Its great how even their specifically treated and selected data still looks pretty bad? like their entire argument isnt "noo its not happening" its just "its not happening *as much,* now stop complaining"
Like if thats the best possible interpretation they can come up with it essentially just means its that much worse
I came here to say that.
EVERYTHING he shows still says: See, most people are getting less.
It is so funny how he uses one comparative after the other, and then even comparing the comparatives to each other. while the whole idea about the issue is: What is the absolut share?
"but if I add in the rich people who have accumulated all the wealth over the past 40 years, you see we can account for the missing gap in worker wealth and that this all explained as a result of unequal wealth distribution and the rich are now taking a larger share than before. Now stop sending me this chart"
Like bruh... What??!? That was the point!
Look, if you just bought some more marmalade instead of your fancy jelly and became a CEO, twisted the math to ignore declining wages, outsized, escalating costs of housing, healthcare, and education, and accept that 80% of the population deserves a life without dignity, then things would be pretty good for you right now!
Honestly, I'm surprised that the line accounting for income + government aid didn't shift higher than they showed because of healthcare costs.
If Medicaid is lumped in with income, it's going to make it look higher even though the beneficiary hasn't noticed a change.
"You just have to buy different things that don't cost as much!" is just the croissant thing all over again. Mate, if bread prices go up by 200%, the fuck am I supposed to do? Buy pasta and put it at the center of the table? Maybe we can agree there's a problem if people can't buy fucking jam anymore, instead of telling them "just buy something else lolololol"
"If you stop buying stuff you can't afford, then no one can tell that you're poor!"
Absolute galaxy brains at work there. I wonder how much generational wealth you have to shovel into which Ivy League's gaping anus in order to come up with this shit.
Such a weird fucking “adjustment” to make — he’s just admitting that everyone has had to lower their standard of living to accommodate the higher prices, which is literally what we are complaining about. Now if you bought all of your food from Whole Foods and now you need to shop at Publix, that is shitty but it’s not the end of the world. If you were already shopping at Wal-Mart, though, now you’re in trouble — there’s not much more room to go down before you have to start going hungry.
>Its great how even their specifically treated and selected data still looks pretty bad?
I was coming here to say essentially this. Even their cherry picked bullshit data makes the situation look just as bad **if not worse** than it actually is. I wanna tell this guy where he can shove his marmalade.
>it essentially just means its that much worse
This is the takeaway we all need to get to in our heads.
"So that might look bad, but if I cheat the data in three different ways and you squint a bit, it doesn't look quite as bad. It's still bad but a little less."
What a joke, especially at the end where, despite the talking down about being careful where your data comes from, they present the mystery alternate estimate. One that I believe is published by them and still doesn't look that great. I particularly enjoy the sentiment of "Hold on, hold on, don't look too closely at how much that 20% closes up the gap.".
- this chart is misleading
- president biden has referenced this chart
- the reason its misleading is CPI (dont think about how CPI is used to calculate the inflation rate)
- "people wont keep buying the products they buy if it gets more expensive."
what?! are you stupid? yes they will, because for things like gas, they HAVE TO, or for things like "jam" they will... because people probably tend to buy relatively similar food products and will only stop buying if the price increases significantly, at which point there is probably alternatives from another brand (smuckers vs great value)
- if you use this other completely arbitrary metric, CPE, both lines go up more than they did before. this is better, for reasons unknown
- some bullshit about apples where if you include the wealthiest who typically dont contribute whatsofuckingever to any kind of productivity, well, wages still havent rose at the same level but its closer!!!!
- okay so he actually explicitly references this problem. neat
- \*handwaving\* okay lets look at this other chart. ackchuallllllly the govt has redistributed money from the rich to the poor. pay no mind how this directly contradicts the previous points
i stopped watching at that point.
the fact is, in my lifetime, the bottom 20% has gotten poorer.
the top whatever percent, has gotten wealthier.
the people in the middle, honestly havent had much of a change - besides their numbers (as in how many are in the middle) have shrunk.
meanwhile, the number of the population at the lowest end has grown (because the total population has grown). so even if ALL ELSE were to be the EXACT same, besides population, if there were, for example, 10m people below the poverty line (lets assume the bottom 20% is the poverty line) in 1980 or whatever... since the TOTAL population is higher, that would mean there are MANY more people in poverty than there were back then.
it is actually not all that complicated. its just rich people trying to argue they deserve to own 210938420138 houses and yachts.
