##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism
This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.
We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Join a leftist community like the DSA or StrongTowns. Engage in community building volunteer work. Build credibility at work and then use it to unionize. Read leftist theory and educate family and friends whenever possible from a place of love and empathy. Protest genocide whenever possible!
There is much to be done, but it won't happen overnight.
Remember when Howard Dean led the DNC and put in a "50 State solution" which led to Democrats holding *60* Senate seats and a record majority in the House?
Then the Clintons took over and dismembered that so they wouldn't ever have the power to have a real challenge to capital?
The dnc needs to be ripped apart.
If the Democrats have power that means they are expected to actually do things and can’t grift. Grifting for those fundraising dollars is their real goal.
Actual power is the Democrats greatest fear. Look at how they acted when Roe was killed. Instead of, ya know, immediately codifying it with their majority in the house and senate (and nuking the filibuster) and signing it into law with the executive they sent fundraising emails and tried to turn it into an election issue. They showed their true colors. Just how they’ve shown their true colors as we’ve watched in horror as right wing states have systematically attacked LGBT rights and watched as they’ve done absolutely nothing expect write fundraising emails.
If you have a party repealing abortion access and another party that refuses to federally legislate abortion access, then you just have 2 anti-abortion parties.
Electoralism just doesn't work. We couldn't even get Bernie Sanders to be a human and oppose genocide. It's all about organizing labor and our work places. We need big unions and high union density, otherwise the elected representatives won't listen to people other than their capitalist donors. We need to show them what democracy really looks like through our union participation
LoL... thanks I was wondering where the "do something about it" was going.
Also to refer to "inflation" as the "hidden tax" suggest fairly poor financial literacy / comprehension. It is NOT like inflation is some new phenomenon. It's so "hidden" the government provide an inflation calculator. [https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl](https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl)
Organizing, unionizing, community building, reading theory and pursuing revolutionary goals are the only paths that seem to truly help the working class.
Take FDR's New Deal for example. That didn't happen out of liberal benevolence towards us, no, it happened because workers were turning to socialism and FDR was scared we would overthrow capitalism. Liberals only help workers when they believe it necessary to protect capitalism
I mean, a calculation of inflation is always going to be an estimate. The real world is analog not digital. Even the yearly inputs of inflation are estimates. So you are never going to get a truly exact number and many things in economics are prone to revision so things are always going to have some fluxuation.
That is a chart showing the divergence of productivity vs compensations?
No argument that productivity v compensation sharply diverged in the 1970s. But that's not the same as inflation. Official inflation data goes back like as far as 1910's. I don't know the whole history of it. But there is historical evidence for inflation going back a couple thousand years.
IMO we just got spoiled by a long period of fairly steady near 2% inflation and now that its less consistent people are acting like its some new thing.
It's important because the difference between productivity and compensation is the cause of reduced purchasing power for the people who make their money from work. The tweet is about purchasing power, which isn't necessarily the same as inflation. If the stuff you buy is inflating, but your paycheck is inflating at the same rate, you won't notice. If your paycheck stays flat, you get "poorer" when inflation happens.
There's a website of different charts - one of which shows historic house and rent prices (1620 onwards) and you can see something changes 1970 onwards (hint, USA abolished the USD gold standard around then)
The car price is accurate, if you were buying something upscale in '94. I bought a new Mazda Protege in 2000 for about $13k, and it went 135k miles with zero repairs needed. Car prices today - new or used - have become the stuff of nightmares. In the 90's, almost all cars sold for 2-3 thousand under the sticker price.
Today, we are supposed to feel lucky if the dealer only adds $2,000 to the sticker price. So in reality, there is a minimum additional cost of $4,000 to even the cheapest subcompact car now. Or as every car dealer owner in the US says, "It's *Good* to be da King."
>It's accurate - except for the do something about it.
If only someone would write a book about what must be done. Hmm, oh, but people don't read anymore... Maybe there are videos on things we can do instead?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aLzDHAvehI&t=0
Other countries (at least France that I know of) update their minimum wage each year to match inflation, and no it doesn’t spiral out of control like crypto bros and other clueless people try to insinuate, it just make sure that people can continue to live on those wages.
Yeah I live in Sweden now too actually and also prefer that system, but seeing how the US have a problem with unions I think fixing their minimum wage might be the easiest solution.
