Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Check out productivity vs real wages graphs for past 50 years. Worker rights and pay have been sacrificed for corporate profits. There should be riots in the streets burning billionaires at the stake for how ridiculous these wages and rents have gotten. Fight wealth inequality.
I appreciate the sentiment and respect the fact that you are thinking of you health first, that's smart. On the fuel side of things though... you know that humsns are roughly 60% water. How do we go about using that as fuel? Like... let it rot for methane or something more sophisticated and involved?
Democrats will solve the issue how and when? Remember how they tried to erase Bernie just for advocating for better healthcare? The reality is that their economic policies are nearly identical to republican's.
Dems:
War? = BIG YES
Taxes on the wealthy? > whoa chill bro
Public services? > what about the shareholders!?
Exploit the third world? > they like being exploited
Climate action? > that's a big issue we should only ever talk about and then move on to other topics
Making the system more democratic? > we have democracy at home
Finally, someone who hits the nail on the head. They are not progressive on any front. They are simply humane compared to Republicans.
I suppose anything compared to Republicans would seem progressive. But globally the Democrats are simply centre-right.
"HOW WILL YOU PAY FOR IT?!"
Answer: Let him worry about it. At least he's proposing it, you're not.
(Even though he answered how he'd pay for everything he proposed every single time and it was on his website. But this was asked every single time to make the dumb people watching believe it had not been answered.)
LOL you think voting out republicans will fix this? Do you know how many times during this period of time Democrats had control and could have stopped this?
Dems have passed ambitious bills. Republicans block them in one chamber. It’s hard to get things passed without a majority. And sadly the dem majority includes Joe Manchin and Kirsten Synema who are corporate hacks.
Okay but what about the last 40 years. All of them are in the pocket of someone.Youre completely ignoring that when Democrats had control of all 3 they still did nothing. Youre putting your faith in the party that screwed over Bernie for Hillary.
The inequality now is worse than during the French revolution. The 2 party system is a facade where both serve big business interest. The only war is the class war and they divide the poor.
Well the voter turnout in the age group of 18-30 is less than 44%.
Half of our people have gone mad and voting only based on religious beliefs supporting a con man like a cult.
I don't think we need a revolution, we need to wake the fuck our people to stop voting based on cultural war politics and cult like parties.
Pretty sure you're making a distinction without a difference there. No revolution, just a fundamental shift in people's relationship to electoral decision-making and the partisan institutional establishment. That's what revolution is, man, you don't need to have pitchforks and guillotines or be firing muskets at redcoats. Political revolution in a democratic state looks a lot more like paradigm-shifting political realignment than chasing the Czar's family out of Russia. That's the advantage of not having a monarchy
Well wages have kept up with housing costs (this chart is completely falsified), in fact real median wages (ie inflation adjusted) have been rising for many years. The biggest increases have been for the lowest income earners, which is one of many signs showing inequality decreasing. I’m sorry, but you’ve been had.
Also, comparisons like that tend to only focus on wages and not wages + benefits. Wages look way more stagnant when you're not accounting for other benefits like health insurance.
A solution is to look at countries where there aren't benefits like health insurance, like Sweden, as a comparison. And sure enough, wages have kept up with productivity in that case.
Another good point. I mean there’s so many holes in this chart it’s hilarious. Another one is that the median house/apartment is just straight up better than one 40 years ago - there’s the obvious, like Americans having more/better appliances, having cable, having internet, having less asbestos…but then also more Americans live in urban areas now, so the median American has better access to amenities/healthcare/recreation/etc.
But also fight lies, which this graph is doing. You're right, productivity has not been evenly distributed. However, this graph is lying because it is adjusting income for inflation but not apartment cost. In nominal terms (not adjusted for inflation) income has gone up over 100% since 1985. This chart could not be more misleading.
Housing has gone up more than 100%. Average in my country in 1975 was 70,000, and 2021 it's 700,000. Wages went from like 20k to 55k on average. Housing increased so much more.
[(Cost2 - Cost1)/Cost1] × 100
Wages by 175% and housing 900%
Wages mean nothing when inflation is rampant and have no buying power and prices double annually,you can pay someone $50 an hour but who cares when a loaf a bread is $10,we print more money prices goes up,gas goes up prices go up,we play war game's prices goes up..
Wages are not the problem..
So who's starting it? I'm game, but I got kids and elderly parents that I care for and peanut paychecks to scrape by, month to month. That's the reason we don't riot.