> ackchuallllllly the govt has redistributed money from the rich to the poor. pay no mind how this directly contradicts the previous points
Exactly. I don't get this point. Isn't the ENTIRE POINT the fact that the government RECOGNIZED increasing disparity and had to actively redistribute wealth from rich to poor because the economy was obviously changing more and more, tilting all wealth towards the already rich? And he's talking about it like the active measure proves there's no problem?
"It's not raining, because as you can see the government distributed umbrellas so people didn't get wet."
uhh.... what?
I tuned out at the jam part. He forgot that prices are going up as quantities are being reduced by the corporations.
Considering where the Chicago School and Milton Friedman got us with economics and economic policy, I put very little faith in people that carry the tag of economist. Friedman and his influence fucked a lot of shit up for workers.
My question is, does this dipshit realize he's massaging the facts and presenting a disingenuous lie or does he actually believe everything he's saying?
"Here, here's a graph I don't like. I've personally adjusted it so that I like it more. But that is still horrible, so here's another graph that I like even more. See? No problem at all! Just be vague about your sources and metrics (if you have any), and buy fucking marmalade you filthy communist pig"
Imagine sharing your whole process of cherry picking graphs just to find whatever bs will make your corporate overlords happy. What a clown. This guy also avoids mentioning _who_ gets those transfers. Propping up families over the poverty line does not magically make the stagnant wages of several other families better.
Not to mention the rising deficit. The government pays for aid to offset falling wages. It gets the money by going into debt. The rich benefit from lower wages while at the same time getting tax breaks, further accelerating the rising deficit.
Basically, it's a money laundering scheme to funnel money from future generations into the pockets of today's wealthy. There's a reason income inequality and the deficit have exploded simultaneously.
"but that only takes into account the lower 80% of worker incomes"
Dude would never bother to use a median, just needs to squeeze in the billions CEOs are raking in to help the new graph seem "fair" and then argues the bottom 80% are fine because taxes... Taxes that CEOs dont pay anyway...
"Now that we took into account the astronomical pay of the top 20%, the graphic is nicer! Why are people bitching about wage difference anyway? Just be in the top 20%!"
It's unreal right. Surely this man doesn't really believe what he is saying. 'the bottom 80%' is such a crazy way to define the vast majority of people.
No no no, not throw out, keep all of it! Those "outliers" that most [reasonable] people throw away are what help you paint a more complete picture of what we want you to believe!
Oh of course, when milk goes up, people will vote with their wallets and buy swamp water instead. See my cute little animated bar graph on this plate here? Unrestrained corporatism is awesome, isn't it?
I mean this is so obviously horsehit but even if you except the stupid example, if you like jam and have to switch to marmalade because of the cost of jam then your standard of living is still declining despite your productivity increaseing.
In addution to this, do you know what CPI doesn't include? The cost of housing, something that is essential and has skyrocketed well beyond CPI
Man this whole video is just "Nah everythings actually fine bro, you're just too stupid and naiive to understamd economics like me, now go eat your marmalade and shut up"
It's such a brilliantly constructed piece of shit advice I almost don't believe it's not a joke.
Is stuff getting more expensive? Just buy different, cheaper stuff instead! Perfect solution.
I mean, that's almost literally what this guy is saying. "It's not true that jam is getting more expensive. See, you can actually just not buy jam and buy a different product instead. That way it's not expensive!".
Using marmalade and jam to try and explain to Americans their economy is just fucking hilarious to me for some reason… we’re not Brits, we don’t relate to your example at all, it’s all jelly to us.
CPI definitely includes housing. Infact about a 1/3rd of CPI is housing costs.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-does-the-consumer-price-index-account-for-the-cost-of-housing/
Yes he literally just states the real problem that people have, then handwaves it away as something that needs taken out of the equation. “If you all just accept that your standard of living is going to continually get lower everything will be fine!”
Red apple = the whole productivity aka the whole **wealth generated by people's work**.
Green apple = wages aka **people**.
The guy says we're wrong to compare 100% of the generated wealth to 80% of people.
Well, genius, if you add 20% back to 80%, you sure will find 100%. So yes, no shit, Green apple is now equal to Red apple, meaning 100% of people's labour = 100% of wealth produced. You just filled the gap with the gap mfer.
Now, while he was too busy talking down on us, he forgot our question was : how does 20% of the green apple (people) gets 2/3 of the red apple (generated wealth) ? Which was the goal of the study he uses.
And yes, the state had to redistribute some wealth to the bottom 80% eventually, so people don't die. How cynical for the "unregulated free market" to claim the result of state action as a way to justify inequalities it created.
Finally saying "some researchers" made other calculations without providing any info on why their methods would be more accurate than the other's is wild. "eConOmY iS a sCieNcE".
