading to lump people who want a job but can't find a job, with people who don't want a job and aren't working? >but has it caught up? https://www.bankrate.com/banking/federal-reserve/wage-to-inf https://www.bankrate.com/banking/federal-reserve/wage-to-inf... The linked article says: >Source: Bankrate's Wage To Inflation Index using the Department of Labor's employment cost index (ECI) and consumer price index (CPI) Using BLS's weekly wage data adjusted by CPI gets the opposite conclusion, so my guess is that there's something funky going on with the employment cost index. For one, it includes benefits, so if health insurance costs go down, then "average income" (as computed by bankrate's index) will go down, even if your take-home is the same. At best, the only thing you can conclude from that is "employers' spending on employees is rising slower than inflation", which is slightly different than "employees' incomes are rising slower than inflation". https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
sangnoir 2y ago
> but has it caught up? Which year is your baseline, and why?
2y ago

lolinder 2y ago

HN in particular has a deflated view of the economy because our sector was going through such a big bubble from 2014 on, which got even bigger for a brief window around the pandemic. We in particular had a long way to fall back to reality, so our personal economic outlook is worse than it's been for a while, even if the rest of the economy is looking up.

llm_trw 2y ago
Hn has a highly inflated view of the economy because we only see the top of the economic pie. I shop at cheap ethnic stores because I grew up with that food and the prices that poor people see are two to three times what they were 5 years ago. Telling this to someone who buys premium organic free range eggs is like trying to explain to a fish that a flood doesn't benefit everyone.
- rmbyrro 2y ago
  Loved the fish analogy
- throwup238 2y ago
  It’s funny you mention eggs because I live in one of the highest cost of living areas in the country with legally mandated cage free eggs and Trader Joes has them for $2.99 a dozen when people keep complaining about $6+ a dozen in the rest of the country (which is what I’d pay if I wanted the premium organic free range shit). When a famously expensive grocery store for yuppies has cheap eggs in Southern California, I figure the OP is right in their word choice: it’s a vibe-cession. I also shop mostly at ethnic grocery stores (Superking, Ranch 99, H mart, etc) and IMO the problem isn’t inflation but general consolidation across many industries. I’m always shocked when I travel to less populated regions (even in California) and see their grocery availability, usually dominated by a single major chain like Albertsons or a local one like Publix. SoCal has competitive prices for groceries despite the high cost of living because there are so many people (and immigrants) to support many competitors, none of whom have real pricing power. My grocery budget hasn’t gone up significantly in the last five years despite switching to Costco for my meat rather than the cheaper halaal butcher. Eggs are always more expensive at the ethnic stores here but cheap at TJs because they use it as a competitive loss leader. A lot of the country can’t support such competition so there’s zero incentive for suppliers to drive down costs.

coliveira 2y ago

Well, let's go: > low unemployment In an economy where you can easily deliver packages or drive uber, there will always be close to zero unemployment. This number stopped making sense a few years ago. > strong consumer spending In a high inflation environment, one has to consume "strongly" just to maintain the same standards of living. > average income increasing at a rate higher than inflation If you underreport inflation, then the average income will increase faster. But even if not, average is not what you and I receive, and it is determined by some people making lots of money while others have stagnating salaries. > majority is doing better than most years You cannot prove this from the above points. Average income doesn't mean that the majority is doing better. Something called inequality will not allow that to happen. > They might not feel that way though That is pop psychology at its worst. Nobody cares about feelings, you just need to look at the numbers in a critical way.

llamaimperative 2y ago
> In an economy where you can easily deliver packages or drive uber, there will always be close to zero unemployment. This number stopped making sense a few years ago. Part time employment is roughly where it was in absolute numbers (not even per capita) in 2009. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12600000 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12600000 > In a high inflation environment, one has to consume "strongly" just to maintain the same standards of living. You're wrong here too. Here's a chart that's inflation-adjusted: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEC96 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEC96 > If you underreport inflation Ah I see... your entire worldview is predicated on just assuming different facts than what your interlocutors are. Feel free to substantiate this rather fundamental claim. > That is pop psychology at its worst. Nobody cares about feelings, you just need to look at the numbers in a critical way. "Look at the numbers in a critical way" is an interesting framing of "make shit up."
- coliveira 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - 2y ago

narski 2y ago

>Looking at the numbers I'm reminded of this excerpt from 1984: But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connexion with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connexion that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version. A great deal of the time you were expected to make them up out of your head. For example, the Ministry of Plenty's forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at 145 million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston, however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down to fifty-seven millions, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been overfulfilled. In any case, sixty-two millions was no nearer the truth than fifty-seven millions, or than 145 millions. Very likely no boots had been produced at all. Likelier still, nobody knew how many had been produced, much less cared. All one knew was that every quarter astronomical numbers of boots were produced on paper, while perhaps half the population of Oceania went barefoot. And so it was with every class of recorded fact, great or small. Everything faded away into a shadow-world in which, finally, even the date of the year had become uncertain. --- Of course, I'm sure none of that would ever apply to our numbers, only to those of our opponents.

