Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
>And that would be fine, prices go up over time after all, but all of that is on the back of pay, that for most people, has not gone up anywhere close to enough to cover all of that, if it's gone up at all.

BLS data shows real (ie. inflation adjusted) wages has gone up since the pandemic.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

Their methodology produces results that are not representative of the economic situation of average american families.

The average household income is 80k(ish) the average house is 420k(ish)

In Bethlehem, PA (a fairly middle of the road place tax wise) that means $5050 take home pay a month and a mortgage payment (FHA 3.5 down, 6.7 interest) of $2650 a month. That is more than half your pay just on a mortgage, not pmi, not insurance, not utilities, not anything else. Do this calculation across the country with localized numbers, do it with rent instead. Add a car and insurance for it into the mix. Then try adding in health insurance, groceries, etc. You are going to find that the numbers result in average people being squeezed and guess what? That lines up with peoples actual experience.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paycheck-to-paycheck-definition...

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/amid-a-resilient...

My interpretation of this is that pay has not kept up with inflation.

Edited to be less witty

There was a graphic in John Kings (CNN). Segment that showed a vast majority of the counties had wages falling behind inflation. This is just extremely real for the 5k(ish) takehome pay guy. I noticed the 4.5 ish $ eggs and milk.

The overall situation of housing and college costs have been increasing for a while this last round of inflation really was a big part of the last straw.

>There was a graphic in John Kings (CNN). Segment that showed a vast majority of the counties had wages falling behind inflation.

Source? Is this simply because rural counties are doing worse than urbanized counties, and there are more rural counties than urbanized counties, such that if you don't account for population you'll come to the conclusion that "vast majority of the counties had wages falling behind inflation", even though that's not true for the country as a whole?

You responded to a statement about change by talking about state. Both things are true: that average people have it better and that they have it hard.
{"deleted":true,"id":42062536,"parent":42062255,"time":1730902241,"type":"comment"}
A $2650 mortgage in Bethlehem PA is a very, very big house. You can’t apply the average mortgage price to a place where you can get a 2000 sqft house for under $200K. Additionally Bethlehem PA is an above average area for PA when it comes to affluence.
The median price per square foot in the US is $226[0]. The insanely economically depressed rust belt area where I was born has a median price over $150 per square foot (you do _not_ want to live there). I suspect your mental model of housing prices is anchored in the past when the world has moved on.

[0]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEDLISPRIPERSQUFEEUS

loading story #42065314
The question is supposedly whether things are better or worse, not whether they're "good enough" in some abstract way.

If you think things aren't good enough for an average person in one of the statistically best periods a capitalist economy has ever seen, there are redistributive alternatives. That doesn't seem to be what Trump voters are expecting. Instead there seems to be a nostalgia for past better times, which isn't really explained by "people are squeezed" based on math that would almost certainly have worked out just as tightly ten years ago.

Something else is going on. I don't claim to have a full explanation but none of the attempts to "fix" BLS statistics that I've seen have been more persuasive than this.

It's worth keeping in mind that inflation is a theoretical construct based on assumptions and formulas that may not apply for every individual or subpopulation.
>It's worth keeping in mind that inflation is a theoretical construct based on assumptions and formulas

That might be so, but it's better than people's vibes, which famously flip-flops based on whether their preferred party is in power.

>that may not apply for every individual or subpopulation

I never claimed that, but the parent comment did imply real wages have not gone up "for most people".

So, CPI adjusted it means that median people are "doing better" about $30 (also CPI adjusted) than in 1980 per week? Given all the "progress" in that time, that is just not enough, and that is what people feel. People feel they don't have the money to participate in modern life, and yeah, an extra $30 per week is definitely not enough to do that.

Also, the median stats say nothing about how people below it are doing. By definition, that is 50%, and that is also about the number of people voting for Trump, alongside your run-of-the-mill racists and fascists.

loading story #42064432
But still haven’t matched productivity gains since the 1970s[0]

Everyone likes to point this out like it somehow made up for all the wage stagnation of the last 40 years and it most definitely did not.