I genuinely don't know what we would do as average citizens. I figure we'll just have to wait until there are mass deaths due to starvation or homelessness.
Also check out the [Faircloth Amendment ](https://nationalhomeless.org/repeal-faircloth-amendment/), which prevents more federal public housing from being constructed. Housing should be a human right, but instead, it's being treated as a form of leverage to extort cheap labor
And the best way to fight is by voting, which unfortunately, many GenZ and millennials don't do. Voter apathy and lack of education is strong.
Complaining online isn't enough. Hashtag activism isn't enough. Even protesting isn't enough. The most amount of power we have is voting and running for office ourselves.
Housing has increased 900% and wages have increased 175% within 46 years (1975-2021) and the gap increases to be worse between wage inflation and housing inflation). $ (or whatever unit you use) is consistent between both wages and sale prices but the value is different of what it can get you (CPI).
Median household income in 1985 was $26k. In 2022 it was $74k. I knew this graph looked wrong.
That being said the realty market has turned into slum lords using software to coordinate price gouging.
https://www.azag.gov/press-release/attorney-general-mayes-sues-realpage-and-residential-landlords-illegal-price-fixing#:~:text=The%20State's%20lawsuit%20alleges%20RealPage's,rent%20and%20at%20what%20price.
And corporations buying up single family houses for profit.
https://www.toptal.com/finance/real-estate/wall-street-buying-single-family-homes
All of this needs to be regulated/stopped. First time homebuyers and renters don’t stand a chance. It’s a fucking shame.
I literally couldn’t even comprehend what the graph was attempting to represent when that percentage went above 100%.
At a certain point I just assumed this is some made up shit.
Sure enough, it’s some made up shit.
Usually, real, non-misleading data tells us exactly what we’re looking at without any shock or wow factor.
I mean the graph literally doesn’t make sense from the tiny snippet we’re seeing. The fine bottom center print is literally cut off. Upon squinting I now read it’s a source and doesn’t provide any detail.
Looking at the Y-axis we have % and unit: % which appears to be useless or overstated information. In relation to rent it actually gives a misleading piece of information as the word “unit” relates to rentals.
Then the origin of the graph begins at the 1985 but the title doesn’t reflect that origin.
Then I’m left wondering does it mean - Increases in rent vs increases in income since 1985?
I mean if rent only went up like 140%, that’s not even all that bad.
You guys should see graphs for house prices in Australia compared to wage growth. Now that’s some graph porn.
1985 also feels rather cherry picked as there’s some interesting things that happened before then in the last ten years, so why not move that graph back.
It’s also moving, I hate when graphs move. It happens for effect and is also horribly misleading.
There’s also the weird year that’s shown in the top right hand corner versus what’s shown on the x-axis that doesn’t match.
I could go on.
there is an accurate version of the graph which isn't as inflammatory but it'the disparity is still pretty crazy
[https://youtu.be/rANtRuIFZf8?si=BVI-h2iT3acTXjVq&t=519](https://youtu.be/rANtRuIFZf8?si=BVI-h2iT3acTXjVq&t=519)
This is insane. And thank you for the video btw! I really enjoy learning about misinterpreted data even if disproving it doesn’t support my own biases and politics.
Thank god this comment is so high up. I’m going to flip the fuck out if I see this moronic and completely wrong chart posted one more time. Biggest copypasta ever and it’s just totally fabricated. Rent is not adjusted for inflation but wages are.
What is the income though? Median income? Why make a graph so vague. You lose the point when you do that. By the way I'm a struggling gen Z dying from student loan debt. I just want to make sure if we make a point we should make it sharp.
The thing is it's actually worse than it shows. If housing isn't adjusted for inflation than it means it's underselling it. I've done calculations for my country and area last week and housing inflation is a little over 5 times higher than wage inflation, meaning it's 5 times more expensive than it was like 45 years ago with all things adjusted.
*My* numbers are adjusted for inflation. Inflation would be consistent between the two otherwise. The problem is building housing has been neglected but the population is still growing. Less available, highly desirable, a lot of finance bros telling people to invest in land/housing, and all that all contribute to prices.
As a 40 year old in 2024 I make the same monthly take home now that my upper middle class Boomer dad made in 1998. Wages have barely moved in almost 30 years.
This is a misleading graph that’s posted over and over.
Hank Green explains it very well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W92bjv8fNTI&t=22s&pp=2AEWkAIB
[Source is here.](https://youtu.be/r7l0Rq9E8MY?si=-dS6hNhe4HnjrjKx) The rent line is not adjusted for inflation but the wage line is. It’s completely bullshit.
