>Regular people do not have more more money or time
Of course they do. Median real weekly wages[1] have been rising for decades all while the average number of hours worked per worker have fallen[2].
>Regular people do not have more more money or time
Of course they do. Median real weekly wages[1] have been rising for decades all while the average number of hours worked per worker have fallen[2].
Meanwhile household basics increased faster than wages. In other words people don’t have more money.
https://www.unitedforalice.org/essentials-index
The term “real” means the values are adjusted for inflation
...which is notorious for using a dogshit basket and basket-update methodology to make the number look good.
The basket is dogshit, but not for the reason you probably think. Our lives improved tremendously by technology: internet, smartphone, videogames, netflix & co, medical progress, online shopping of any goods you can possible imagine, ability to travel the world for cheap.
The problem with the CPI basket is, it needs to be constant of products to be comparable, so NO technological advancement is considered in that basket. Instead, they use the price of butter and tomatoes. Well, a fictious 1950s person wouldn't care that is can buy more butter or tomatoes than we can, but would want smartphone and a plane ticket to thailand.
I'm sorry but videogames and Netflix have done exactly nothing for my quality of life. In fact, I wish there were less of both, and multiple other things you listed. I think we have a significantly different understanding of quality.
You might as well complain about that the basket contains tomatoes because you don't like tomatoes.
It's a statistical tool concerning populations, not a sampling of what hacker news user cicko in their wisdom thinks increases quality of life.
It is just an example, but you come to the base of my argument: CPI basket is an average - and you cannot use it to make statements about individuals. If Netflix is nothing to you, then look at houses: My granparents (born even after 1920s) had an outhouse. That means, every time you need to use the bathroom, you left your house through the garden - come wind and weather. That meant in the winter, you were walking through the snow and do your business in a small, smelly outhouse without no access to running water whatsover at sub-zero degrees. Yet there are people running around saying that our grandparents could afford houses, while we can't anymore.
The quality of the house your grandparents (for 1920 probably your grand-gran parents) is vastly different. Those houses cannot be compared at all, when I take my dump in the heated warmth in a nicely smelling place listening to some music over my airpods.
Yup. The St. Louis Fed is a joke. Inflation of owners' equivalent rent alone blows the whole argument up..
I love that any time there’s a discussion about inflation, someone posts that link.
“If you would please look at the chart…” when it is known that inflation is a politically-charged figure that is indirectly manipulated to show much lower figures than the price increases the average person with average expenses (rent, car, fuel, food, etc.) experiences.
Let alone doing comparison of inflation over longer timespans. Garbage model in, garbage numbers out.
It is not necessarily politically influence. You simply cannot measure inflation properly. See my siblin comment about technology - it is just impossible to compare the life of a 1920s person to a 2020s person based on tomatos, butter and rent. Because the access to products that didn't exist at the given quality level in 2020 is impossible to price in.
You can think of it with a thought experiment: A smartphone (with hypothetical internet) in 1920 would be worth almost all the money in the world. If you simply had one smartphone in 1920, the richest billionares would offer most of their wealth to have one. Hence in 1920, a smartphone would be worth at least $10M in todays money. Yet you can buy one for $500 today - so you are twenty-thousand times richer than 1920. The same applies for flatscreen TVs, antibiotics (really valueable when you need it), polio vacination etc.
You can't measure this with CPI, yet people complain about the CPI is fake. It is just a statistical average, no more no less. It always was irrelevant. It is the arguments people do with that number, that are bullshit. Basic statistics teach you never use an average to come to conclusions about the individual.
This is research from a labor advocacy group, with the explicit aim of the organization to advocate for this sort of thing. This doesn't mean the research is is automatically invalid, but it is bias worth mentioning.
Looking at an article from the CATO institute, over the last 30 years wages have climbed 169 percent, while food prices 111 percent.
But an even better measure is PCE, or personal consumption index. Rather than CPI, or any other "household basics" measure, which subjectively categorize goods and then tracks those, PCE measures the total dollar amount spent by the entire U.S. consumer sector on goods and services. This is what is used by the FRED database referenced in the reply above.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/why-dire-pronouncements-abou...
I feel like people complain about “food” but it’s a stand-in and that the cumulative increase in rent, transportation and food probably rose faster than wages. So Cato reply “but food hasn’t grown as fast as wages” is a myopic retort (admittedly one they acknowledge) that tries to fight the narrow factual argument ignoring the broader one where the emotional narrative probably remains true.