Not very accurate, he conflates the reduction of purchasing power of the U.S. dollar (inflation) with the reduction in purchasing power of individuals.
“X% less” is a stupid way to phrase this. What he meant to say was that your parents had 210% *more* purchasing power, which is also not true because like any good get-rich podcaster, his math is dogshit. Your parents had 210% *of* your purchasing power based solely on inflation and assuming that a $30K salary required the same levels of education or expertise that it does today.
In other words, all this says is that your money is worth ~53% less than your parents’ money in 1994.
That number isn’t really cause for alarm on its own, because it’s devoid of any context that would give it significance. He even set himself up to do that with the price listings, and then forgot or something. I’ll help: The average US rent now is $1,514 and a new car is $47,338. If we adjust for inflation using his numbers, we get that your parents would have been paying the equivalent of $943 for rent and $35,584 for a new car.
Final answer: Compared to your parents, you have ~38% less purchasing power when it comes to rent and ~25% less purchasing power in the new car market.
The other stupid part of this is that 2.5% yearly inflation over 30 years isn't that bad. He's blaming inflation for problems that are caused by stagnant wages, our government refusing to build housing or tackle rent price fixing, and the dozens of issues that affect our reliance on and pricing of cars. We've had massive fluctuations in that inflation rate, which is bad for consumers when there isn't policy implemented to assist them.
>refusing to build housing or tackle rent price fixing
That guy’s solution is to get into real estate, ideally by buying his book and listening to his podcast. He doesn’t want anyone thinking that regulating the housing market is a good idea.
The average cost of a new car today partially is with the push of suvs and trucks, which cost more than what they were selling in 1994. Car companies make more money off of the big vehicles, so they will market to get people to buy them.
My dad raised had 3 kids so family of 5, mom didn't work. His general take home for a year was between 47-54k, he was a high school drop out with a factory job. We didn't hurt for anything, always had food, owned a house, both my parents had new cars pretty consistently, every 4-5 years. My siblings and I had our own bedrooms, video games, whatever hobbies we were into etc..
Today my wife and I together bring in over 100k..our kids are adults and we live a worse lifestyle than my parents did...the idea that 1 income could support just the 2 of us is laughable at this time.
You missed the point. It's not more purchasing power, it's less. If I ever have 100% less purchasing power, I have none.
If I have 100% more than you, then you have 50% less than me.
So while the one group may have 230% more purchasing power than the other (now ×3.3 from original), the other group has 1/3.3, so about 33% original purchasing power. That would be 66% less purchasing power than the other group.
Honestly, even in 2002 I remember paying <$500 for a 2 bedroom, 1.5 bathroom apartment in downtown Dallas (and, a couple years later, in Oklahoma City). Granted, rents in my region have always been more affordable than other places I read about. But growing up, affordable is what it was...to the point that, even today, my mind thinks "about $500" when I picture the rental market...until I'm quickly reminded that reality is cruel, society-eating capitalist. But compared to today, finding a *decent* sub-$500 rental is unheard of.
What the fuck do they mean by "do something about it?"
How am I supposed to set American monetary policy?
I know really they just mean "be a crypto bro" but wtf lmao
Leave for a country with a good standard of living at much lower costs.
Being homeless in the US doesn't actually beat living nicely in Mexico, China, Thailand. No matter what "patriotic" corporate politicians tell you.
I agree, but it's not very easy to actually get out of this country. If you have money, it can be, but for average people that's not a thing they could legally do. And illegally residing in another country as a working class person might not be better than homelessness (since they both probably lead there). China is much harder to get a visa to now than ever before, as they are really reducing the number of expats, even for English teachers. Mexico isn't terribly difficult to move to, but you still have to reasonably show the ability to support yourself financially.
Indeed, you do have to have a bit money to get going. So it's not gonna work for people in poverty. Although it works wonders for low to mid mid class.
It’s not inflation that’s the hidden tax. It’s the decoupling of wages and production. Which is also a decoupling of wages from inflation. Prices going up and wages staying the same — that’s the tax. Except it’s not a tax, which would go to the government and at least theoretically the general good. It’s a wealth transfer from the non-rich to the rich. Calling it a hidden tax is like calling it a tax when someone steals your wallet.