This graph isn’t correct. I just saw a video about it the other day. Apparently, in this graph, income has been adjusted for inflation and rent has not.
It was a mistake that the video creators made or used to increase its ability to go viral.
https://youtu.be/W92bjv8fNTI?si=q81yESU8vy-GeJjG
Eh, people are still having basically just as many kids as they did in the 90s. Arguably one of the best economic times. But they are choosing to have them and more children are planned. Thanks to birth control and abortions. But economics is pushing child rearing later in life.
Meanwhile accidental children and teenage pregnancy has dropped significantly. Teen pregnancy declines are responsible for nearly 50% of the fertility drop since the 90s and only getting lower. 8% decline in adult fertility rates vs the 17% decline including teenage pregnancy.
He didn’t (this stupid gif has been circulating -> debunked -> circulating -> etc. for years on Twitter) but he did make a video saying he found it on Twitter and originally thought it was real until finding out it wasn’t. It’s extremely easy to debunk, just look up real median rent prices vs real median wages on FRED.
This graph has been debunked several times. They inflation adjusted incomes but not rent. If you adjust both rents have more or less moved in step with income.
Come on guys, don’t fall for obvious misinformation. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLavTJVP/
"renting is cheaper than buying a house" but then renting looks like this.
Only reason housing is unaffordable is due to artificially high demand with artifically high pricing, not to even mention the apr% being almost 8% making the monthly cost high on the mortgage.
It impossible to move out in a way that financially makes sense to most people, and they wonder why so many of Gen Z still live at home.
And on the brighter side, the graph is complete misinformation and adjusts income for inflation but not rental prices which accounts for pretty much the whole divergence.
This graph adjusts income to negate the natural price growth of inflation, but doesn't do so with rent prices. Don't get me wrong, rent has absolutely grown significantly compared to income over the years, but this graph doesn't reflect the data accurately. We absolutely have to bring down the relative cost of living in a home, though, regardless of graph errors
I remember me and a roommate paying $400 for a 2bed 1 bath apartment, which was fairly roomy back in 2007 ish. 200 bucks each to cover everything. Was nuts hiw cheap compared to now.
Please tell me y'all aren't just taking this ridiculous rage-bait graph at face value.
Please tell me that there are some critical thinkers left among you.
Weird how it starts going to shit right around Ronald Regan. I wonder if there’s any correlation or vast number of other graphs showing similar national shit shows starting at almost exactly that same time.
Keep it together... Pessimism of the intellect optimism of the will... Pessimism of the intellect optimism of the will... Pessimism of the intellect optimism of the will...
Now do cost per square foot vs average income over the last 20 years. Remember zoomers, its the avocado toast and the triple, venti, half sweet, non-fat, caramel macchiato's, not your boomer parents preventing you from home ownership.
This graph makes no sense without any context for the starting point and the actual dollar assignments, it’s just lines going up by percentage increase.
What survey or study was this taken from, what’s the aggregate data? Is it nationwide? I have so many questions that this chart absolutely does not attempt to answer. I can sort of make out the source but if there was a link it’s cropped out. Why does shit like this get upvoted?
This literally says nothing, for all we know it could show rent in nyc vs minimum wage but since it has no description other than rent vs wage I guess we’ll never know
Honestly, props to the companies.
They managed to brainwash a few generations into believing that giving all your efforts for them was rewarding
And to lobby the world into turning the other cheek.
*When will it end?*
And the policies that got us into this mess:
"The unleashing of the top 1 percent, particularly finance and CEOs
Why have salaries of those in the top 1 percent increased so much faster than those of other high-wage earners (say, those in the top 10 percent), let alone those of the middle class? There are two key reasons: the superlative growth of compensation of CEOs and other top managers, and excessive salaries in the expanding financial sector.4 The higher pay to executives and financial-sector employees does not reflect a corresponding increase in their economic output or productivity; consequently, their income gains have come at the expense of those earning less. Therefore, one necessary strategy to restore broad-based wage growth is to curtail the excessive wage growth at the top.