Also we can probably simplify this bucket even more and just talk about the elephant in the room which is rent/mortgage.
It’s 30 to 50% of most peoples paycheck, it’s really the piece that matters and the one that is most complicated to solve.
The government heavily interferes in the housing industry. Hence, the higher costs. It's the same for everything the government interferes with - such as education and health care.
For examples:
1. there are 57,000 unoccupied apartments in NYC because city regulations on rents make them unprofitable to rent out.
2. the glacial pace of issuing building permits for burned out homes in LA.
3. the sudden influx of many millions of immigrants pushes up the demand for housing, resulting in higher prices
> And the reasons why they are vacant is much more complex "because city regulations on rents make them unprofitable to rent out".
Is it actually more complex than that? If the regulation that makes it unprofitable to rent them out is rent control, that's still an accurate statement of why they're not being rented out.
> there are 57,000 unoccupied apartments in NYC
That's about 2.4% of the total number of rented apartments, and about 1.5% of the total housing stock.
How long do you think those apartments are unoccupied, on average?
What portion of the stock do you think would normally be healthy to have on the market?
google prompt: "how many unoccupied apartments in nyc"
Scroll down a bit and read the section: "Key Causes of Vacancies"
[flagged]
I genuinely can not understand how anyone with basic knowledge of economics could believe that government intervention is not responsible for the majority of rent price increases
The market, left to its own, will keep building because someone will see the prices people are willing to pay and think “I want in on that” but then the government comes in and blocks them from building. No building = supply lower than demand which always equals higher costs
Further, It would only have taken you one 5 second search to see the ways government regulations can cause unoccupied apartments
https://www.google.com/search?q=in+what+ways+can+government+...
That's because you inserted the word "all" which was quite absent from what I wrote.
Please try again.
P.S. google "how many unoccupied apartments in nyc"
> all unoccupied apartments in a market
Which market are you thinking of?
Let's assume I'm talking about the same market as the person I responded to.
> the same market as the person I responded to
Los Angeles? Where the homeowner vacancy rate is 0.7% and rental vacancy 4%?
If you literally weren't thinking of anywhere when your responded, where did you get the notion from?
[1] https://api.census.gov/data/missing_key.html +/- one percent
The share of income people spend on housing has been very stable over 40 years: https://economistwritingeveryday.com/2023/04/26/spending-on-...
The problem isn't so much that housing has gotten expensive. It's that many of the existing places have moved up-market compared to what they were 30-40 years ago. 75 years ago, Scarsdale NY or parts of Long Island were expensive. But Palo Alto was a drab middle class suburb. As the tech economy has boomed, that has driven prices up in Palo Alto for the same reason they were already high in Scarsdale. And now you have to move to Gilroy.
> The share of income people spend on housing has been very stable over 40 years
That's a misleading metric for two reasons. First, "people" includes all the people who bought a house decades ago before the prices went up, and correspondingly paid the old prices instead of the current prices. And second, it assumes that if housing becomes more expensive what people all do is pay more for housing rather than being unable to afford it and then having to take a longer commute to access housing they can afford, live with their parents, become homeless, etc., which negatively impact the amount or type of housing they get instead of the amount they pay for it.
Meanwhile between 1984 and today median income increased by ~290% while median new home prices increased by ~425%:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N
And that's with the gap having reduced a bit in the last couple of years, since home prices have declined slightly since the peak in 2022 while median income continued its usual trend.
Fighter planes coming back with holes must mean the parts with the holes are the ones that need reinforcing.gif
People are moving out of opportunity zones (and you know…losing opportunity) or moving in with roommates to keep the average percentage low.
Feels like such a basic factor to miss for what is supposedly an economists blog. That metric means nothing.
That stability claim is an average for all American households, gathering together high-income households and long-tenure homeowners along with poor renters. But in a K-shaped economy where the wealthy do well and the rest do worse, averaging the two forks of the K hides the hardship of those on the lower fork.
From https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/rental-housing-unaffordabi...
> The net effect of this longer history is that renters today spend much more of their incomes on rent than they did in previous generations. The median renter household in 1960 spent less than a fifth of their income on rent. By 2022, housing costs consumed 31 percent of the median renter’s income. And in inflation-adjusted terms, the median rent is up 75 percent over these six decades while the median renter income has risen by just under 15 percent.