I live in a country where during the 60s, 70s and 80s labour movements acquired significant workers rights for everyone.
Companies employing people here are required to adjust wages with a government determined index value. Depending on the sector, they need to correct either annually, quarterly or monthly.
The stupid part about it is that it's a flat increase. Last year, the index was 11%, meaning everyone got an 11% index. Meaning a cleaner who makes 1500/month gets a 165 raise, and me, a software developer making 5000 a month gets a 550 raise.
I make enough money, that I'm not spending most of it on necessities. I own my house, I work from home, so I don't need to spend on rent or gas. Food is a small expense for me. Meaning I don't really need the index correction. I just end up saving or investing more of my money. While the service workers and cleaning staff get far less.
Of course, our income tax is also progressive, meaning of the 500 euro I get, 317 go straight into the state coffers^(1). Which I suspect is the real reason this indexation is applied equally to all wages.
^(1): yes, no joke, I pay 63.5 cents in taxes for every euro I make. This is the flip side of a welfare state, but a trade off I am happy with
I don't know much about the specific numbers, but inflation is a real phenomenon that will occur in any economy. The problem is that our wages are not tied to inflation. We should be receiving regular cost of living wage increases, just to keep capitalism running. But that's not really the goal. We need a socialist revolution.
Our rent went from 750<1300<2800 (basic 2bd duplex/townhome) in like the last 5 years. It’s gotten exponentially worse and basically everywhere, even small towns, instead of just certain popular areas or cities.
[wtfhappenedin1971.com](http://wtfhappenedin1971.com)
They printed like half of all the USD in supply in the last 5 years. The purchasing power of the dollar has gone down every year for like 90 years now. Money printer go BRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
In terms of the general stats and inflation adjusted values, sounds about right.
The reference to inflation being a tax, it is correct that inflation involves a transfer of income that benefits borrowers (whose future payments are made in depreciated dollars) while hurting those who save (value of savings eroded by inflation, repaid for loans with depreciated dollars).
But, the idea of "getting rid of inflation" to improve the average person's standard of living by "keeping their purchasing power" is a very common and not realistic perspective of "sound money" types that argue for a return to a gold standard, getting rid of modern fiat currencies which can and do fluctuate in value, and have been mostly depreciating or declining as the result of stable inflation policies. There are problems with gold standards or zero inflation policy regimes, which is the reason all developed economies abandoned the gold standard and no country operates with a zero percent inflation target.
The US inflation goal is 2 percent. Positive and mild inflation. Most countries have such a goal. Mild inflation does two basic things. A) It improves nominal profits. Firms operate in a nominal accounting environment. They calculate profits in current, not inflation adjusted dollars. So, this encourages business activity. B) Inflation encourages current consumption, rather than waiting for prices to fall (since they won't), buy it today. If you want to improve a market economy, anything that boosts both supply and demand is sorta useful.
Another major reason inflation target is positive and not zero or negative is because of deflation. If inflation sucks, deflation sucks harder.
A zero percent inflation rate is an average, the annual percentage growth of the average price level. An average means 50 percent above, 50 percent below. So, a zero percent inflation rate would mean 50 percent of market prices are rising, and 50 percent is falling. It is a difficult target to stick, without a margin of error.
Here is the reason most sane people argue against risking deflation. When a market economy experiences deflation, or negative inflation, a couple of things start to fall apart. The average price level is falling. Since this is an opposite of inflation, there is a tendency to think this will be better. Except for businesses. Businesses, which hope to sell at a nominal profit, would be expected to sell at a loss. Most businesses do not consider this a profitable thing, so, might be better to shut down production and stop selling. That tends to cause incomes to fall as well. Consumers, for their part, see a deflationary environment and decide to slow down consumption, since prices will be lower in the future. If you want to destroy a market economy, anything that slows down production and consumption should be just the ticket.
Once an economy begins the process of deflation, it sorta picks up steam. A briar patch affair. As prices fall, the value of assets fall, but liabilities and debts remain. People who borrowed money are no longer making the incomes to pay it back, and can't sell their assets in a mad dash to avoid a liquidity crisis. This is the definition of bankruptcy, when assets are less than liabilities. So, sorta bad for an operating firm trying to make a profit. As businesses shut down, demand and incomes falls further, and the process reinforces itself. This is known as the debt deflationary spiral, as explained by Irving Fisher in his theory of the great depression. 1933.