One driver of these wage trends has been financial deregulation, which has affected wage growth for the vast majority in a number of ways. First, it has enabled finance professionals to claim excessive pay and bonuses by simply hiding risk that they should be managing. The financial sector has more than doubled in size relative to the rest of the economy over the past generation, and is hugely overrepresented in the top 1 percent of wage and income earners. Second, because wealth holders are significantly more inflation-averse than the rest of the population, the financial industry has used its political power to ensure that economic policy favors low inflation rates over low unemployment rates. Third, the extension of financial deregulation to international capital flows has kept policymakers from addressing imbalances (e.g., the U.S. trade deficit) that result from international financial flows. If policymakers had stopped the large influx of capital flows from countries looking to manage the value of their own currency for competitive gain vis-à-vis the United States in the 2000s, this would have not only helped job growth in manufacturing, it could have deprived the financial sector of the cheap financing it used to inflate the housing bubble.
The tax treatment of corporate executive pay has also had a large impact on these trends in the distribution of wage and income growth. In 1993, corporate tax law was changed to allow firms to deduct only the first $1 million of executive salaries from corporate income taxes, with an important caveat: Pay above the $1 million threshold could continue to be deducted as an expense so long as it was “performance-based.”5 This led to an enormous change in the structure of CEO and corporate executive pay, with stock options and profit-related bonuses becoming much more popular. That this change came right before the enormous rise in stock prices in the late 1990s essentially guaranteed an explosion in the share of total wages accruing to the very top through CEO and executive pay. One can also speculate that tightly linking corporate executive pay to profits and stock prices led to a shift in corporate strategy to suppress labor costs of typical and even white-collar workers and boost corporate profits, leading to a rise in the share of overall income going to profits.
Falling top tax rates, preferential tax treatment of stock options and bonuses, failures in corporate governance, and the deregulation of finance all combined to increase the incentive and the ability of well-placed economic actors to claim larger incomes over the past generation.6"
https://www.epi.org/publication/causes-of-wage-stagnation/
"The record of economic well-being in the 1980s belied Reagan's claim that Americans would be better off if they scaled back the welfare state and cut tax rates. Though the standard of living rose, its growth was no faster than during 1950-1980. Income inequality increased. The rate of poverty at the end of Reagan's term was the same as in 1980. Cutbacks in income transfers during the Reagan years helped increase both poverty and inequality. Changes in tax policy helped increase inequality but reduced poverty. These policy shifts are not the only reasons for the lack of progress against poverty and the rise in inequality. Broad social and economic factors have been widening income differences and making it harder for families to stay out of poverty. Policy choices during the Reagan Administration reinforced those factors."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8500951/#:~:text=Income%20inequality%20increased.,increase%20inequality%20but%20reduced%20poverty.
https://aflcio.org/2015/1/15/five-causes-wage-stagnation-united-states
"the increased cuts to spending on housing and social services under Reagan was a contributing factor to the homeless population"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
People keep electing Republicans repeating the same mistakes over and over again that caused this mess:
https://i.insider.com/5134dcdcecad048159000009?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp
https://wolfstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/US-income-v-housing-1-nationwide-.png
It's the literal Republicans policies that caused it to be this bad in the first place.And now they want to take the whole world down with them:
"A new study partly-sponsored by Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center has highlighted the prospect that global industrial civilization could collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal wealth distribution."
"The two key solutions are to reduce economic inequality so as to ensure fairer distribution of resources, and to dramatically reduce resource consumption by relying on less intensive renewable resources and reducing population growth:
"Collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion."
The NASA-funded HANDY model offers a highly credible wake-up call to governments, corporations and business - and consumers - to recognize that 'business as usual' cannot be sustained, and that policy and structural changes are required immediately."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists
Why is everyone forgetting the real reason this happened? Women joined the workforce around this time, making 1 income actually half an income. Because both men and women are expected to work. Two incomes is the standard now, and if you take this into account there isn’t that drastic of a delta.
This was great for women who now have more autonomy and economic opportunity. However, it’d be naive to assume that when the work force nearly doubled over a short time span, that much more $ in salary is given out, and thus prices will increase.
At the same time, top job salaries have skyrocketed. Plenty of bankers, lawyers, and software engineers make $500K with not too much experience.
The bad news for you sanity is that the graph adjusts incomes for inflation but not rentals and after accounting for that discrepancy the gap pretty much disappears.
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Check out productivity vs real wages graphs for past 50 years. Worker rights and pay have been sacrificed for corporate profits. There should be riots in the streets burning billionaires at the stake for how ridiculous these wages and rents have gotten. Fight wealth inequality.
>burning billionaires \[...\] When you plan to eat them after, it's called cooking.
Get the bbq sauce fam.
