this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024
169 points (96.7% liked)

World News

39463 readers
2144 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/51182148

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 days ago (2 children)

"The economy" in this instance being a playground for the rich.

People won't stop paying for food or rent just because their money might be worth a little more tomorrow. They won't skip buying minor entertainments just because maybe their meager salaries might be worth a little more next week.

Deflation is poison for the owner class, not the working class.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 days ago (3 children)

"The economy" in this instance being a playground for the rich.

People won't stop paying for food or rent just because their money might be worth a little more tomorrow.

Indeed, people won't stop paying for everyday necessities, but the economy consists of more than just individual people: there's the state and there are businesses too. You conflate the latter with “the rich”, which is generally true for corporations, but corporations are not the only form of business; there are cooperatives, partnerships, and others which can distribute profits more fairly. In any case, deflation affects all businesses, including fair ones, and the state itself. As another commentator suggested, money is meant to change hands and should never become an asset worth holding.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago (2 children)

money is meant to change hands and should never become an asset worth holding.

Forgive my admitted ignorance. If money should never become an asset worth holding, how can inflation be better than deflation for the working class?

Proportionately, the rich hold a lot more money assets than the poor, who generally don’t hold any or very little.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

If you have debt, inflation eats away at that debt. If you're paying 5% per year on that debt, but inflation goes up 3%, you're actually only paying 2% on that debt. That's good for people who have debt, and bad for the people who invested the initial money for that debt. With deflation, it's the opposite.

This assumes your wages go up with inflation, though. Over the long term, that does tend to happen, but there are certainly periods where that is not true.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Over the long term, that does tend to happen

Not in the US. We haven't seen a real pay increase since the early 1980s.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That became something of a meme post-2008 financial disaster, and it was true then. It's not true anymore. That's what I meant by it not being true in certain time periods. It depends on where you put the start and end dates.

As of now, median wages are significantly better off in real terms than any time in the 1980s: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

1982-84 CPI Adjusted Dollar - aka, a measure that eliminates housing, healthcare, and energy costs. Like, the two main drivers for CoL in the US.

And, it's still more than kinda true now. Ever wonder why homelessness is jumping up? Or why healthcare bankruptcies are extremely common? Is it because the wage growth outpaces those costs?

I don't believe so.

Oh, that also only tracks "Full time workers".... Something like 60% of Americans are NOT full time workers. They work 39.5 hrs, just enough to put them under "full time".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Oh, also, you're wrong that this excludes housing and healthcare:

https://www.bls.gov/cpi/questions-and-answers.htm

The CPI represents all goods and services purchased for consumption by the reference population. BLS has classified all expenditure items into more than 200 categories, arranged into eight major groups (food and beverages, housing, apparel, transportation, medical care, recreation, education and communication, and other goods and services). Included within these major groups are various government-charged user fees, such as water and sewerage charges, auto registration fees, and vehicle tolls.

Energy is a little more complicated, but it should be included in the graph above:

https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/common-misconceptions-about-cpi.htm

Has the BLS removed food or energy prices in its official measure of inflation?

No. The BLS publishes thousands of CPI indexes each month, including the headline All Items CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) and the CPI-U for All Items Less Food and Energy. The latter series, widely referred to as the "core" CPI, is closely watched by many economic analysts and policymakers under the belief that food and energy prices are volatile and are subject to price shocks that cannot be damped through monetary policy. However, all consumer goods and services, including food and energy, are represented in the headline CPI.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

So, do you have a more comprehensive set of data? Because when people were posting about this circa 2012, the above link is what they pointed to. Now that it's not showing the same answers, people suddenly don't like it.

Edit: a more robust way to make a similar argument is to point out the disparity between wages and productivity since the 1960s. That's a huge gap, it's only gotten wider, and it'd take a long time to fix without a revolution.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

A more comprehensive set of data?

I dunno. Not my job to try and prove capitalism is Good, Actually.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago

In other words, what do you use to back up your assertion that wages have not matched inflation?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

If money should never become an asset worth holding, how can inflation be better than deflation for the working class?

It's deflation that turns money into an asset worth holding and thus slows down economies. Too much inflation isn't good either, for different reasons. A slight and stable inflation is the sweet spot.

Proportionately, the rich hold a lot more money assets than the poor, who generally don’t hold any or very little.

Indeed, the rich do proportionately hold a lot more money than the poor, but it isn't much. The rich mostly have shares in corporations, bonds and real estate.