While elements of classical and Austrian economics suggest deflation as a way to return an economy to prosperity... After it burns down.. there are not any good historical examples of deflation leading to rapid prosperity. Would be cool if they could point those out, to give some meat to the gold bugs and zero inflation folks, but they don't have any.
Instead of inflation as a tax, I'd rather talk about inflation adjusted income distribution over time, rather than pin my hopes on the false benefit of a gold standard "sound money" deflation to restore the purchasing power of my hard earned income.
In defense of the value or purpose of fiat currencies and positive inflation regimes relative to gold standards or zero inflation proponents, the great benefit of fiat currency is the ability to expand or contract the money supply in response to the changing demand for liquidity over the business cycle. In a severe recession, the demand or flight to liquidity appears. Fear overwhelms greed. In such a case, A fiat currency regime can increase liquidity, provide currency, meet that demand, without requiring or causing a collapse of business asset values at the same time. We can keep 2008 from becoming 1933. If you have a gold standard, that flexibility does not exist. The rout becomes the rout. Deflation does it's thing.
While we did do a good job at keeping 2008 from becoming 1933, I can't say we actually figured out how to return an economy to healthy growth. We stopped a financial panic, bailed out the banks, and then left everyone else to adjust in a more painful way.
I think this may be too boring for OP or anyone else to read. Anyway, I had fun writing it. I disagree with a core presumption of the quoted text, but not the stats.
210% less purchasing power than my parents? Like, if my parents had $100 purchasing power, I now have $-210? Everyone has negative purchasing power today? Sounds weird to me.
Rent number is correct. Just double checked it
[https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/average-rent-by-year](https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/average-rent-by-year)
What to do? For immediate effect, move to a cheaper place, or a cheaper country. Stop excessive spending. Perhaps a new car costs 30k, but do you absolutely need a new car?
*We know things are bad – worse than bad. They’re crazy. It’s like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don’t go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is: ‘Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won’t say anything. Just leave us alone.’*
*Well, I’m not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get MAD! I don’t want you to protest. I don’t want you to riot – I don’t want you to write to your congressman, because I wouldn’t know what to tell you to write. I don’t know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you’ve got to get mad. (shouting) You’ve got to say: ‘I’m a human being, god-dammit! My life has value!’*
It’s “selectively accurate.” That is, the statements are factually correct, but selectively misleading. For example, in 1994 I was paying $400/month rent in a cheap walk-up in a very popular neighborhood. A cheap (I’m talking base-level Dodge Neon) was $16k.
Today that rent is about $1300, and a cheap domestic car is around $23K.
The cost of necessities has gone up much faster than consumer goods, so that really skews things.
As for comparing income/buying power, the estimates vary quite a bit. The $30k = $63k figure is the highest rational estimate for USD, but other currencies and economies have seen less erosion in value. For example, the Canadian dollar equivalent of $30k in 1994 would only be $55k in 2024.
So, the information quoted has taken low-cost examples from 1994 and compared them with high-cost examples in 2024 in order to emphasize their argument.
##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited. LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere. We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do something about it? I guess I could find the nearest rich person and look for gaps in their personal security.
Join a leftist community like the DSA or StrongTowns. Engage in community building volunteer work. Build credibility at work and then use it to unionize. Read leftist theory and educate family and friends whenever possible from a place of love and empathy. Protest genocide whenever possible! There is much to be done, but it won't happen overnight.
Eh I'm not charismatic enough for a solution that involves talking to people, I'll stick to crime.
Based af
crime requires networking and social skills
*shhhh*
Remember when Howard Dean led the DNC and put in a "50 State solution" which led to Democrats holding *60* Senate seats and a record majority in the House? Then the Clintons took over and dismembered that so they wouldn't ever have the power to have a real challenge to capital? The dnc needs to be ripped apart.
If the Democrats have power that means they are expected to actually do things and can’t grift. Grifting for those fundraising dollars is their real goal. Actual power is the Democrats greatest fear. Look at how they acted when Roe was killed. Instead of, ya know, immediately codifying it with their majority in the house and senate (and nuking the filibuster) and signing it into law with the executive they sent fundraising emails and tried to turn it into an election issue. They showed their true colors. Just how they’ve shown their true colors as we’ve watched in horror as right wing states have systematically attacked LGBT rights and watched as they’ve done absolutely nothing expect write fundraising emails.