It's not very complicated; it's just that the solutions are deeply unpopular. Making housing affordable by definition means driving down prices. But existing homeowners don't like to see their home prices go down! And about 2/3 of the US public lives in a house owned by a resident.
I'm semi-convinced that the reason why we see so many bad ideas in housing is because the good ideas negatively affect too much of the voting public. Or, they perceive the ideas as negatively affecting them.
You're mistaken about the reasons why solutions are unpopular. Have you actually talked to the most active NIMBYs who oppose new housing development? Most of them are barely aware of affordability and home prices. They have lived in the same neighborhood for decades and intend so stay there until they die so prices don't impact them at all. Instead they are concerned about quality of life issues: traffic, parking, noise, petty crime.
“Making housing affordable by definition means driving down prices.”
This is not true.
Not that it matters as I don’t think this is what motivates NIMBY’s but for anyone reading that believes so, this is incorrect.
The old single family home next to the new apartment building gains land value. And this shows up county after county [1]. Building more housing is a valuation win-win, the pie just grows.
[1] https://gardner.utah.edu/news/recent-apartment-construction-...
But unless you intend to sell up then what you now have is a more crowded neighborhood and in some cases higher property taxes.
IDK if things are fundamentally different in Czechia, but I talked to a lot of Czech NIMBYs and they almost never mention home prices. What they usually obsess about is change in a neighborhood that they are used to and want to keep intact. The resentment against new people and new buildings is just palpable, even if the newcomers would be solid middle class.
Noise and dust from construction are often mentioned as well. Construction means heavy trucks entering places where they usually don't intrude.
Saying, "2/3 of the US public lives in a house owned by a resident" sounds like a phrase talking around the problem that young people can't afford to move out of the family home. A true fact but with a story behind it.
> But existing homeowners don't like to see their home prices go down!
As a homeowner I don't want to see my home price go down relative to all other homes as that leaves me in a precious position if I need to move, but if all homes fall in price together then that actually makes the prospect of moving less risky as, if I have to move into a house that is a step-up from the one I have, the cost to do so is lower. That would be an improvement over the status quo. High housing prices are a problem even for those with significant equity in a home.
But who doesn't want to see their wage go down is those who build houses. This is the bottleneck. The vast majority of people cannot afford a new house, which means they're stuck in their used houses, which means there is no inventory opening up for those with no houses.
> it's just that the solutions are deeply unpopular.
Is it? The solution in motion is to use AI to push software developers out of software development so that they have to become construction workers, thereby increasing the supply of construction workers, pushing construction wages down. It doesn't seem that unpopular (at least not outside of HN, but even on HN many welcome it with open arms). Maybe it will become unpopular once the motions are complete? That's a tad bit late, though.
a friend showed me their budget recently, and about 45 hours of their wages go to rent each month (for a single room in a house with roommates). That seems very high to me, and their rent is considered "low" in their area (a small suburb)
Assuming they work full time, that is pretty average. The old "30%" rule is that you should spend no more than 30% of your pre-tax wages on rent. Your friend is spending just over a quarter post-taxes.
[flagged]
Hobbies can help avoid thinking about religion when it’s not on anyone’s mind!
That seems high. 14 hours of my salary (pretax) goes to my rent.
That’s another bad metric without more nuance. if I used to pay 30% and now pay 50% but the remaining 50% buys 2x what it used to then overall I’m still doing better
I’m not saying that’s the case. I’m only saying the metric “housing cost as percent of wages” isn’t enough to judge if people are doing worse or better
To take just one example: a 65inch tv costs just $700 compared to $4k just a few years ago
You are right, I'll just eat a 65 inch TV and live in the box.
1. PCE tracks spending by and on behalf of households, including employer-paid health insurance and government-funded medical programs like Medicare. Arguably this does not reflect out-of-pocket costs or the immediate cash-flow reality experienced by a regular household.
2. Shelter accounts for roughly 34% of the CPI, whereas it makes up only about 16% to 17% of the PCE which underplays the pressures of housing people face. Housing arguably is one of the most basic necessity and people will spend on it. For majority of the people in the country housing as a % of income is the biggest expense, so weighing it at 16% sounds almost ridiculous.
3. PCE also famously isn’t based on household surveys like CPI which means it doesn’t accurately represent the actual inflation either.
