• iopq@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yes, because a lot of areas with good jobs vote against new housing, which causes increased rents and house prices.

    This is a true problem with society, not the amount that people make, but that they have to spend most of it on housing instead of the recommended 30%

    • Nevoic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The issue is the ratio. A medium salary could get you a medium priced house 60 years ago. This is no longer the case, not even close.

      Nobody cares what the actual number is. As long as median matches median, and spending power stays where it was in the 60s (or ideally improves, though that dream is dead), then that’s good.

      Wage growth stopped happening for the past half century. This isn’t good. Capitalists have been hoarding metric fuckloads of wealth, and it hasn’t trickled down (nobody in their right mind ever thought it would, but we now live in the world that conservatives 50 years ago wanted, and it’s failing miserably).

        • Nevoic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          There were plenty of other periods where wage growth outpaced prices over a 2-6 year span. The issue is there are also periods where prices outpace wages over similar spans.

          What you end up with is 60 years of no wage growth. Biden didn’t magically fix this. If he somehow fixed boom bust cycles and set forth unprecedented policies that will fix fundamental flaws in capitalism, fantastic (hint: he didn’t). In reality, crises of overproduction still occur. We still need standard government intervention to stimulate the economy, e.g aggregate spending and interest rate changes.

          • iopq@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Except that’s also wrong

            Xkzpnpz_lnI-0WbTH1LJVUdu3JaQrM47Y1BpDDMpXro

            There was a very short-lived peak one year in the 1973, but we’ve had consistent wage growth since 1990

            Yeah, 1970s and 1980s sucked, but we’re at all time highs now. Honestly, that’s ancient history, for all of my life the line has been going up

            • Nevoic@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Your best evidence for wage growth over the last 60 years is a graph showing that in terms of real spending power there was literally no gain between 1973 and 2019?

              Productivity skyrocketed in that time, and so has real wealth for people in the top 5%. That hasn’t been the case for workers, by your own cherry-picked statistics there were literally 0 gains made in 46 years.

              • iopq@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Yes, but it’s not like the stock market. In Japan the stock market peaked in 1989. If you invested all your money at that time you would have broken even after dividends now, maybe.

                A peak in compensation doesn’t work like that, since you couldn’t “invest” in 1973 and “lose money”.

                It’s more like from the 1964 to 1994 you have a flat graph with a peak, but from 1994 to the present it’s been getting better for the last 30 years.

                Productivity is another thing, for one, medical insurance costs employers a lot more and it’s not included in wages, but included in total compensation

                GKcDiIMXUAEFdcB

                • Nevoic@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  You’re trying to ignore the peak by choosing arbitrary time periods and pretending like they happened in the past so we can ignore them. Like somehow going from 1994 -> 2024 is valid, but going from 1973 -> 2019 is invalid because it’s in an arbitrarily different slot.

                  It’s not arbitrary to use the peak and compare that to modern data. The reason being it allows the assessment of what real spending power the median worker had at their best in the last 60 years, and highlights how that wage growth was taken away to such an extent that it took half a century of scraps just to get back to the same spot.

                  It’s not like something physically happened in the world that reduced total access to capital or wealth and it took society 60 years to rebuild, it’s just the contradictions of capitalism taking real aggregate spending ability away from workers to massively inflate profits, as the data you’ve provided showcases so clearly.

                  • iopq@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    The opposite happened, Japan started producing more goods in the 70s and women entered the workforce in the 80s.

                    1973 was just peak male American worker