359
submitted 2 years ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] cosmicsoup 120 points 2 years ago

This article seems to gloss over the fact that wages really haven’t risen with inflation. There may be more job openings than unemployed people, but do those jobs pay a livable wage?

[-] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 71 points 2 years ago

If consumers are being forced into relative poverty because expenses are rising faster than incomes are, that is the definition of a bad economy. Whoever wrote this headline is bought and paid for.

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 42 points 2 years ago

Exactly. Just having job in no way guarantees someone also has a home and food to eat ... which is some serious Black Mirror shit.

[-] Blackout@kbin.social 23 points 2 years ago

If you work 40 hours you shouldn't need a 2nd job to survive. With the wealth America has you shouldn't have to work more than 30

[-] eek2121@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

This is part of the issue. My local grocery store pays $15/hour and mostly hires part time to avoid benefits.

1 bedroom apartments start at $1,200/mo. Most places require rent to be no more than about 33% of income. Don’t even get me started on gas/car, insurance, utilities, etc.

There is a huge disconnect.

The economy is NOT in good shape. It is according to metrics they choose to measure, but jobs that pay a living wage are very hard to come by.

[-] webhead@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

To be fair, it hasn't been good by THAT standard in decades probably. It just feels worse right now because there was a rise in wages for a bit there that was totally lost to inflation.

[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

When will we start talking about thriving wages?

[-] tok@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 years ago

when out of control greed is controlled.. probably never?

[-] chitak166@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

When people stop conflating needs with wants.

[-] MadhuGururajan@programming.dev 11 points 2 years ago

Why is the greed of the owner class often conveniently dropped or forgotten in such discussions then? You think billionaires need their billions?

[-] chitak166@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

No.

The vast majority of first-worlders complaining about not having enough money already have more than people whose needs are not being met.

The problem is that they think they should get more before others who have less. It's an issue that exists all the way to the top, which is why it's hypocritical to call out billionaires while not looking at our own contributions to the problem.

[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

In the end, the entire world is in poverty while 2000 people are rich beyond their wildest dreams.

Its awfully dismissive to pull the "starving kids in China" card

[-] chitak166@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Uhh, no. My entire point was people conflating needs with wants and you're doing just that.

"Living in poverty compared to billionaires" is not the same as starving.

[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Food security is more than just starvation fam

[-] chitak166@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Yeah, those with food insecurity should get more before those without it.

The problem is, some people conflate "I can't afford to eat out everyday" with "needing more money." No. Just because you have to cook your own meals doesn't mean your needs aren't being met.

You can buy a pound of bologna for $1.50 at Walmart, for example. But the people I'm referring to are "too good" for that. They believe they should get more before others who have less. Are you one of them?

[-] ultranaut@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Wage growth outpaced inflation in 2023.

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 years ago

How about the previous 10 yr stats?

[-] ultranaut@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Not great, but better than the 10+ years before that. Wage growth has mostly been stagnant since the 1970's but there's occasional periods where it's done better. Like now, and I think about 10 years ago when a long period of crappy wage growth was broken following the GFC. It's one of the few genuinely good things about the economy recently, people are finally earning more and if that keeps up for a few more years a whole lot of people are going to see their lives improved.

[-] MadhuGururajan@programming.dev 6 points 2 years ago

Lol your whole argument that it's better now is based on your own argument it has been stagant for a decade and your pinnacle argument that fixes the mess is... 1 year of lukewarm wage growth? How the fuck does that fix anything?

Lol "few more years" .. you have nice jokes.

[-] ultranaut@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I think you are misunderstanding me or projecting things onto me that aren't there. I'm pointing at one of the few good things in the economy and saying if it continues then we will begin to see real change for the better. Also, it's not been lukewarm wage growth, it's been relatively strong and especially so for lower income workers. Labor is finally winning some and it's bizarre that people are getting mad at me for pointing it out. It's not a joke, it's more money in people's pockets finally and I hope it continues.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You know what it looks like to me? It looks like you made a claim before double checking the evidence, and when you got called out, instead of just admitting you were wrong you double and then triple down with some of the dumbest attempts at arguments I've ever seen.

[-] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

They aren't wrong though, wage growth has been historically strong the last two years.

[-] ultranaut@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Then you are jumping to conclusions and making assumptions that have misled you. Up until the 1970s wage generally grew with worker productivity and then everything changed and it's been much more stagnant with most of the productivity gains turning into shareholder profits instead of rising wages. About 10 or so years ago we started more frequently having periods where wage growth outpaced inflation after a long period of very flat wages. More recently the whole covid and post-covid situation has transformed the labor market and led to wage growth. In 2023 we saw strong wage growth, particularly for lower income workers. If the current trend continues with falling inflation and rising wages then the coming years will lead to meaningful improvements in the lives of workers. What is dumb about this argument? More money in the hands of workers, especially lower income workers, is a good thing.

[-] aniki@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

just go fuck yourself with a cactus. single year gains are meaningless when YOY gains are in the toilet.

[-] 31337@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago

I think wages have kept up with inflation, if I'm reading this chart correctly: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

It's normalized by CPI, so a flat line would be no wage growth.

Depends on the the sector, obviously. I'm guessing service sector wages have not kept up with inflation, since it seems like every place is understaffed (they're not offering enough to attract workers). I also don't think it accounts for part-time and gig worker wages.

this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
359 points (100.0% liked)

News

36160 readers
3330 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


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. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


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 2 years ago
MODERATORS