To pretend like it says nothing about the state of the country is a complete joke.
Over half of people 18-29 are living with their parents, because you can’t live on your own and save up for a house on the median income anymore. Hell, before I got laid off I was making 130k a year and still didn’t move out because I knew at any point I could be let go (which is exactly what happened we got bought out and massive lay offs followed), and didn’t want to throw all my money away renting.
People can’t support themselves on 40k a year, so they’re not. More people than ever are dependent on others to live, because they aren’t being paid enough to live. I have friends (we’re all in our mid 20s) who are making around the medium income. Two of them recently got let go, and were back living with their parents inside of a month because they weren’t able to save any money between rent, food, and other basic necessities to live.
The issue is the ratio. A medium salary could get you a medium priced house 60 years ago. This is no longer the case, not even close.
Nobody cares what the actual number is. As long as median matches median, and spending power stays where it was in the 60s (or ideally improves, though that dream is dead), then that’s good.
Wage growth stopped happening for the past half century. This isn’t good. Capitalists have been hoarding metric fuckloads of wealth, and it hasn’t trickled down (nobody in their right mind ever thought it would, but we now live in the world that conservatives 50 years ago wanted, and it’s failing miserably).
There were plenty of other periods where wage growth outpaced prices over a 2-6 year span. The issue is there are also periods where prices outpace wages over similar spans.
What you end up with is 60 years of no wage growth. Biden didn’t magically fix this. If he somehow fixed boom bust cycles and set forth unprecedented policies that will fix fundamental flaws in capitalism, fantastic (hint: he didn’t). In reality, crises of overproduction still occur. We still need standard government intervention to stimulate the economy, e.g aggregate spending and interest rate changes.
Your best evidence for wage growth over the last 60 years is a graph showing that in terms of real spending power there was literally no gain between 1973 and 2019?
Productivity skyrocketed in that time, and so has real wealth for people in the top 5%. That hasn’t been the case for workers, by your own cherry-picked statistics there were literally 0 gains made in 46 years.
Yes, but it’s not like the stock market. In Japan the stock market peaked in 1989. If you invested all your money at that time you would have broken even after dividends now, maybe.
A peak in compensation doesn’t work like that, since you couldn’t “invest” in 1973 and “lose money”.
It’s more like from the 1964 to 1994 you have a flat graph with a peak, but from 1994 to the present it’s been getting better for the last 30 years.
Productivity is another thing, for one, medical insurance costs employers a lot more and it’s not included in wages, but included in total compensation
You’re trying to ignore the peak by choosing arbitrary time periods and pretending like they happened in the past so we can ignore them. Like somehow going from 1994 -> 2024 is valid, but going from 1973 -> 2019 is invalid because it’s in an arbitrarily different slot.
It’s not arbitrary to use the peak and compare that to modern data. The reason being it allows the assessment of what real spending power the median worker had at their best in the last 60 years, and highlights how that wage growth was taken away to such an extent that it took half a century of scraps just to get back to the same spot.
It’s not like something physically happened in the world that reduced total access to capital or wealth and it took society 60 years to rebuild, it’s just the contradictions of capitalism taking real aggregate spending ability away from workers to massively inflate profits, as the data you’ve provided showcases so clearly.
To pretend like it says nothing about the state of the country is a complete joke.
Over half of people 18-29 are living with their parents, because you can’t live on your own and save up for a house on the median income anymore. Hell, before I got laid off I was making 130k a year and still didn’t move out because I knew at any point I could be let go (which is exactly what happened we got bought out and massive lay offs followed), and didn’t want to throw all my money away renting.
People can’t support themselves on 40k a year, so they’re not. More people than ever are dependent on others to live, because they aren’t being paid enough to live. I have friends (we’re all in our mid 20s) who are making around the medium income. Two of them recently got let go, and were back living with their parents inside of a month because they weren’t able to save any money between rent, food, and other basic necessities to live.
Yes, because a lot of areas with good jobs vote against new housing, which causes increased rents and house prices.
This is a true problem with society, not the amount that people make, but that they have to spend most of it on housing instead of the recommended 30%
The issue is the ratio. A medium salary could get you a medium priced house 60 years ago. This is no longer the case, not even close.
Nobody cares what the actual number is. As long as median matches median, and spending power stays where it was in the 60s (or ideally improves, though that dream is dead), then that’s good.
Wage growth stopped happening for the past half century. This isn’t good. Capitalists have been hoarding metric fuckloads of wealth, and it hasn’t trickled down (nobody in their right mind ever thought it would, but we now live in the world that conservatives 50 years ago wanted, and it’s failing miserably).
Your data is out of date. Wage growth very healthy under Biden even accounting for inflation.
https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/the-purchasing-power-of-american-households
There were plenty of other periods where wage growth outpaced prices over a 2-6 year span. The issue is there are also periods where prices outpace wages over similar spans.
What you end up with is 60 years of no wage growth. Biden didn’t magically fix this. If he somehow fixed boom bust cycles and set forth unprecedented policies that will fix fundamental flaws in capitalism, fantastic (hint: he didn’t). In reality, crises of overproduction still occur. We still need standard government intervention to stimulate the economy, e.g aggregate spending and interest rate changes.
Except that’s also wrong
There was a very short-lived peak one year in the 1973, but we’ve had consistent wage growth since 1990
Yeah, 1970s and 1980s sucked, but we’re at all time highs now. Honestly, that’s ancient history, for all of my life the line has been going up
Your best evidence for wage growth over the last 60 years is a graph showing that in terms of real spending power there was literally no gain between 1973 and 2019?
Productivity skyrocketed in that time, and so has real wealth for people in the top 5%. That hasn’t been the case for workers, by your own cherry-picked statistics there were literally 0 gains made in 46 years.
Yes, but it’s not like the stock market. In Japan the stock market peaked in 1989. If you invested all your money at that time you would have broken even after dividends now, maybe.
A peak in compensation doesn’t work like that, since you couldn’t “invest” in 1973 and “lose money”.
It’s more like from the 1964 to 1994 you have a flat graph with a peak, but from 1994 to the present it’s been getting better for the last 30 years.
Productivity is another thing, for one, medical insurance costs employers a lot more and it’s not included in wages, but included in total compensation
You’re trying to ignore the peak by choosing arbitrary time periods and pretending like they happened in the past so we can ignore them. Like somehow going from 1994 -> 2024 is valid, but going from 1973 -> 2019 is invalid because it’s in an arbitrarily different slot.
It’s not arbitrary to use the peak and compare that to modern data. The reason being it allows the assessment of what real spending power the median worker had at their best in the last 60 years, and highlights how that wage growth was taken away to such an extent that it took half a century of scraps just to get back to the same spot.
It’s not like something physically happened in the world that reduced total access to capital or wealth and it took society 60 years to rebuild, it’s just the contradictions of capitalism taking real aggregate spending ability away from workers to massively inflate profits, as the data you’ve provided showcases so clearly.