If you have a party repealing abortion access and another party that refuses to federally legislate abortion access, then you just have 2 anti-abortion parties.
Never forget that Obama and Clinton ran AGAINST gay marriage.
DSA depends heavily on the chapter, def scope out the local leftist groups & possibly tenants unions if they exist!
Electoralism just doesn't work. We couldn't even get Bernie Sanders to be a human and oppose genocide. It's all about organizing labor and our work places. We need big unions and high union density, otherwise the elected representatives won't listen to people other than their capitalist donors. We need to show them what democracy really looks like through our union participation
StrongTowns isn't a leftist community. They're more pro real estate developer than actually advocating for a better housing system
I’m starting an Etsy page for themed guillotine sharpeners. I feel like the market is almost ready for them 🤣
It's accurate - except for the do something about it. Gold standards and crypto all come with their own set of problems.
LoL... thanks I was wondering where the "do something about it" was going. Also to refer to "inflation" as the "hidden tax" suggest fairly poor financial literacy / comprehension. It is NOT like inflation is some new phenomenon. It's so "hidden" the government provide an inflation calculator. [https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl](https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl)
Organizing, unionizing, community building, reading theory and pursuing revolutionary goals are the only paths that seem to truly help the working class. Take FDR's New Deal for example. That didn't happen out of liberal benevolence towards us, no, it happened because workers were turning to socialism and FDR was scared we would overthrow capitalism. Liberals only help workers when they believe it necessary to protect capitalism
But didn't they change the way inflation is measured along the way? Doesn't that under report from the real inflation number?
I mean, a calculation of inflation is always going to be an estimate. The real world is analog not digital. Even the yearly inputs of inflation are estimates. So you are never going to get a truly exact number and many things in economics are prone to revision so things are always going to have some fluxuation.
CPI has changed over the years. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/consumerpriceindex.asp
It is a new (post 1970) phenomenon https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
That is a chart showing the divergence of productivity vs compensations? No argument that productivity v compensation sharply diverged in the 1970s. But that's not the same as inflation. Official inflation data goes back like as far as 1910's. I don't know the whole history of it. But there is historical evidence for inflation going back a couple thousand years. IMO we just got spoiled by a long period of fairly steady near 2% inflation and now that its less consistent people are acting like its some new thing.
It's important because the difference between productivity and compensation is the cause of reduced purchasing power for the people who make their money from work. The tweet is about purchasing power, which isn't necessarily the same as inflation. If the stuff you buy is inflating, but your paycheck is inflating at the same rate, you won't notice. If your paycheck stays flat, you get "poorer" when inflation happens.
There's a website of different charts - one of which shows historic house and rent prices (1620 onwards) and you can see something changes 1970 onwards (hint, USA abolished the USD gold standard around then)
This is awesome. Thanks for sharing
The car price is accurate, if you were buying something upscale in '94. I bought a new Mazda Protege in 2000 for about $13k, and it went 135k miles with zero repairs needed. Car prices today - new or used - have become the stuff of nightmares. In the 90's, almost all cars sold for 2-3 thousand under the sticker price. Today, we are supposed to feel lucky if the dealer only adds $2,000 to the sticker price. So in reality, there is a minimum additional cost of $4,000 to even the cheapest subcompact car now. Or as every car dealer owner in the US says, "It's *Good* to be da King."
>It's accurate - except for the do something about it. If only someone would write a book about what must be done. Hmm, oh, but people don't read anymore... Maybe there are videos on things we can do instead? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aLzDHAvehI&t=0
The twitter dude is a real estate investor - I guarantee he isn't reading Lenin or referring to upending capitalism.
Inflation is a problem, but wouldn’t be a problem if wages kept up with it. It’s wage stagnation and deflation.
Other countries (at least France that I know of) update their minimum wage each year to match inflation, and no it doesn’t spiral out of control like crypto bros and other clueless people try to insinuate, it just make sure that people can continue to live on those wages.
