TIL- The idea of how much you can afford to buy with your income is called “real income.” And if real income falls, that’s called a recession.
TIL- The idea of how much you can afford to buy with your income is called “real income.” And if real income falls, that’s called a recession.
President Trump said, "Maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls."
I swear I had Econ in college, but I don't remember anyone saying this so succinctly. It's from a weird place too, but this quote hits home. It's like population decline, but for money.
It was a truly baffling thing for an American president to say. And University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers explained on MSNBC that things could get very bad as Trump’s scheme becomes reality. Wolfers ntoed that the idea of how much you can afford to buy with your income is called “real income.” And if real income falls, that’s called a recession. Wolfers went on to explain that if things decline as badly as Trump’s example, where someone who bought 30 dolls could only afford to buy two dolls, that’s called a depression.
Video from MSNBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAZxLm6M_V0
TIL every year with a rent increase is a recession. Whenever housing prices increase faster than income that's a recession. When college tuition goes up faster than incomes that's a recession.
Yeah, we've been in a recession since the 70s and never stopped.
Even by this definition of recession, we're not. Real wages are up since that time.
Wages have not been keeping up with productivity increases. They're going to billionaires, not the workers.
correct.
It seems like you're really close to figuring out why a massive portion of the United States is willing to vote for anything as long as it's not the status quo.
And if real income falls, that’s called a recession.
But by that metric, rich people would never experience a recession. If that's the case, why do we allow them to cause a recession for the rest of us? Madness.
It's a huge example of the bystander effect. It would only take a handful of people to change the situation.
Why indeed
we're too comfortable with life's conveniences, and then throw some apathy on top
I have had this dream for a while now that the major media networks displayed real income changes next to the Dow and other stock tickers. Just so normal people are reminded of how their money is doing compared to rich people's money.
Do you have the formula for that? I might be up for doing that here on Lemmy locally once a month or so.
There is a variable called Gross National Income (GNI) corrected for inflation which is likely the variable Wolfers refers to. You can report it, but it will not be very different from GDP corrected for inflation which the media writes about all the time. Essentially production =income except for some small nuances.
There is no formula. You're mainly interested in wages, and those are negotiated.
That isn't really the definition though. Real income can fall in a recession but it's not necessarily a recession just because incomes fell. Real income can increase or decrease both during a recession and not during a recession. It's a lot more complicated than "when your income declines there is a recession".
The U.S. has been in a recession since Reagan according to the wording right? Housing and such vs wages shows its been in downfall since.
...that isn't what a recession means. I mean decreasing buying power is concerning but there are lots of times when that can happen when the economy is hot. In fact, a weakening economy can lead to deflation which increases buying power.
…that isn’t what a recession means. I mean decreasing buying power is concerning but there are lots of times when that can happen when the economy is hot. In fact, a weakening economy can lead to deflation which increases buying power.
You can't say all that and not tell us what you think it is. Also, I think they're talking overall, not the top 10% buying power.
So something like when d[income*(1-unemployment)]/dt < inflation, that's a recession?
Unless it’s a Democrat in the White House. Then it’s totally fine! What do you mean you can’t afford food?!! The economy has never been better!!
/s
Democrat in office: "Who cares you can't buy food and pay rent? Many people live paycheck to paycheck! The stocks are up, who cares what the plebs have?"
Republicans in office: "I don't give two shits about you, the stock must go up."
Almost like they have the same goals of "line must go up". It is baffling how people can ignore various national issues because of the economic system the government props up when their favorite group is in office.
Found this one: https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
I think I have seen similar or parts of that type of data before, but not all of it in one place
This is a good analysis, but it's slightly different from OP's statement.
Median real wages actually are up since 1979. It became something of a meme post-2008 to say that median wages have been flat since that time. That was true for a few years following the Great Recession, but they caught up and went quite a bit higher. It's possible the numbers will cycle around to that again, but it's not where we're at right now.
What the graphs in the article are arguing is that wages over that time are much lower than they should be given productivity increases.
Let's say you work for one hour making a widget, and you get $1 for that time. Your boss sells the widget for $5 and pockets the difference. Now there's an increase in productivity, and you can make two widgets in the same hour. You still get paid $1 for that hour, but your boss is selling those two widgets for $10 total now. You're not getting a raise just because of that productivity increase.
You might get a raise due to inflation. With 4% inflation, you get to make $1.04/hour, but your boss is now selling those widgets for $5.20 each. This is more or less the story since 1979.
That difference between productivity and real wages is what's charted out above. It tells you exactly who the real moochers are in society.
This all tracks very neatly with a decline in union membership.
Does the median income track the boss's newly increased wages, then?
It's something I've been thinking about for awhile now. That labor wages are stagnating but because "management" level, and higher, salaries are increasing with productivity, these Median Real Wage statistics are skewed, showing the increase.
I would have no way of separating out labor wages from the management level wages though, was just curious how it's calculated.
That's great info, thanks. I'll pursue that angle next time.
Economics just redefines terms as needed for the moment. Recession is really a label that can't really be applied until after you're in it anyway.
Inflation has also gotten watered down to be less meaningful once it started being a problem.
Inflation got watered down, what do you mean? It's just math for inflation. Capitalism uses inflation as a tool to expand the economy but at the end of the day by the definition listed on the post they are just saying if your wage doesn't increase faster than the inflation your life resources are in recession. That's at least how I read it. If you can't buy as much shit as you used to, you're doing worse. Which happens to individuals without happening to everyone, but if the average person can't buy as much shit as they could before, then it seems like recession is an adequate term.
Inflation was tweaked to mean any increase in prices instead of a measure of the loss in value of a currency.
oh shit....
Wrong community?