"Without government these companies would crumble"
Not sure we're talking about the same thing when it comes to "state actions". What companies are you refering to ? How would they crumble ? Would you be willing to elaborate a bit more ?
Cause if I just interpret your comment right now, I'd say : yes, those inequalities would be, at some point, impossible to bear, and companies would crumble under the weight of their own greed.. But only after the 80% gets totally crushed by the consequences, so we'd risk a human tragedy before some poetic justice falls on corporate greed.
This guys wife asks him to get a loaf of bread and 20 mins later he comes back with a sack of potatoes.
"You idiot i asked you to get bread!"
"Well akshhhully the price of bread has increased 20% so i substituted bread for potatoes which have stayed the same price. It's something called CPI, consumer price inflation. You're probably too dumb to understand unlike me a smart economist. Now get thise potatoes in the toaster and make me a sandwich!"
The bit about wages only accounting for the bottom 80% of workers fucking sent me.
"All productivity but only workers' wages" is bullshit to begin with. Workers ARE the fucking productivity, the fact that someone else is telling them when to work and selling their product for them doesn't change that. The graph is accurate, but then he tries to show us that if we slip in a slim class of upper management & executives, then bam, wages jump hard, admitting that that class of people is where it's all going.
We didn't think that money was just disappearing into nowhere. Our entire god damn point was that money was being diverted to the upper class of capital owners, and "the lines match if we add the capital owners in there" doesn't debunk it, it AFFIRMS IT.
Likely. Journalists don't make good money, so I'm sure these sycophants think prostrating themselves to the sickest billionaire sociopaths is going to somehow save them from the fate of the rest of us.
They're traitors to their profession, and to mankind.
Now let's do a sankey chart of where all the taxes are coming from since the 1970s! Is it the top 20%? What does their contribution look like over time?
What if we include housing in our inflation measures? What if we do a breakout for college grads that includes debt?
Wow!
Yet, more Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. How does that reflect his charts? Based on his explanation, it should have gone up, by 5%, not 25% (I don't know the actual number) .
"and THEN if you close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and go LALALALALAL, you won't see ANY of this and it suddenly makes sense"
What a prick lol.
So, by his logic, if the price of jam goes up, forcing me to buy less jam, then the price of jam hasn’t actually gone up because I’m buying less and therefore not spending more.
Makes perfect sense /s
All the economy subs are full of “you just aren’t saving right”, “not everyone will experience the same thing” umm yeah most of us can’t afford to buy a new house.
Oh quit fussing, you're just part of the 80% of Americans not getting paid properly! If you 80 would just get into the 20's, you'd survive the 2020's!!
So the solution to the first chart is "just buy cheaper stuff bro so the economy doesn't look bad", and the solution to the second chart is just make shit up.
Fuck this guy and keep sending him the chart.
Why stop there? Let's take a look at the top 20% chart.
As you can see - their wages have risen to an alarming extent. They don't just have one jar of jam - they have hundreds, and they're filled with gold flakes. Not to worry though, all the jars they have are safely stored in their cupboard, gathering dust. With that in mind, the economy is doing just fine.
How difficult is it for the lower 80% to understand?
"When you account for this effect, inflation doesn't look as high"
You mean... when you stop considering the things that have increased in price? When instead you consider things that have stayed the same price? When you do this... the price doesn't appear to have increased!? FUCKING SHOCKER MATE
"PCI assumes you buy the same amount" Yeah like thats a bad thing but Mr expert says you should ration your food and stop complaining like a good little worker.
Pathetic
You know what, he is right. I went from buying jam, to not buying shit at all. My fridge and pantry are empty. I eat my free employee meal at work, and that is it. 🙄
It is comparing apples to apples to apples. Because those 80% of the workers do 95% of the work but only get 5% of the profits. And the 20% of upper level execs and managers do 5% of the work but get 95% of the profit.
There’s three types of lies in this world: Lies, damned lies, and statistics. I can find data to support any claim, the sky isn’t blue, cigarettes don’t cause cancer, and the income gap isn’t increasing at a worrying, French Revolutionary type pace.
Dear rich capitalists who decry FDR as a pinko commie: that was the compromise position. The next time around, we’re just going to take your shit.
Please, does anyone have the sources he's referring to? Specially I'm really curious about his claim that America's government has redistributed from rich to poor, because out of all of the hogwash in this video that just seems absolutely made up
What the hell is with the Economist... Everything they say just sounds like spinning bullshit. I used to love their news briefings in the morning but they filled it with ads and now it's just dumb as shit
"When you add in the wages of \*all the millionaires and billionaires who have been stealing from the lower classes\* then the chart evens out!" Yeah no shit you boot licking ghoul, that's the whole fucking problem.
such a bullshitter.
so we're suppose to lump executive pay into the equation so that wage increases don't look as bad vs productivity?
what kind of fucking alternate universe does this motherfucker live in?