Inflation is generally worse for workers than for the rich because the latter have more pricing power. If both your living expenses and your income after taxes increased by 20%, you'd even end up with more money than before, assuming your living expenses were a fraction of your income. Unfortunately, prices haven't risen equally; the cost of living increase has generally outpaced real wage growth. The rich have been able to set higher prices; workers haven't been able to extract high enough wage raises.

Neither high inflation nor deflation are good for workers. What workers need is pricing power through strong unions and political support.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

A slight and stable inflation is the sweet spot.

Only if you enjoy living on debt.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

My understanding is that a slight and stable increase in the money supply is beneficial regardless of the monetary system in use, because it incentivizes economic activity. That said, I'm only somewhat familiar with our current fractional-reserve banking system and don't know enough about other systems, historical or hypothetical, to present my understanding as fact.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago

The problem is "incentivizing economic activity"... Economic activity, honestly, shouldn't happen unless it's somehow benefiting human life.

Sectors like banking and ad tech do nothing to benefit human life. They serve to extract resources from people, and thats all.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That just shows how broken the system is, though, doesn't it? It's geared towards benefitting the haves over the have-nots. Yes, it probably hurts the people further down the line from the shareholders and board members... but mostly because they can't countenance not having their numbers going up. So they pass along losses to the people who can tolerate the least.

I'm sure you're just approaching this from a sterilized, clinical approach "that's just the way things are"... but it's not particularly beneficial to people to consider things exclusively that way.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago

I think we both agree that capitalist logic is inherently extractive, exploitative and generally unhealthy. What I've been trying to point out is that we should not cherish deflationary tendencies in China or seek deflation in our own economies as a solution of sorts to the cost of living crisis, but rather pursue the power to increase our wages to at least match our ever rising productivity. In my opinion, unionizing –hard as it is– is more feasible than changing our monetary system –necessary and desirable as that would be– or overcoming capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You conflate the latter with “the rich”, which is generally true for corporations, but corporations are not the only form of business; there are cooperatives, partnerships, and others which can distribute profits more fairly.

And if those other types of business don't place "Profit maximization" as their primary focus, then a deflationary period wouldn't be bad for them, either.

Again, it's only bad for people with debt. And the more debt you have, the worse delfation is for you.

Debt, is really only "good" if you are a corporation. Because debt lets you spend a load of money that ain't yours, and getting the working class deep into debt is a good way to ensure you have a decent slave labor force.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Complete layman’s take on deflation, but wouldn’t trading basically stop with deflation?

Say I buy a product for 4$ and the next day due to deflation I can only sell it for 3$, why would I then go and try to trade said product?

It would be bad to have anything on shelf for a prolonged period. Food would probably not be affected due to its short shelf-time, but hardware stores, electronics, basically anything else would have the risk of significant losses. These stores would simply close, no?

That also extends to global trade - big cargo ships are sailing for weeks before they can distribute their goods. The whole time the products would loose value.

Probably I’m wrong, but if that’s true, deflation would really make the shit hit the fan.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

They won't skip buying minor entertainments just because maybe their meager salaries might be worth a little more next week.

Have you never seen somebody wait for a sale to make purchases? Or cut coupons? "The poor" frequently put off purchases to save some money.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Not because of deflation, but because they're looking for "The deal". More akin to the dopamine inducing tricks many microtransaction games use these days.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

Not because of deflation

Because there is no deflation... Unless you're living in China?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Only nonessential purchases. The poor generally don't have a choice to not pay rent in the US, you can get evicted after being 3 days late in most US states.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. Do you think the lower class only spends money on food, rent and gas? Some may but there are a lot of "non rich" people who buy nonessentials.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

As someone in the lower class, yes. A decade ago you might have had a point, but unless they're maxing out credit cards no one below median income is spending on non essentials.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That's a completely indefensible statement and you know it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Credit card debt is at an all time high, more people are living paycheck to paycheck than ever before, Americans rejected Biden explicitly because of his gaslighting about how good the economy was, union membership is up, and nearly all Americans celebrated the death of that CEO.

People aren't in a good spot. They don't have disposable income unless they above median wage. The great depression had better ratios in terms of money spent on essentials.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

They don’t have disposable income unless they above median wage.

This is utter bullshit and you know it. I know several people below median income, one is sending a child to college. They have iPhones, TVs, etc. To claim that these people are only buying the absolute necessities is just lefitst BS.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Both iPhones and TVs are cheaper than a months worth of groceries.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago

Yes, so as I said - they're spending money on more than just essentials. Jfc 🙄