4. PCE also doesn’t accurately represent lifestyle downgrades even though it tracks them. PCE will capture if you swap chicken for beef (like people are doing right now) but the conclusion you’ll come to is that people have the same amount of spending power as before.
Hey thanks for posting this perspective w/ the link. Fun rabbit hole to go down stuck in a hotel tonight. I wonder if you think something explanatory is missing in _all_ of these different indices, in the "where there's smoke, there's fire" sense of economic anxiety on display today
The sense of economic anxiety is due to increasing economic efficiency and sorting. It's not that the cost of living somewhere has gone up as much as people think. It's that the market is efficiently allocating housing in the place you grew up, near your parents, family, and friends, to Google and Facebook engineers. But you can still get a house twice as big as what your parents had at your age in a new subdivision in Tennessee.
I’m not necessarily disputing your point, but it’s very odd to downplay one source for potential bias, and then follow up with a study from the CATO Institute. Like, the CATO institute is openly a libertarian think tank founded by one of the Koch brothers.
I also think it’s unfair to look at just food prices. Housing and healthcare have bloomed massively.
Of course you’re right. Food isn’t the whole picture, and no think tank is perfect.
We should evaluate research by the research itself, rather than by the author’s subjectivity credibility alone. The is the point I was trying to make by providing alternative research and adding a little bit of nuance to the reply, but perhaps I should’ve been more forthright in addressing my own bias as well.
> We should evaluate research by the research itself
Why is this the argument when someone challenges your source, but when it comes to someone else's source your argument is:
> This is research from a labor advocacy group, with the explicit aim of the organization to advocate for this sort of thing. This doesn't mean the research is is automatically invalid, but it is bias worth mentioning.
Yeah, CATO is … not what I would reach for to make a point on neutrality.
Who is neutral in your opinion?
On this topic? I would have to check. R/badeconomics ? R1 means that its impenetrable to average pontification. The Fed data is neutral.
Using CATO as a neutral source though, is sketch no matter what.
> calls a labor advocacy group biased
> Links the fucking CATO institute
Pot, meet kettle
They do have more money, less spending power.
> Meanwhile household basics increased faster than wages
Not what real means!
People lack money, but a Netflix (or some other streaming) subscription is a very cheap way to buy a lot of entertainment, and just about everyone has at least one.
I first saw the claim everything is hunky dory because workers are working fewer hours from a economist probably ten years ago. The idea is workers are choosing to work fewer hours and instead enjoy more leisure.
So to point out how inanely out of touch economists are.
The problem with that is the worker economic base unit is a family not one person. Now compare 1960-70s where one person in the household works 40 hours a week. Compare with a modern family where both parents are working a combined 70-80 hours a week.
So yeah workers are working slightly less hours and families as a unit substantially more.
I don't find either of these charts dispositive by themselves. The cost of healthcare, education, housing, transportation, and insurance have easily outpaced any growth in wages. Another facet of this debate is that cheaper goods aren't necessarily of equal or better quality.
> Of course they do.
That level of certainty is not justified.
[dead]
> the average number of hours worked per worker have fallen
Hooray for just-in-time scheduling where workers have to be available full time but rarely get scheduled full time. It’s an innovation that has been great for capital and terrible for labor.
Yep, keep everyone part-time so they don't get benefits.
which is in unintended but predictable side effect of requiring those benefits for full-time employees.
shakes fist at sky "if only we didn't have to pay those pesky benefits then we wouldn't be forced to make the roles abusive contractor/part-time roles...Wild people even try to take this stance.
I'm baffled. Do you not see the normative vs descriptive claim here?
The reality is that requiring benefits imposes a cost, and employers manage that cost by limiting who qualifies. So yes, this hurt many workers - and disproportionately impacted disadvantaged people who didn't make the full-time cliff.
Ignoring increntives is actually shaking your fist at the sky.
Then can we agree on a government funded safety net for the sake of labor mobility? ;)
Typically the real disagreement here is over whether workers should get benefits at all.
EDIT: can we get another `vouch` or two for groundzeros2015's currently [dead] reply? It's well-argued and an olive branch and deserves to be visible.
I do agree. A government funded benefit is an explicit tax and spend. A mandate to provide a benefit is a hidden tax where it's not clear who is paying.