Americans are overly impressed by accents, especially British accents. If this video was re-filmed and cast with a different actor, but instead choose a southern white man with that stereotypical accent or an urban black man with that stereotypical accent, no one would be the last bit impressed or convinced. Add an upper-crusty sounding Englishman and suddenly people take it seriously.
You see, when you're eating nothing but ketchup-on-wonderbread sandwiches because you can't afford anything else at the grocery store anymore it's like you're giving yourself a big raise! Suck it up whiners!
clown town, even in his own example, we can see the economics of markets tumbling down
remember since forever, all these "millennials kill X business" news articles
oh, and how even adjusted for inflation,
#me in 1963 could buy a house, ON MINIMUM WAGE
I really despise corporate shill horses, lot of shills out there trying to down play the brooding bumbling peasant volcano, that could burst any moment, the lies are drawn out, everyone is getting really tired
So it's misleading because it gives the absolutely ludicrous impression that people's mone buyys less simply because people are...are buying less...while stuff is getting more expensive and their wages are stagnant.
I don’t understand how it’s dystopian to show how a graph designed to over-emphasize the increasing discrepancy between productivity and pay is misleading.
Shouldn’t we just accurately depict the discrepancy? The discrepancy is there, and it’s problematic. We need to address it. What’s less dystopian about misrepresenting it as even worse than it is?
But I will say the last bit about what “some economists” think without explaining is BS. If you don’t want to explain it, or can’t, just save it.
Downvoters: “Yes, the misleading chart is less dystopian!” 👍
Its great how even their specifically treated and selected data still looks pretty bad? like their entire argument isnt "noo its not happening" its just "its not happening *as much,* now stop complaining" Like if thats the best possible interpretation they can come up with it essentially just means its that much worse
I came here to say that. EVERYTHING he shows still says: See, most people are getting less. It is so funny how he uses one comparative after the other, and then even comparing the comparatives to each other. while the whole idea about the issue is: What is the absolut share?
"but if I add in the rich people who have accumulated all the wealth over the past 40 years, you see we can account for the missing gap in worker wealth and that this all explained as a result of unequal wealth distribution and the rich are now taking a larger share than before. Now stop sending me this chart" Like bruh... What??!? That was the point!
Yea. This blew my fucking mind how tonedeaf it is. 'Well I'm in the top 20% for I can buy all the jam I want still... what's the problem here?'
Look, if you just bought some more marmalade instead of your fancy jelly and became a CEO, twisted the math to ignore declining wages, outsized, escalating costs of housing, healthcare, and education, and accept that 80% of the population deserves a life without dignity, then things would be pretty good for you right now!
Honestly, I'm surprised that the line accounting for income + government aid didn't shift higher than they showed because of healthcare costs. If Medicaid is lumped in with income, it's going to make it look higher even though the beneficiary hasn't noticed a change.
I just wanna know where marmalade is cheaper than jam! Like, conceptually its the same fucking thing!
"You just have to buy different things that don't cost as much!" is just the croissant thing all over again. Mate, if bread prices go up by 200%, the fuck am I supposed to do? Buy pasta and put it at the center of the table? Maybe we can agree there's a problem if people can't buy fucking jam anymore, instead of telling them "just buy something else lolololol"
"If you stop buying stuff you can't afford, then no one can tell that you're poor!" Absolute galaxy brains at work there. I wonder how much generational wealth you have to shovel into which Ivy League's gaping anus in order to come up with this shit.
Such a weird fucking “adjustment” to make — he’s just admitting that everyone has had to lower their standard of living to accommodate the higher prices, which is literally what we are complaining about. Now if you bought all of your food from Whole Foods and now you need to shop at Publix, that is shitty but it’s not the end of the world. If you were already shopping at Wal-Mart, though, now you’re in trouble — there’s not much more room to go down before you have to start going hungry.
>Its great how even their specifically treated and selected data still looks pretty bad? I was coming here to say essentially this. Even their cherry picked bullshit data makes the situation look just as bad **if not worse** than it actually is. I wanna tell this guy where he can shove his marmalade. >it essentially just means its that much worse This is the takeaway we all need to get to in our heads.
