87
Americans’ Wages Are Higher Than They Have Ever Been, and Employment Is Near Its All-Time High
(www.americanprogress.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
87 points (100.0% liked)
News
23287 readers
3240 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
https://cdn-0.inflationdata.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Inflation-Adjusted-Home-Prices.png
1975 inflation adjusted housing price vs. 2023 inflation adjusted housing price. Sure, everything in the basket is adjusted for but the biggest single cost of any of our lives is now double. I can get a BigAss TV for $300 and subsidized milk for $3.70 but my house is $500k
Yes, but it's included in the proportion to which you buy those things. So if you're spending a lot less on other things, but more on housing, it's a wash for your overall expenses. The point is that compared with overall expenses, wages went up more.
OK, so this is how my smooth brain thinks about it:
Housing is double when adjusted for inflation. Milk is obviously not. I think milk has stayed flat since they started tracking it in the '90s.
If I paid the same (adjusted for inflation) for my house and paid double (again, adjusted) for milk I would have a lot more money left over at the end of the month. I don't think CPI takes into account how much milk I drink compared to the one house I need.
CPI does weight items by based on spending patterns (although the details of how to determine this weight are complicated and the main reason there are multiple inflation indecises).
The 2022 CPI has a 0.178% contribution from the price of milk, and a 45.065% contribution from the price of Housing. Housing itself is subdived into several subcategories. Notably, neither the purchase price of a house nor the typical mortgage are included. Instead, homeowners cost of shelter is covered by "owner's equivelent rent" which attempts to answer what the owner would be paying if they had to rent the house they are living in.
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/relative-importance/2023.htm
The market basket approach they use looks at the mix of goods and services people buy. So yes, it captures the fact that housing is more of a typical person's budget than milk.
I did a quick search and couldn't find an answer.
I wonder if part of the disconnect is that they are using just a general "dwelling" in CPI. As opposed to price per square foot. That is, is dwelling size shrinking, while costs are growing, this could cause housing costs to be understated in CPI
That's the whole point of CPI. It flattens a large aspect of capitalism into one magic number. It simplifies things for politicians and pals. But it's not an objective measurement for meaningful science, especially as used in these types of articles (OP).
It captures the fact that housing is some percentage of people's expenditures. But the measurement of housing and the percentage of expenditures are both subjective. It's a choice of measurement not a capturing of some objective "fact".
I don't think that's correct, but I'm no economist.
That's literally a textbook definition of inflation.
Well something is wrong, because my equals in the 1970s had a higher quality of life than my peers do now. Maybe tradesmen just got left behind because those wages now include people making $150k as entry level programmers, etc.
It's describing an average. There are definitely subgroups doing both better and worse
It's not subjective though.
This is misleading from the first phrase. There is no way to calculate the "price level" because it doesn't exist.
When people choose their "basket" and its weights, that subjective choice determines a "price level".
There is no objective price level.
I may be misunderstanding, but doesn't spending a greater percentage on housing necessitate spending less on other things? Someone who spends 50% of their earnings on shelter has to make more careful budgeting decisions than someone who only spends 30% on shelter. With a smaller portion of income to spend on anything else, people will put off purchases that they can't afford. Using that proportional difference to claim "it's a wash" sounds like circular reasoning. At least, it doesn't seem to account for all the purchases people would have made if they weren't putting such a high percentage toward this one basic need?
Drag doesn't buy a TV every week! Drag pays rent every week.