Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
tyingq | on: Trump wins presidency for second time
What the average voter wants to understand, even if they don't say it this way. "Why didn't my wages/pension/etc rise at the same inflation rate as my groceries?"
smileysteve | parent | next
... The data says wages outpaced inflation.

Social security / medicare are indexed to inflation.

The s&p500 outperformed inflation. (And treasury interest rates - 3 month and 10 Year - are ~<2x cpi and cpi targets for the first time in ~20 years)

How do you convey ideas to voters when the basis of the idea is feeling vs fact, outlier vs median?

https://www.marketplace.org/2024/10/30/wage-growth-slowing-o...

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/awifactors.html

timssopomo | root | parent | next
Wages in aggregate outpaced inflation in aggregate. That's not necessarily going to make it feel like your living situation has improved, especially if your consumption patterns don't perfectly match the CPI model and if you're financing major purchases. Compared to 2020, rent indices are up 30%, houses are up 50% (in value, not monthly payment - that's worse), used cars are up 30% currently but peaked at 40%. Groceries are up 26%. Costs of borrowing have skyrocketed across the board, and Americans live on financing.

If Americans own stock at all (38% don't), the majority of it is in retirement accounts.

Last year, the median income was still below 2019: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

drawkward | root | parent | next
>... The data says wages outpaced inflation

The data are aggregate measures. I have no doubt that for, say, the top 20% of earners, wages did outpace inflation. Maybe the next 30% were able to tread water. The bottom 50%, however, are likely on a sinking ship.

supportengineer | root | parent
Why does the richest country in the history of the world allow 50% of its workers to be on a sinking ship?

That is the question

KiwiJohnno | root | parent | next
And the (simplistic) answer is because many of those 50% vote Republican, because the Republicans say they will fix things and yet always make things worse for the bottom 50%
WalterSear | root | parent | next
Because it's foundational social contracts rely too heavily on the Fundamental Attribution Error.
drawkward | root | parent
Because it was bought by billionaires.
loading story #42070950
fuzzfactor | root | parent | next
>How do you convey ideas to voters when the basis of the idea is feeling vs fact, outlier vs median?

It would probably be best with deep empathy from the heart, which seems to be in extremely short supply from some camps, and nothing else seems to be working.

tunesmith | root | parent | next
I think average and even median aren't the right way to look at this. In an atmosphere where both inflation and wages shot up and then came back down, it's the variance that kills you. Compared to a steady 2-3% growth with low variance, the raw number of people who experienced distressing adjustments, with some people profiting and others losing, is a big deal.
ethbr1 | root | parent | next
> How do you convey ideas to voters when the basis of the idea is feeling vs fact, outlier vs median?

That's the best description of what good politicians can do that I've ever heard.

brigade | root | parent
If you want a verifiable large-scale example, the General Schedule has only increased by 12.5% cumulative in the last 4 years, compared to 22% CPI
dlisboa | parent | next
> Against a bounding rise in prices, [...], one can fight only under the slogan of a sliding scale of wages. This means that collective agreements should assure an automatic rise in wages in relation to the increase in price of consumer goods.

Leon Trotsky, 1938. [1]

Automatic rise in wages to counter inflation effects on ordinary people is literally a socialist plan. What they're asking for is socialism. Right-wing Americans (supposedly) hate socialism, at least when it benefits people other than themselves.

---

[1] - https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm...

holbrad | root | parent
Do we not see the obvious cyclical death spiral such a policy could cause ?
dlisboa | root | parent | next
That is definitely the opposing argument. Trotsky certainly realizes that it would mean the death of capitalism, which is the whole point of his socialist revolution. He's not really looking to maintain the status quo.

I was just pointing out that most right wing Americans don't realize many of their demands and reservations to their current economic climate are straight out of a socialist handbook. Political education is at an all-time low worldwide.

achierius | root | parent
There are people who would argue that your opposition to such policies (simply because they are part of the socialist playbook) is itself an uneducated position. It's certainly possible to go round and round calling each other uneducated because of diverging opinions on various labels, but I don't think it's a very helpful approach to take.
loading story #42071040
fuzzfactor | root | parent
>Do we not see the obvious cyclical death spiral such a policy could cause ?

Naturally, as the prices of consumer items spirals downward, followed proportionally by decline in equivalent buying power of the wages, non-consumables like cars and homes remain within reach for fewer of the accomplished workers, and primarily only those who could be considered affluent beforehand.

Leaving everyone who is non-affluent further from prosperity even though they can still afford almost the same amount of cheap consumer items after all.

Almost.

This is by design.

The 1938 guideline was a good starting point for those who want to calculate the tolerance for the differential that could be extracted, and whether or not it would be expected to lead to revolution or something.

>straight out of a socialist handbook.

And then there's the worst-case scenario :\

IOT_Apprentice | parent
Because corporations like Walmart and various suppliers decided they could get away with increasing their prices and they blamed it on inflation. Thee isn’t federal law monitoring this.

Employers won’t give raises to match cost of living in those situations.