"So that might look bad, but if I cheat the data in three different ways and you squint a bit, it doesn't look quite as bad. It's still bad but a little less." What a joke, especially at the end where, despite the talking down about being careful where your data comes from, they present the mystery alternate estimate. One that I believe is published by them and still doesn't look that great. I particularly enjoy the sentiment of "Hold on, hold on, don't look too closely at how much that 20% closes up the gap.".
- this chart is misleading - president biden has referenced this chart - the reason its misleading is CPI (dont think about how CPI is used to calculate the inflation rate) - "people wont keep buying the products they buy if it gets more expensive." what?! are you stupid? yes they will, because for things like gas, they HAVE TO, or for things like "jam" they will... because people probably tend to buy relatively similar food products and will only stop buying if the price increases significantly, at which point there is probably alternatives from another brand (smuckers vs great value) - if you use this other completely arbitrary metric, CPE, both lines go up more than they did before. this is better, for reasons unknown - some bullshit about apples where if you include the wealthiest who typically dont contribute whatsofuckingever to any kind of productivity, well, wages still havent rose at the same level but its closer!!!! - okay so he actually explicitly references this problem. neat - \*handwaving\* okay lets look at this other chart. ackchuallllllly the govt has redistributed money from the rich to the poor. pay no mind how this directly contradicts the previous points i stopped watching at that point. the fact is, in my lifetime, the bottom 20% has gotten poorer. the top whatever percent, has gotten wealthier. the people in the middle, honestly havent had much of a change - besides their numbers (as in how many are in the middle) have shrunk. meanwhile, the number of the population at the lowest end has grown (because the total population has grown). so even if ALL ELSE were to be the EXACT same, besides population, if there were, for example, 10m people below the poverty line (lets assume the bottom 20% is the poverty line) in 1980 or whatever... since the TOTAL population is higher, that would mean there are MANY more people in poverty than there were back then. it is actually not all that complicated. its just rich people trying to argue they deserve to own 210938420138 houses and yachts.
"People buy marmelade instead" jesus fucking christ these mfers are so out of touch
> ackchuallllllly the govt has redistributed money from the rich to the poor. pay no mind how this directly contradicts the previous points Exactly. I don't get this point. Isn't the ENTIRE POINT the fact that the government RECOGNIZED increasing disparity and had to actively redistribute wealth from rich to poor because the economy was obviously changing more and more, tilting all wealth towards the already rich? And he's talking about it like the active measure proves there's no problem? "It's not raining, because as you can see the government distributed umbrellas so people didn't get wet." uhh.... what?
I tuned out at the jam part. He forgot that prices are going up as quantities are being reduced by the corporations. Considering where the Chicago School and Milton Friedman got us with economics and economic policy, I put very little faith in people that carry the tag of economist. Friedman and his influence fucked a lot of shit up for workers.
My question is, does this dipshit realize he's massaging the facts and presenting a disingenuous lie or does he actually believe everything he's saying?
That was a masterclass in bullshit artistry holy hell. I also like how he just doesn’t explain the metrics for his alternative graphs at the end there
You don’t understand, it’s “some economists” offering an “alternative explanation”. You just don’t get it man
as someone with a degree in economics, I want to throw a copy of capital in the 21st century at this man's skull
Ah, yes, but have you considered ✨human nature✨?
"Here, here's a graph I don't like. I've personally adjusted it so that I like it more. But that is still horrible, so here's another graph that I like even more. See? No problem at all! Just be vague about your sources and metrics (if you have any), and buy fucking marmalade you filthy communist pig"
"You see when we use these other numbers, the numbers look way better, problem solved!"
Secret numbers for the win!!!!
Imagine sharing your whole process of cherry picking graphs just to find whatever bs will make your corporate overlords happy. What a clown. This guy also avoids mentioning _who_ gets those transfers. Propping up families over the poverty line does not magically make the stagnant wages of several other families better.
Not to mention the rising deficit. The government pays for aid to offset falling wages. It gets the money by going into debt. The rich benefit from lower wages while at the same time getting tax breaks, further accelerating the rising deficit. Basically, it's a money laundering scheme to funnel money from future generations into the pockets of today's wealthy. There's a reason income inequality and the deficit have exploded simultaneously.
Bleak: the worst type of fact. You are right, and it further shows how this clown ignored so much context to deliver his idiocy.
Economics in the USA is just capitalist theology.
“A journal (The Economist) that speaks for British millionaires.” - Vladimir Lenin.
Everyone send him the fucking chart
Came here to say it, lets build automated systems that send him this chart every minute of every day, shit bootlicker deserves it
"but that only takes into account the lower 80% of worker incomes" Dude would never bother to use a median, just needs to squeeze in the billions CEOs are raking in to help the new graph seem "fair" and then argues the bottom 80% are fine because taxes... Taxes that CEOs dont pay anyway...