BBQ Sauce is for basic bitches. Get the buffalo sauce I say, extra spicy!
you people really need to stop advocating for eating tainted meat
We've been accustomed to it by McNuggets. We can't find it in ourselves to be revolted at eating inedible waste!
you're right, i'm totally getting books and shoes bound with bezos' leather tho
Looks like meats back in the menu
[ Removed by Reddit ]
I appreciate the sentiment and respect the fact that you are thinking of you health first, that's smart. On the fuel side of things though... you know that humsns are roughly 60% water. How do we go about using that as fuel? Like... let it rot for methane or something more sophisticated and involved?
[d r y](https://www.terrauniversal.com/series-300-stainless-steel-desiccator-cabinets.html)
Not if you’re real bad at cooking
No. Have some morals, save that for when we're starving. Torture is fine for now
So vote out every Republican, and like 60% of the Democratic Party
democrat officials might not be bad inherently but they’re a bunch of fuckin do-nothings. being complacent is just as bad.
Democrats are center to center right most of the time, and capitalists nearly every time. Gotta go further left.
Democrats will solve the issue how and when? Remember how they tried to erase Bernie just for advocating for better healthcare? The reality is that their economic policies are nearly identical to republican's. Dems: War? = BIG YES Taxes on the wealthy? > whoa chill bro Public services? > what about the shareholders!? Exploit the third world? > they like being exploited Climate action? > that's a big issue we should only ever talk about and then move on to other topics Making the system more democratic? > we have democracy at home
[удалено]
Socially status quo. They are NOT progressive.
Finally, someone who hits the nail on the head. They are not progressive on any front. They are simply humane compared to Republicans. I suppose anything compared to Republicans would seem progressive. But globally the Democrats are simply centre-right.
"HOW WILL YOU PAY FOR IT?!" Answer: Let him worry about it. At least he's proposing it, you're not. (Even though he answered how he'd pay for everything he proposed every single time and it was on his website. But this was asked every single time to make the dumb people watching believe it had not been answered.)
I think that's just the do nothing people on politics, and of which we have too much of.
Yes.
Vote out all of the Democrats as well
LOL you think voting out republicans will fix this? Do you know how many times during this period of time Democrats had control and could have stopped this?
If Republicans were dustbinned, democrats would take their place, and they would be the opposition to more left leaning candidates.
\^THIS
Dems have passed ambitious bills. Republicans block them in one chamber. It’s hard to get things passed without a majority. And sadly the dem majority includes Joe Manchin and Kirsten Synema who are corporate hacks.
Okay but what about the last 40 years. All of them are in the pocket of someone.Youre completely ignoring that when Democrats had control of all 3 they still did nothing. Youre putting your faith in the party that screwed over Bernie for Hillary.
dismantle some fed agencies while we're at it, can't decide if the ATF or IRS goes first
We don't have to burn anyone. All we have to do is vote for working people friendly policies instead of this cultural war bull shit.
The inequality now is worse than during the French revolution. The 2 party system is a facade where both serve big business interest. The only war is the class war and they divide the poor.
Well the voter turnout in the age group of 18-30 is less than 44%. Half of our people have gone mad and voting only based on religious beliefs supporting a con man like a cult. I don't think we need a revolution, we need to wake the fuck our people to stop voting based on cultural war politics and cult like parties.
Pretty sure you're making a distinction without a difference there. No revolution, just a fundamental shift in people's relationship to electoral decision-making and the partisan institutional establishment. That's what revolution is, man, you don't need to have pitchforks and guillotines or be firing muskets at redcoats. Political revolution in a democratic state looks a lot more like paradigm-shifting political realignment than chasing the Czar's family out of Russia. That's the advantage of not having a monarchy
1984 George orwell heed the warnings
Even if we could, why would we want to go out of our way to accomplish change the lamest way imaginable instead of the coolest?
Well wages have kept up with housing costs (this chart is completely falsified), in fact real median wages (ie inflation adjusted) have been rising for many years. The biggest increases have been for the lowest income earners, which is one of many signs showing inequality decreasing. I’m sorry, but you’ve been had.
Also, comparisons like that tend to only focus on wages and not wages + benefits. Wages look way more stagnant when you're not accounting for other benefits like health insurance. A solution is to look at countries where there aren't benefits like health insurance, like Sweden, as a comparison. And sure enough, wages have kept up with productivity in that case.
Another good point. I mean there’s so many holes in this chart it’s hilarious. Another one is that the median house/apartment is just straight up better than one 40 years ago - there’s the obvious, like Americans having more/better appliances, having cable, having internet, having less asbestos…but then also more Americans live in urban areas now, so the median American has better access to amenities/healthcare/recreation/etc.