Not to mention these wage gains are slowing fast.

[0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/heres-how-labor-dynamism-aff....

>But still haven’t matched productivity gains since the 1970s[0]

The gap might be real, but it's existed for decades. Moreover at least when it comes to explaining why people voted for Trump: while I have no data to support it, "we're poorer because of inflation" is a much more popular sentiment/election issue than "the top 1% are taking the gains for themselves", especially among republican voters.

> the top 1% are taking the gains for themselves

They deserved it because they worked hard for it!

Considering his very pronounced and persistent support of broad tariffs on all imports, I'm not sure why people would vote for Trump and the Republican platform he steers if they're worried about the economy and prices. This will absolutely drive prices up across the board, exacerbating the situation, while the Republican platform has no proposal for even attempting to offset that, they also want to put the boots on the neck of labor, as it were (see Project 2025 or even the miniaturized version Agenda 47)
The data may show that. The people don't feel that. (Many of them don't see it in their budgets, either.)
Voting for the guy that complained American wages were too high and thinks tariffs are paid by other countries will definitely not help.

Please be more specific if you are explaining why American voters have got angry and done something stupid that will make things worse or if you are defending that stupidity as a good thing that will help the situation you are talking about.

Like Brexit, you have to let the electorate find out the hard way.
My theory is that social media has given people this skewed perspective of reality where everyone else appears to be rich and living in luxury.

This makes their own lives, in which they are still better off than 99.9% of the history of humanity, feel worse.

When your lifestyle suddenly has to change in drastic ways because of a rapid increase in prices none of this makes anyone feel any better. "Think about how much worse it COULD be, kids!"
>When your lifestyle suddenly has to change in drastic ways because of a rapid increase in prices

Where's the evidence this is happening for a majority (or even something vaguely resembling one) of people? I've already posted official statistics that show inflation adjusted median wages are up.

loading story #42064678
or you know, wages stagnated for 40 years and haven't kept pace with productivity gains, and it was inevitable that this would wear most American citizens down and we'd feel it more and more over time.

The most recent wage gains failed to make up for this fact

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/heres-how-labor-dynamism-aff...

But it’s a skewed picture of the actuality, which that those wage gains didn’t make up for the 40 years of stagnation preceding it.

If wage gains kept pace with productivity gains it’d be a very different and vastly better economic story for the average American

>which that those wage gains didn’t make up for the 40 years of stagnation preceding it.

It stagnated in 2008-2016 but they still voted for obama, but when it finally started rising in 2016 they voted for trump?

It wasn't really rising in 2016. The flat wage growth lasted past 2020, with a relatively recent blip, but it has not meaningfully risen to outpace the stagnation that existed for decades.

If wages increased with productivity increases we'd be in better shape overall as a society, but here we are.

{"deleted":true,"id":42062057,"parent":42061981,"time":1730900159,"type":"comment"}
[flagged]
Reality is always a social construct, and by having air superiority you can talk anything into reality.
You don’t feel earth rotation either but it still exists.

You can’t argue about feelings

People definitely can feel the impact of earth rotation on a daily basis. They literally would not even have the notion of a day without it actually.

https://sciencenotes.org/what-would-happen-if-the-earth-stop...

You can measure the effects but people don’t feel it, just ask flat earthers
When (some) people feel they’re worse off and blame it on the government, telling them government produced statistics says they’re actually better off is totally going to make them trust the government more. /s

Edit: Without the snark, lots of people believe their rent, grocery bills, energy bills etc. have gone up a lot more than official inflation numbers (and that can be true even if the inflation numbers are “accurate” for some definition of accurate), and you’re not going to convince them using anything derived from these inflation numbers.

We're still at 390 levels of cost in a 370 world.
>real (ie. inflation adjusted) wages
{"deleted":true,"id":42062988,"parent":42062033,"time":1730904115,"type":"comment"}