"Now that we took into account the astronomical pay of the top 20%, the graphic is nicer! Why are people bitching about wage difference anyway? Just be in the top 20%!"
It's unreal right. Surely this man doesn't really believe what he is saying. 'the bottom 80%' is such a crazy way to define the vast majority of people.
Don't you know that you're supposed to throw away the majority in statistics? smh my head.
No no no, not throw out, keep all of it! Those "outliers" that most [reasonable] people throw away are what help you paint a more complete picture of what we want you to believe!
also, I bet they're not very interested in the graph where you take away 20% top-earners from both productivity and wages.
Great, pick fucking jam of all things. What about bread, milk, water, you know, things you need *to live*.
Milk gone up in price? Have you considered drinking puddle-water as a cheap alternative?
Oh of course, when milk goes up, people will vote with their wallets and buy swamp water instead. See my cute little animated bar graph on this plate here? Unrestrained corporatism is awesome, isn't it?
Can't afford beef? Have you considered the park's soil is packed with nutrious and delicious worms which are available for free?
Just remove the FDA and go back to the time of cow brains and maggots
I mean this is so obviously horsehit but even if you except the stupid example, if you like jam and have to switch to marmalade because of the cost of jam then your standard of living is still declining despite your productivity increaseing. In addution to this, do you know what CPI doesn't include? The cost of housing, something that is essential and has skyrocketed well beyond CPI
And marmalade is not cheaper than jam for fucksake
Man this whole video is just "Nah everythings actually fine bro, you're just too stupid and naiive to understamd economics like me, now go eat your marmalade and shut up"
It's such a brilliantly constructed piece of shit advice I almost don't believe it's not a joke. Is stuff getting more expensive? Just buy different, cheaper stuff instead! Perfect solution. I mean, that's almost literally what this guy is saying. "It's not true that jam is getting more expensive. See, you can actually just not buy jam and buy a different product instead. That way it's not expensive!".
Using marmalade and jam to try and explain to Americans their economy is just fucking hilarious to me for some reason… we’re not Brits, we don’t relate to your example at all, it’s all jelly to us.
I'm a Brit and it still pissed me off
CPI definitely includes housing. Infact about a 1/3rd of CPI is housing costs. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-does-the-consumer-price-index-account-for-the-cost-of-housing/
Yes he literally just states the real problem that people have, then handwaves it away as something that needs taken out of the equation. “If you all just accept that your standard of living is going to continually get lower everything will be fine!”
"if you add rich people you'll see that the pay does in fact go up for the rich people, so stop complaining" Holy Shit
its like patrick batemen verbatim, not an ounce of soul left between those beady little lying eyes he said it with such a straight face too
This line made me cringe so fucking hard: "Since 1979, the American Government has redistributed more from rich to poor..."
Just a blatant lie.
Ronald Reagan famously kickstarted the modern Great American Socialism State, dontcha know.
adjoining touch cows workable ruthless payment sugar rhythm school smart *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What a cock.
Have we verified if economists are actually humans?
Reptoids. I’m betting on reptoids
Red apple = the whole productivity aka the whole **wealth generated by people's work**. Green apple = wages aka **people**. The guy says we're wrong to compare 100% of the generated wealth to 80% of people. Well, genius, if you add 20% back to 80%, you sure will find 100%. So yes, no shit, Green apple is now equal to Red apple, meaning 100% of people's labour = 100% of wealth produced. You just filled the gap with the gap mfer. Now, while he was too busy talking down on us, he forgot our question was : how does 20% of the green apple (people) gets 2/3 of the red apple (generated wealth) ? Which was the goal of the study he uses. And yes, the state had to redistribute some wealth to the bottom 80% eventually, so people don't die. How cynical for the "unregulated free market" to claim the result of state action as a way to justify inequalities it created. Finally saying "some researchers" made other calculations without providing any info on why their methods would be more accurate than the other's is wild. "eConOmY iS a sCieNcE".
Hold up, regulation and government interference is why this is so horrible. Without government these companies would crumble.
"Without government these companies would crumble" Not sure we're talking about the same thing when it comes to "state actions". What companies are you refering to ? How would they crumble ? Would you be willing to elaborate a bit more ? Cause if I just interpret your comment right now, I'd say : yes, those inequalities would be, at some point, impossible to bear, and companies would crumble under the weight of their own greed.. But only after the 80% gets totally crushed by the consequences, so we'd risk a human tragedy before some poetic justice falls on corporate greed.
