this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
341 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22983 readers
3699 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Let's see this fucker live on minimum wage and try to afford an apartment.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Real wages have been growing in the past year, especially for those in the lowest quintile. In fact, there are almost no adults making the federal minimum wage any more.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Dude. Rents are skyrocketing, grocery prices are insane, everything is wildly more expensive and wage growth isn't keeping up for a lot of people. This kinda "well look at the data" thing that the Democrats constantly do is not helpful. They always fail to account for some part of reality and it shows just how disconnected these rich fucks are from the common person.

So many people are living paycheck to paycheck and that is disastrous for a country without socialized medicine and with the incredible costs of retirement. Homeownership and freedom from vampire landlords isn't a possibility for a vast majority of people and many are paying a significant portion of their take home just to keep a roof over their heads and the lights on.

They have no clue what it's like to walk a day in a normal person's shoes.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

No doubt many people are suffering. But wages for the lowest quintile have been outpacing inflation for the past year. Which means that overall, most of those in the lowest quintile are better off now than they were a year ago. Of course, doing better is not the same as doing well.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

most of those in the lowest quintile are better off now than they were a year ago

Yes, and on average each human has roughly 0.98 testicles.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The goal of public policy is to benefit the public as a whole. So the average will always be a more useful metric than the experience of an individual, or even a hundred individuals.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

By that logic, Medicare for All would only cover less than one testicle

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Except testicle coverage is a policy, not a valid metric. A valid metric is the outcome of a policy, like average deaths from testicular cancer.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, and if we simply remove the excess testicles from those who have them, we could halve testicular cancer rates.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

That wouldn't work unless the only metric you cared about was deaths from testicular cancer.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

This is as detached from actual people's lives as the DNC's messaging

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Half joking response- but wouldn’t the survivorship bias mean those who were surviving only on minimum wage alone didn’t survive for very long?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I think you're on to something, but in reality people will quit a job that doesn't provide enough to live on. In other words, the job is the one that doesn't survive, not the worker.

So you might expect a rise in unemployment, but in fact we are seeing low unemployment. This suggests that employers respond to vacant minimum wage jobs by increasing the wage. And in fact there are plenty of well-known employers (e.g. Wal-Mart) where nobody works for minimum wage any more.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

people will quit a job that doesn’t provide enough to live on

Or they'll get a second job. Or a third job. Or start doing gig work.

Especially if the job provides them with health insurance.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Either way, they aren't working any minimum wage jobs.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay but they're still living off ramen and putting off medical treatment and hoping their car doesn't blow up

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The solution to all those problems involves increasing real wages. Which is what has happened for the last year, especially for the lowest quintile.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm sure that will make the ramen taste better.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Increasing real wages is always better than decreasing real wages. Which is what was happening before Biden.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, if only people looked at the statistics and ignored the rumbling in their stomachs. Public policy folks have it so hard.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For most people, the rumbling was even worse before Biden. That's the part you try so hard to ignore.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not doubting the statistics show that.

But people's stomachs are still rumbling, and they're not going to be silenced by statistics.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, but the only way to silence them is to do more of what Biden has already done.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Allow the housing interest rate to more than double? I don't need any more of that thanks.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

You don't need a mortgage to silence a rumbling stomach.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I’m also not sure how relevant my experience is to this whole thing since my work experience is 100% contract work in a specialized field instead of salaried or employer scheduled. From my perspective everything is becoming gig work, but that might not be the case. I think it’s hard to budget for groceries getting more expensive if one year I make 85k and the year after, I make 25k. Employers just don’t seem to have as much money to spend on advertising as they used to, so finding work is hard unless you take less than what you’re used to taking.

All my peers seem to be having issues with finances nowadays unless their parents are helping them out or have a partner making quite a bit as well. Combine that with businesses forcing the end of work from home means we have to move back to expensive cities. It’s looking pretty bleak even from my pretty privileged vantage point.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

One thing to keep in mind is that you may not be in the bottom quintile. And if you're not, then you may have a very different view of the economy.

Income inequality is decreasing right now, but many people don't understand that this necessarily involves some zero-sum adjustments. You cannot reduce inequality if everyone grows at the same rate, something must be transferred from the upper X% to the lower X%. And if you're in the upper X%, then the economy might feel worse to you than it really is.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’d be interested to see a source on if income inequality is decreasing because I haven’t seen any articles about that tbh. In fact, since 2020 when I last looked at graphs on it, it’s seemed like the gap is just getting wider and wider every year.

And if I was told things would get harder for me and other people in my bracket to make it easier for people making less than me, I’d be fine with it, but I’m not seeing an indication that that is what’s happening. But to be honest, so long as I’m seeing record profits for corporations and billionaires continuing to breathe, I’ll continue to think income inequality is continuing to get worse regardless of a study that states the contrary.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Reduction in income inequality started under Biden, after 2020

But there’s some pretty good news that doesn’t readily appear in the steady stream of government data released each week. After decades in which the gap between the richest and poorest Americans grew by leaps and bounds, the strange rebound from the pandemic has led to something different: a slow reduction in inequality across the economy. Incomes of people in the bottom half of income distribution grew by 4.5% in the last calendar year, much faster than the 1.2% average income growth of all Americans

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Looking at the Realtime Inequality source, I think the picture is a bit less rosy than the article gives it, if I’m reading the graphs correctly. It looks like the bottom 50% were absolutely financially destroyed during 2020 (as was everyone else) and measures have been taken to place them relatively close to where they were before the pandemic. But the upper class not only didn’t fall as hard as the bottom 50%, but they recovered to a higher level than they were previous.

To me, this seems like “the income inequality train is slowing down” rather than “the income inequality train is going in reverse”. That being said, I’m a dummy when it comes to economics, so I might not know how to read this correctly.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Note that the y-axis is income growth. Staying at zero means "no change". So it's more accurate to say that before late 2021 the bottom 90% stagnated (or slightly lost income) while the upper 10% grew, seemingly oblivious to hardship.

After late 2021, the income of the bottom 50% grew faster than the top 50% (or top 10%). That is exactly what is meant by "inequality is finally decreasing", because the only way for two extremes to get closer together is for the bottom extreme to grow faster than the top extreme.

Faster growth among the highest incomes is a longstanding feature in our economy, and this differential growth means that income inequality has almost always been increasing. Faster growth among the lowest incomes, ie any period of decreasing inequality, is practically unheard of in recent American history.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (17 children)

I do think it’s possible to make statistics claim anything you want if you categorize the positions you’re comparing in a way that supports what you want to claim. All I know is people generally don’t feel like they’re doing better economically whether it’s the honest fact or not. And if I’m having issues with groceries, those who make less than me must be struggling more.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-income-inequality-rose-3-years-through-2022-fed-data-shows-2023-10-18/

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, dude currently lives in public housing, what more do you want? (I kid)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ohhhh I'd love to see any president spend a month in some of the run down slum lord apartments I've been in.

Leaders should have suffered more to understand the plight of their constituents. Though I suspect a lotta those rich old men simply don't have the constitution to survive a normal life.

load more comments (1 replies)