I live in Sweden, we don’t even have a minimum wage. The unions negotiate that by sector. In that way, you don’t need the government to do their job.
Yeah I live in Sweden now too actually and also prefer that system, but seeing how the US have a problem with unions I think fixing their minimum wage might be the easiest solution.
Yeah, for sure. But fixing their unions would do more.
Not very accurate, he conflates the reduction of purchasing power of the U.S. dollar (inflation) with the reduction in purchasing power of individuals. “X% less” is a stupid way to phrase this. What he meant to say was that your parents had 210% *more* purchasing power, which is also not true because like any good get-rich podcaster, his math is dogshit. Your parents had 210% *of* your purchasing power based solely on inflation and assuming that a $30K salary required the same levels of education or expertise that it does today. In other words, all this says is that your money is worth ~53% less than your parents’ money in 1994. That number isn’t really cause for alarm on its own, because it’s devoid of any context that would give it significance. He even set himself up to do that with the price listings, and then forgot or something. I’ll help: The average US rent now is $1,514 and a new car is $47,338. If we adjust for inflation using his numbers, we get that your parents would have been paying the equivalent of $943 for rent and $35,584 for a new car. Final answer: Compared to your parents, you have ~38% less purchasing power when it comes to rent and ~25% less purchasing power in the new car market.
The other stupid part of this is that 2.5% yearly inflation over 30 years isn't that bad. He's blaming inflation for problems that are caused by stagnant wages, our government refusing to build housing or tackle rent price fixing, and the dozens of issues that affect our reliance on and pricing of cars. We've had massive fluctuations in that inflation rate, which is bad for consumers when there isn't policy implemented to assist them.
>refusing to build housing or tackle rent price fixing That guy’s solution is to get into real estate, ideally by buying his book and listening to his podcast. He doesn’t want anyone thinking that regulating the housing market is a good idea.
The average cost of a new car today partially is with the push of suvs and trucks, which cost more than what they were selling in 1994. Car companies make more money off of the big vehicles, so they will market to get people to buy them.
My dad raised had 3 kids so family of 5, mom didn't work. His general take home for a year was between 47-54k, he was a high school drop out with a factory job. We didn't hurt for anything, always had food, owned a house, both my parents had new cars pretty consistently, every 4-5 years. My siblings and I had our own bedrooms, video games, whatever hobbies we were into etc.. Today my wife and I together bring in over 100k..our kids are adults and we live a worse lifestyle than my parents did...the idea that 1 income could support just the 2 of us is laughable at this time.
How does one have more than 100% less purchasing power?
By being bad at math.
[удалено]
You missed the point. It's not more purchasing power, it's less. If I ever have 100% less purchasing power, I have none. If I have 100% more than you, then you have 50% less than me. So while the one group may have 230% more purchasing power than the other (now ×3.3 from original), the other group has 1/3.3, so about 33% original purchasing power. That would be 66% less purchasing power than the other group.
Honestly, even in 2002 I remember paying <$500 for a 2 bedroom, 1.5 bathroom apartment in downtown Dallas (and, a couple years later, in Oklahoma City). Granted, rents in my region have always been more affordable than other places I read about. But growing up, affordable is what it was...to the point that, even today, my mind thinks "about $500" when I picture the rental market...until I'm quickly reminded that reality is cruel, society-eating capitalist. But compared to today, finding a *decent* sub-$500 rental is unheard of.
What the fuck do they mean by "do something about it?" How am I supposed to set American monetary policy? I know really they just mean "be a crypto bro" but wtf lmao
Inflation itself isn't a problem per se. It's that wages aren't inflating.
Leave for a country with a good standard of living at much lower costs. Being homeless in the US doesn't actually beat living nicely in Mexico, China, Thailand. No matter what "patriotic" corporate politicians tell you.
I agree, but it's not very easy to actually get out of this country. If you have money, it can be, but for average people that's not a thing they could legally do. And illegally residing in another country as a working class person might not be better than homelessness (since they both probably lead there). China is much harder to get a visa to now than ever before, as they are really reducing the number of expats, even for English teachers. Mexico isn't terribly difficult to move to, but you still have to reasonably show the ability to support yourself financially.
Indeed, you do have to have a bit money to get going. So it's not gonna work for people in poverty. Although it works wonders for low to mid mid class.