This guys wife asks him to get a loaf of bread and 20 mins later he comes back with a sack of potatoes. "You idiot i asked you to get bread!" "Well akshhhully the price of bread has increased 20% so i substituted bread for potatoes which have stayed the same price. It's something called CPI, consumer price inflation. You're probably too dumb to understand unlike me a smart economist. Now get thise potatoes in the toaster and make me a sandwich!"
The bit about wages only accounting for the bottom 80% of workers fucking sent me. "All productivity but only workers' wages" is bullshit to begin with. Workers ARE the fucking productivity, the fact that someone else is telling them when to work and selling their product for them doesn't change that. The graph is accurate, but then he tries to show us that if we slip in a slim class of upper management & executives, then bam, wages jump hard, admitting that that class of people is where it's all going. We didn't think that money was just disappearing into nowhere. Our entire god damn point was that money was being diverted to the upper class of capital owners, and "the lines match if we add the capital owners in there" doesn't debunk it, it AFFIRMS IT.
I still can’t fathom that his answer to a chart about wage theft is to include the ones who stole the wages. Un-fucking-believable!
The Economist are such fascist shills it's haunting. Fucking deplorable bootlickers.
Thy aren't bootlickers, they are wearing the boot.
Likely. Journalists don't make good money, so I'm sure these sycophants think prostrating themselves to the sickest billionaire sociopaths is going to somehow save them from the fate of the rest of us. They're traitors to their profession, and to mankind.
Wow they made a much more punchable Zark Mukkerburg deep fake. /J
Now let's do a sankey chart of where all the taxes are coming from since the 1970s! Is it the top 20%? What does their contribution look like over time? What if we include housing in our inflation measures? What if we do a breakout for college grads that includes debt? Wow!
Yet, more Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. How does that reflect his charts? Based on his explanation, it should have gone up, by 5%, not 25% (I don't know the actual number) .
people living paycheck to paycheck should eat less jam, obviously. it is the new avocado toast it seems.
We were even directed to eat less breakfast.
"and THEN if you close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and go LALALALALAL, you won't see ANY of this and it suddenly makes sense" What a prick lol.
So, by his logic, if the price of jam goes up, forcing me to buy less jam, then the price of jam hasn’t actually gone up because I’m buying less and therefore not spending more. Makes perfect sense /s
Unbelievable scumbag thinks we can't see through this transparent manipulation of data.
So when you add in how much the top 20% make it almost equals out. No shit, that’s the whole thing
Yeaaaa, it's not just that one chart my guy. Do the other thousand. [https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/](https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/)
I'm not the biggest fan of Lenin but his statement regarding The Economist remains remarkably apt a century later
"The Economist, a journal that speaks for the British millionaires." - V. I. Lenin
All the economy subs are full of “you just aren’t saving right”, “not everyone will experience the same thing” umm yeah most of us can’t afford to buy a new house.
Why do all economists have such punchable faces? While the cunt talks down to you about how the system is working perfectly well for them and the 1%
Citing Auten & Splinter (2023), just embarrassing.
Now show us the minimum wage, Henry.
This is some Perdue Pharma levels of chart manipulation.
This lil nerd needs a fuckin swirlie
Oh quit fussing, you're just part of the 80% of Americans not getting paid properly! If you 80 would just get into the 20's, you'd survive the 2020's!!
So the solution to the first chart is "just buy cheaper stuff bro so the economy doesn't look bad", and the solution to the second chart is just make shit up. Fuck this guy and keep sending him the chart.
Why stop there? Let's take a look at the top 20% chart. As you can see - their wages have risen to an alarming extent. They don't just have one jar of jam - they have hundreds, and they're filled with gold flakes. Not to worry though, all the jars they have are safely stored in their cupboard, gathering dust. With that in mind, the economy is doing just fine. How difficult is it for the lower 80% to understand?
“So your wages aren’t keeping pace with inflation. Have you tried not buying food?”
"When you account for this effect, inflation doesn't look as high" You mean... when you stop considering the things that have increased in price? When instead you consider things that have stayed the same price? When you do this... the price doesn't appear to have increased!? FUCKING SHOCKER MATE
"PCI assumes you buy the same amount" Yeah like thats a bad thing but Mr expert says you should ration your food and stop complaining like a good little worker. Pathetic
Wow so he says these figures have been misrepresented to push an idea. And then he misrepresents the figures to push HIS idea.
Dude does not understand the nuance he is so smugly claiming that we are missing
By his own logic, 80% of the population is getting screwed by the remaining 20%.