Upvote for bringing data, since I did not. That said, that quote was in reference to AI, so referred to the past 3-4 years. And of course, our money today is not worth as much as it was 20+ years ago. Also many important goods and services increased in price at a higher rate than inflation or wage increases. It might be interesting to look at such industries for a history of consolidation or PE-involvement.
The data by the Fed linked above is inflation adjusted.
I realized after, yeah, thanks for calling out though.
You are welcome. Though seeing your overwhelming openness and good nature in the rest of this thread, I now feel some regret in how I replied to you here.
I addressed but one of your points here and ignored essentially the rest of your reply. A rather myopic one sentence reply to a more nuanced comment.
Sorry to sink to the lowest common denominator, friend. Thank you for making me see this.
For what it's worth, I thought the rest of your comment was a very accurate description of how labor and capital are reallocated within an industry. The question is simply whether it's a bad thing that Hollywood studios have decamped for Atlanta and Toronto. For the people working in LA that don't want to move, I'm sure the answer is yes. But on net, I think it's probably meant more and better work for more people in general.
I really appreciate your perspective. Mine is definitely malleable on these topics; they're complicated and I'm not an economist.
re: regular people and their money, I will say, something about the bigger picture just feels off. I look at the graphs you linked to, and do not see it reflected in the people around me. I don't mean to be dismissive of the data, more that I feel like I am missing something, or it is, if that makes sense?
Since the 1980s, the wealthy have done fantastic while the rest have not done nearly as well. The argument from CATO and others is that we should be content with the majority of households taking home a shrinking share of an increasing pie so long as their absolute purchasing power isn’t decreasing, but that argument feels wrong in part because it’s human nature to measure status relative to others rather than in absolute terms.
Furthermore, wealth applies more pressure against certain costs like housing[1] than against others like food or durable goods. Cheap toasters only go so far in making people feel like they aren’t falling behind.
[1] https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/home-prices-surge-five-tim...
This seems to be a common argument essentially “If a rich guy get $1000 and as a result I get $10, then I shouldn’t complain because I got $10” but this glosses over the fact that money is a proxy for power. The rich guy got more power over resources from this deal. Over the years this leads to more power inequality which is bad because now the rich guy can start doing other things to me and I have no recourse.
I agree, but I don't think many wealthy people are open to that perspective. Many seem to credit themselves with having created an environment where everyone's lot is improving in absolute terms, and don't see anything wrong with accumulating outsized relative power for themselves.
The reluctance to give up resources also an understandable aspect of human nature, but power concentration in the hands of the few is always problematic. I'm very much a capitalist but the last few decades have persuaded me that wealth taxes are a necessary and moral correction to capitalism's unfortunate spiraling acceleration of inequality.
It’s a difficult conversation to have because critiquing the wealth accumulation tends to get you shouted down as a communist. I’m a believer in capitalism as well but our current system has produced people that are so wealthy they are effectively above the law. Some limit on wealth accumulation really needs to happen.
To escape the "communist" critique, I think it's worthwhile to grapple with opposing all concentration of power, whether private or public, governmental or corporate.
For instance: marketplace competition requires some regulation, but recognizing that regulation is a necessary evil with many opportunities for abuse (e.g. regulatory capture) helps inoculate against socialism's worst excesses.
The CPI has gone up far faster than real wages.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL
People are earning about 12% more and working about 5% less since 1980, but everything costs roughly 3x what it did in 1980 relative to wages, and that's where most people are pinched.
Real wages are inflation adjusted. So if everything costs 336% of what it did in 1980, and the real ages are 112% of what they were, then that means nominal wages are 376% of what they were.
It doesn't make sense to compare CPI to real wages. Real wages are wages divided by CPI or another inflation index.
Nicely sliced. Weekly wages for full time workers have been rising for decades while fewer workers work full time. I don't think this data backs your assertion.
The number of full time workers as a percent of the total employees has gone from roughly 84% (rounding up) in 1979 to roughly 82% (rounding down) today. There was a spike in people working part time in the wake of the GFC, but we've returned to trend.
Also, I chose weekly wages because annual wages are complicated by time off, which was the other item in question.
Something like 80% of workers are full time.
25% increase in half a century? We ahd like 3 technological revolutions since then and economy grew massively.
Compare that to how much wealth appreciated, like a price of gold or real estate.
Median real wages increased by the narrowest possible meaning of this word.
Trickle down economy is literally a trickle.
Boomers gonna boom