no_wizard 2y ago
I think you may have a point. Nobody wants to believe they’re living in a peak, and it is hard to predicate. People claiming economic downturns are near are a dime a dozen. That said, there are possible indicators. Yes, unemployment is low, but what form is employment taking? Is it generally trending toward fulfillment, growth and/or rewarding or is it trending toward mundane, unfulfilling and/or unrewarding? Is everyone benefitting from the official economic growth? Or are the gains statistically lopsided? Let’s take a common mentioned stat about wage growth. Yes since 2020 wages finally raised. But if you look at it overall since 1970[0], it still behind productivity gains. Wages are not keeping up with overall productivity growth and people are still going to notice that in some form. Everyone talks about since 2020, but that misses the broader story. (As an aside, I suspect by the end of 2025 wages will significantly stagnant again. Growth won’t continue on the best take of the current trajectory) Then there’s inflation. Regardless of cause, an entire generation+ of people have never experienced such rapid prices rising, particularly with groceries. People aren’t going to forget this, no matter what the official line is. This also eats away at wage growth which as noted above, has not kept paced with productivity gains. The official sources though say everything is great, or heading toward it. Maybe, especially if you’re seeing the benefits, but if you’re locked out of the majority of gains, what if any you do get will feel meaningless. This shouldn’t be discounted. It is entirely possible that wealth inequality combined with the world political climate is starting to show more cracks in the system and this might be peak. We may be seeing the warning signs of a big changes, whether it manifests itself as mostly political or economic is anyways guess I suppose [0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/heres-how-labor-dynamism-affects-wage-growth-in-america.html% https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/heres-how-labor-dynamism-aff...

bbqfog 2y ago

Looking at the numbers the interest rate is almost 7% making most things very unaffordable for people who can't buy things like houses and cars with cash. Until that number dramatically goes down, regular people will suffer.

forgetfreeman 2y ago
Maybe. the 15% interest rates in the 80s made a lot of working class families a shitload of money due to the magic of compound interest.
- cfraenkel 2y ago
  You obviously didn't live through it, or you wouldn't be spouting such offensive, naive nonsense. How many working class families do you know that can afford to buy economically significant amounts of T-bills, as opposed to, you know, eating, or paying for car repairs, or kid's back to school supplies. When is the last time you saw a bank paying anywhere close to the prime rate on savings accounts, which is all a working class family typically has access to. (as opposed to pocketing the difference as profit, thank you very much)
  - ericd 2y ago
    All of the online banks pay pretty close to 4 week T-bill rates, maybe 1% off. Chase/etc are only worth keeping a small amount in, everything else should be transferred to Ally/Marcus/Fidelity Cash Management/Vanguard/etc.
  - chii 2y ago
    It's because people look back in time with rose tinted glasses. They imagine the amount of money they have today, but at yester-decade's interest rate.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    I absolutely did live through it. I also watched my grandfather who had a 7th grade education double his money twice through the insanely technical investment strategy of...wait for it...driving down to the bank to renew CDs. I'd entertain an explanation of what's either offensive or naive about that.

grogenaut 2y ago

People seemed to vote on how they felt not what these numbers said. So the vibes seem more valid than the stats at least on their real world impact in many ways. Continuing to yell at people about the numbers doesn't seem to be an effective strategy, maybe try a different approach?

sangnoir 2y ago
I suppose those voters don't have to wait for too long: the economy is going to start doing great for them again at noon on January 20, 2025.
- newhotelowner 2y ago
  You are not wrong. By February 2025, 90% of Republicans will start believing that the economy is thriving. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/23/briefing/economy-inflation-housing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/23/briefing/economy-inflatio...
  - chii 2y ago
    If this belief is strong enough, they would act on it. The fact that they act means the economy starts rolling, and produce the type of thriving that they come to believe! Ala, a self-fulfilling prophesy. Therefore, it's important to find out why people believe things, despite being contrary to empirical evidence.

TeaBrain 2y ago

Real wages (adjusted for inflation) have fallen since November 2020. https://www.statista.com/chart/32428/inflation-and-wage-growth-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/chart/32428/inflation-and-wage-grow...

epistasis 2y ago
But choose 2019 or 2021 as the base and wages have kept pace with or exceeded inflation: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/has-pay-kept-up-with-inflation/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/has-pay-kept-up-with-infl...
- cfraenkel 2y ago
  If you only want to see what you want to see, it's easy to find evidence. On the other hand, look at the commonly posted wages vs productivity graphs (productivity goes up pretty much unbroken, but wages flatline since roughly mid-70s), or compare the 'US is #1!!' GDP per capita numbers against the *median* income numbers. Bit of a difference when you remove Musk, Gates, Bezos et al income from the comparison.
  - bpt3 2y ago
    Why would you expect wages to track productivity in an environment where automation increasingly drives productivity gains and the means of automation are provided by employers?
- TeaBrain 2y ago
  This rise since 2021 can be easily seen in the graph in the article I posted also, but the catch is that the increases have been relatively flat where they can been found, and that increase followed a lowering in real wages. Whichever way the data is looked at since 2020, it isn't very reassuring to the general public that wages have essentially stayed flat with inflation, when US productivity growth has been going up. I was actually surprised about the article I referenced in the comment above. The figure I'd read of previously was that real wages had cumulatively increased around 2% since 2020, which the Brookings article seems to reference. 2% real increases in wages is strikingly low considering US productivity growth. It was the figure I was originally looking up.