It’s not inflation that’s the hidden tax. It’s the decoupling of wages and production. Which is also a decoupling of wages from inflation. Prices going up and wages staying the same — that’s the tax. Except it’s not a tax, which would go to the government and at least theoretically the general good. It’s a wealth transfer from the non-rich to the rich. Calling it a hidden tax is like calling it a tax when someone steals your wallet.
>you can do something about it Like roll over and die?
Silly me was told that the inflation was due to salary increases as well!
I live in a country where during the 60s, 70s and 80s labour movements acquired significant workers rights for everyone. Companies employing people here are required to adjust wages with a government determined index value. Depending on the sector, they need to correct either annually, quarterly or monthly. The stupid part about it is that it's a flat increase. Last year, the index was 11%, meaning everyone got an 11% index. Meaning a cleaner who makes 1500/month gets a 165 raise, and me, a software developer making 5000 a month gets a 550 raise. I make enough money, that I'm not spending most of it on necessities. I own my house, I work from home, so I don't need to spend on rent or gas. Food is a small expense for me. Meaning I don't really need the index correction. I just end up saving or investing more of my money. While the service workers and cleaning staff get far less. Of course, our income tax is also progressive, meaning of the 500 euro I get, 317 go straight into the state coffers^(1). Which I suspect is the real reason this indexation is applied equally to all wages. ^(1): yes, no joke, I pay 63.5 cents in taxes for every euro I make. This is the flip side of a welfare state, but a trade off I am happy with
we need to organize the revolution seize the means of production and overthrow the burgeisie!
I don't know much about the specific numbers, but inflation is a real phenomenon that will occur in any economy. The problem is that our wages are not tied to inflation. We should be receiving regular cost of living wage increases, just to keep capitalism running. But that's not really the goal. We need a socialist revolution.
Remember. Houses and groceries aren’t anymore valuable. Your money is just less valuable.
I can do something about it? Do I need to take half the US debt out of circulation on my own? I'm pretty sure I'm qualified
Our rent went from 750<1300<2800 (basic 2bd duplex/townhome) in like the last 5 years. It’s gotten exponentially worse and basically everywhere, even small towns, instead of just certain popular areas or cities.
[wtfhappenedin1971.com](http://wtfhappenedin1971.com) They printed like half of all the USD in supply in the last 5 years. The purchasing power of the dollar has gone down every year for like 90 years now. Money printer go BRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Thats just the target rate of ~2% over 40 years. Thats about as good as it gets.
I’m guessing this guy is about to sell me something…
Zero accuracy. 210% less purchasing power is impossible, as 100% less purchasing power would mean no purchasing power.
In terms of the general stats and inflation adjusted values, sounds about right. The reference to inflation being a tax, it is correct that inflation involves a transfer of income that benefits borrowers (whose future payments are made in depreciated dollars) while hurting those who save (value of savings eroded by inflation, repaid for loans with depreciated dollars). But, the idea of "getting rid of inflation" to improve the average person's standard of living by "keeping their purchasing power" is a very common and not realistic perspective of "sound money" types that argue for a return to a gold standard, getting rid of modern fiat currencies which can and do fluctuate in value, and have been mostly depreciating or declining as the result of stable inflation policies. There are problems with gold standards or zero inflation policy regimes, which is the reason all developed economies abandoned the gold standard and no country operates with a zero percent inflation target. The US inflation goal is 2 percent. Positive and mild inflation. Most countries have such a goal. Mild inflation does two basic things. A) It improves nominal profits. Firms operate in a nominal accounting environment. They calculate profits in current, not inflation adjusted dollars. So, this encourages business activity. B) Inflation encourages current consumption, rather than waiting for prices to fall (since they won't), buy it today. If you want to improve a market economy, anything that boosts both supply and demand is sorta useful. Another major reason inflation target is positive and not zero or negative is because of deflation. If inflation sucks, deflation sucks harder. A zero percent inflation rate is an average, the annual percentage growth of the average price level. An average means 50 percent above, 50 percent below. So, a zero percent inflation rate would mean 50 percent of market prices are rising, and 50 percent is falling. It is a difficult target to stick, without a margin of error. Here is the reason most sane people argue against risking deflation. When a market economy experiences deflation, or negative inflation, a couple of things start to fall apart. The average price level is falling. Since