• cosmicsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    107
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      71
      ·
      10 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      10 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        10 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      10 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months 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.

        • MadhuGururajan@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          10 months 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months 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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months 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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months 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.

                  • chitak166@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months 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?

    • 31337@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months 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.

        • ultranaut@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          10 months 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            10 months 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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              10 months 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months 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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

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

            • ultranaut@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              10 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

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