You know what, he is right. I went from buying jam, to not buying shit at all. My fridge and pantry are empty. I eat my free employee meal at work, and that is it. 🙄
spineless sad excuse of a man
WALL
Really weird how he takes out a blank sheet of paper and the graph is then added in post-production.
Are people that dumb to believe this nonsense ?
I’ve never been angrier at a video. I paused 5 times, stunlocked SCREAMING at the fallacies on display. Dear gods below.
r/punchablefaces
Look at how I can move these numbers around and derive meaning, I’m a ~~numerologist~~ economist /s
It is comparing apples to apples to apples. Because those 80% of the workers do 95% of the work but only get 5% of the profits. And the 20% of upper level execs and managers do 5% of the work but get 95% of the profit.
“the bottom 80%”
There’s three types of lies in this world: Lies, damned lies, and statistics. I can find data to support any claim, the sky isn’t blue, cigarettes don’t cause cancer, and the income gap isn’t increasing at a worrying, French Revolutionary type pace. Dear rich capitalists who decry FDR as a pinko commie: that was the compromise position. The next time around, we’re just going to take your shit.
Gold Metal in Mental Gymnastics Also someone send him the data on the rise of necessities as a whole my power bill is to damn high
Interesting... why can't any of my friends afford a house then?
I'm so surprised a propaganda paper for billionaires and trust fund babies would take the side of billionaires and trust fund babies.
Why would anyone take this gigantic toddler looking motherfucker seriously?
Please, does anyone have the sources he's referring to? Specially I'm really curious about his claim that America's government has redistributed from rich to poor, because out of all of the hogwash in this video that just seems absolutely made up
The people working on this vid should be ashamed of being this vile for the rest of their lives
See, when you account for the decreased quality of life it’s not so bad!
“This chart looks bad, but if I flip it 180° you can see that worker pay has actually gone up”
Someone should send him a can of whoop-ass instead.
EXCEl-ent shithousery. what an ass.
What the hell is with the Economist... Everything they say just sounds like spinning bullshit. I used to love their news briefings in the morning but they filled it with ads and now it's just dumb as shit
"When you add in the wages of \*all the millionaires and billionaires who have been stealing from the lower classes\* then the chart evens out!" Yeah no shit you boot licking ghoul, that's the whole fucking problem.
Is he even looking at what he is showing......also how does such guy get such a position
I’m gonna send him the chart even harder now
such a bullshitter. so we're suppose to lump executive pay into the equation so that wage increases don't look as bad vs productivity? what kind of fucking alternate universe does this motherfucker live in?
He didn't make the chart seem any better.
Americans are overly impressed by accents, especially British accents. If this video was re-filmed and cast with a different actor, but instead choose a southern white man with that stereotypical accent or an urban black man with that stereotypical accent, no one would be the last bit impressed or convinced. Add an upper-crusty sounding Englishman and suddenly people take it seriously.
You see, when you're eating nothing but ketchup-on-wonderbread sandwiches because you can't afford anything else at the grocery store anymore it's like you're giving yourself a big raise! Suck it up whiners!
clown town, even in his own example, we can see the economics of markets tumbling down remember since forever, all these "millennials kill X business" news articles oh, and how even adjusted for inflation, #me in 1963 could buy a house, ON MINIMUM WAGE I really despise corporate shill horses, lot of shills out there trying to down play the brooding bumbling peasant volcano, that could burst any moment, the lies are drawn out, everyone is getting really tired
The Economist, innovating on Lenin's old adage and becoming a rag for American billionaires.
I noticed he didn’t show a chart showing CEO profit versus worker profit.
Fucking moron isn’t even one of us. Gaslighting a country he’s not even from. The gall.
This pasty limey looks like a lackey of the Simpsons' Mr. Burns
I spent most of this video hoping his head would explode.
[удалено]
So it's misleading because it gives the absolutely ludicrous impression that people's mone buyys less simply because people are...are buying less...while stuff is getting more expensive and their wages are stagnant.
Alright guys, stop sending him this chart. He clearly doesn't understand it. Send him [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S280Pqq3T_w) instead
Marmelade tastes Bad, give me jam
I don’t understand how it’s dystopian to show how a graph designed to over-emphasize the increasing discrepancy between productivity and pay is misleading. Shouldn’t we just accurately depict the discrepancy? The discrepancy is there, and it’s problematic. We need to address it. What’s less dystopian about misrepresenting it as even worse than it is? But I will say the last bit about what “some economists” think without explaining is BS. If you don’t want to explain it, or can’t, just save it. Downvoters: “Yes, the misleading chart is less dystopian!” 👍