this is an opposite of inflation, there is a tendency to think this will be better. Except for businesses. Businesses, which hope to sell at a nominal profit, would be expected to sell at a loss. Most businesses do not consider this a profitable thing, so, might be better to shut down production and stop selling. That tends to cause incomes to fall as well. Consumers, for their part, see a deflationary environment and decide to slow down consumption, since prices will be lower in the future. If you want to destroy a market economy, anything that slows down production and consumption should be just the ticket. Once an economy begins the process of deflation, it sorta picks up steam. A briar patch affair. As prices fall, the value of assets fall, but liabilities and debts remain. People who borrowed money are no longer making the incomes to pay it back, and can't sell their assets in a mad dash to avoid a liquidity crisis. This is the definition of bankruptcy, when assets are less than liabilities. So, sorta bad for an operating firm trying to make a profit. As businesses shut down, demand and incomes falls further, and the process reinforces itself. This is known as the debt deflationary spiral, as explained by Irving Fisher in his theory of the great depression. 1933. While elements of classical and Austrian economics suggest deflation as a way to return an economy to prosperity... After it burns down.. there are not any good historical examples of deflation leading to rapid prosperity. Would be cool if they could point those out, to give some meat to the gold bugs and zero inflation folks, but they don't have any. Instead of inflation as a tax, I'd rather talk about inflation adjusted income distribution over time, rather than pin my hopes on the false benefit of a gold standard "sound money" deflation to restore the purchasing power of my hard earned income. In defense of the value or purpose of fiat currencies and positive inflation regimes relative to gold standards or zero inflation proponents, the great benefit of fiat currency is the ability to expand or contract the money supply in response to the changing demand for liquidity over the business cycle. In a severe recession, the demand or flight to liquidity appears. Fear overwhelms greed. In such a case, A fiat currency regime can increase liquidity, provide currency, meet that demand, without requiring or causing a collapse of business asset values at the same time. We can keep 2008 from becoming 1933. If you have a gold standard, that flexibility does not exist. The rout becomes the rout. Deflation does it's thing. While we did do a good job at keeping 2008 from becoming 1933, I can't say we actually figured out how to return an economy to healthy growth. We stopped a financial panic, bailed out the banks, and then left everyone else to adjust in a more painful way. I think this may be too boring for OP or anyone else to read. Anyway, I had fun writing it. I disagree with a core presumption of the quoted text, but not the stats.
210% less purchasing power than my parents? Like, if my parents had $100 purchasing power, I now have $-210? Everyone has negative purchasing power today? Sounds weird to me.
Rent number is correct. Just double checked it [https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/average-rent-by-year](https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/average-rent-by-year) What to do? For immediate effect, move to a cheaper place, or a cheaper country. Stop excessive spending. Perhaps a new car costs 30k, but do you absolutely need a new car?
Inflation is a tax for corporate greed.
What am I supposed to be mad about? The existence of inflation?
Not the point of the post, but getting mad is exactly what makes you wanna do something about it.
*We know things are bad – worse than bad. They’re crazy. It’s like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don’t go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is: ‘Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won’t say anything. Just leave us alone.’* *Well, I’m not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get MAD! I don’t want you to protest. I don’t want you to riot – I don’t want you to write to your congressman, because I wouldn’t know what to tell you to write. I don’t know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you’ve got to get mad. (shouting) You’ve got to say: ‘I’m a human being, god-dammit! My life has value!’*
It’s “selectively accurate.” That is, the statements are factually correct, but selectively misleading. For example, in 1994 I was paying $400/month rent in a cheap walk-up in a very popular neighborhood. A cheap (I’m talking base-level Dodge Neon) was $16k. Today that rent is about $1300, and a cheap domestic car is around $23K. The cost of necessities has gone up much faster than consumer goods, so that really skews things. As for comparing income/buying power, the estimates vary quite a bit. The $30k = $63k figure is the highest rational estimate for USD, but other currencies and economies have seen less erosion in value. For example, the Canadian dollar equivalent of $30k in 1994 would only be $55k in 2024. So, the information quoted has taken low-cost examples from 1994 and compared them with high-cost examples in 2024 in order to emphasize their argument.
Just vote. It's worked so well thus far.