this post was submitted on 01 May 2025
677 points (96.7% liked)

Today I Learned

21679 readers
1159 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I swear I had Econ in college, but I don't remember anyone saying this so succinctly. It's from a weird place too, but this quote hits home. It's like population decline, but for money.

It was a truly baffling thing for an American president to say. And University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers explained on MSNBC that things could get very bad as Trump’s scheme becomes reality. Wolfers ntoed that the idea of how much you can afford to buy with your income is called “real income.” And if real income falls, that’s called a recession. Wolfers went on to explain that if things decline as badly as Trump’s example, where someone who bought 30 dolls could only afford to buy two dolls, that’s called a depression.

Video from MSNBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAZxLm6M_V0

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yonaz@lemm.ee 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Found this one: https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

I think I have seen similar or parts of that type of data before, but not all of it in one place

[–] frezik@midwest.social 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

This is a good analysis, but it's slightly different from OP's statement.

Median real wages actually are up since 1979. It became something of a meme post-2008 to say that median wages have been flat since that time. That was true for a few years following the Great Recession, but they caught up and went quite a bit higher. It's possible the numbers will cycle around to that again, but it's not where we're at right now.

What the graphs in the article are arguing is that wages over that time are much lower than they should be given productivity increases.

Let's say you work for one hour making a widget, and you get $1 for that time. Your boss sells the widget for $5 and pockets the difference. Now there's an increase in productivity, and you can make two widgets in the same hour. You still get paid $1 for that hour, but your boss is selling those two widgets for $10 total now. You're not getting a raise just because of that productivity increase.

You might get a raise due to inflation. With 4% inflation, you get to make $1.04/hour, but your boss is now selling those widgets for $5.20 each. This is more or less the story since 1979.

That difference between productivity and real wages is what's charted out above. It tells you exactly who the real moochers are in society.

This all tracks very neatly with a decline in union membership.

[–] CainTheLongshot@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Does the median income track the boss's newly increased wages, then?

It's something I've been thinking about for awhile now. That labor wages are stagnating but because "management" level, and higher, salaries are increasing with productivity, these Median Real Wage statistics are skewed, showing the increase.

I would have no way of separating out labor wages from the management level wages though, was just curious how it's calculated.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 4 hours ago

It's all included, but median tends to be less susceptible to a few outliers skewing the numbers. That's why it's preferred over averages.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

That's great info, thanks. I'll pursue that angle next time.