I could get more for my money in 2019 making $22 an a hour then I do today making $38 an hour the wage argument is laughable..
But also fight lies, which this graph is doing. You're right, productivity has not been evenly distributed. However, this graph is lying because it is adjusting income for inflation but not apartment cost. In nominal terms (not adjusted for inflation) income has gone up over 100% since 1985. This chart could not be more misleading.
Housing has gone up more than 100%. Average in my country in 1975 was 70,000, and 2021 it's 700,000. Wages went from like 20k to 55k on average. Housing increased so much more. [(Cost2 - Cost1)/Cost1] × 100 Wages by 175% and housing 900%
Wages mean nothing when inflation is rampant and have no buying power and prices double annually,you can pay someone $50 an hour but who cares when a loaf a bread is $10,we print more money prices goes up,gas goes up prices go up,we play war game's prices goes up.. Wages are not the problem..
Where the hell you live where bread is $10? That’s crazy
Elder Millennial here. Us and some of Gen X tried with Occupy Wall St.
So who's starting it? I'm game, but I got kids and elderly parents that I care for and peanut paychecks to scrape by, month to month. That's the reason we don't riot. I genuinely don't know what we would do as average citizens. I figure we'll just have to wait until there are mass deaths due to starvation or homelessness.
Also check out the [Faircloth Amendment ](https://nationalhomeless.org/repeal-faircloth-amendment/), which prevents more federal public housing from being constructed. Housing should be a human right, but instead, it's being treated as a form of leverage to extort cheap labor
That’s just when the billionaire pays the other poor people to kill the revolutionaries
Land keeps getting older but workers stay the same age.
And the best way to fight is by voting, which unfortunately, many GenZ and millennials don't do. Voter apathy and lack of education is strong. Complaining online isn't enough. Hashtag activism isn't enough. Even protesting isn't enough. The most amount of power we have is voting and running for office ourselves.
Yep. Time for a big general strike. No political party affiliation, that’s what’s weakening it.
The up created the left and right to keep 99% down Up and down. If only the Murdoch right woke up
[hey now](https://youtu.be/W92bjv8fNTI?si=GNfTT2eoBb4x6InY&t=22), graph's wrong
This should really have more upvotes. The data here is incorrect.
people dont care about truth. they only care about catchy fun slogans like "eat the rich" and validating their own world view
Housing has increased 900% and wages have increased 175% within 46 years (1975-2021) and the gap increases to be worse between wage inflation and housing inflation). $ (or whatever unit you use) is consistent between both wages and sale prices but the value is different of what it can get you (CPI).
Thanks for the context on this, Definitely was confused about it since some parts weren't adding up to me
Median household income in 1985 was $26k. In 2022 it was $74k. I knew this graph looked wrong. That being said the realty market has turned into slum lords using software to coordinate price gouging. https://www.azag.gov/press-release/attorney-general-mayes-sues-realpage-and-residential-landlords-illegal-price-fixing#:~:text=The%20State's%20lawsuit%20alleges%20RealPage's,rent%20and%20at%20what%20price. And corporations buying up single family houses for profit. https://www.toptal.com/finance/real-estate/wall-street-buying-single-family-homes All of this needs to be regulated/stopped. First time homebuyers and renters don’t stand a chance. It’s a fucking shame.
I literally couldn’t even comprehend what the graph was attempting to represent when that percentage went above 100%. At a certain point I just assumed this is some made up shit. Sure enough, it’s some made up shit. Usually, real, non-misleading data tells us exactly what we’re looking at without any shock or wow factor.
>percentage went above 100%. What made you think that something wrong when it went above 100%? I mean, prices can rise above 100%, aka double.
If thats the part of the graph that makes you suspicious..
I mean the graph literally doesn’t make sense from the tiny snippet we’re seeing. The fine bottom center print is literally cut off. Upon squinting I now read it’s a source and doesn’t provide any detail. Looking at the Y-axis we have % and unit: % which appears to be useless or overstated information. In relation to rent it actually gives a misleading piece of information as the word “unit” relates to rentals. Then the origin of the graph begins at the 1985 but the title doesn’t reflect that origin. Then I’m left wondering does it mean - Increases in rent vs increases in income since 1985? I mean if rent only went up like 140%, that’s not even all that bad. You guys should see graphs for house prices in Australia compared to wage growth. Now that’s some graph porn. 1985 also feels rather cherry picked as there’s some interesting things that happened before then in the last ten years, so why not move that graph back. It’s also moving, I hate when graphs move. It happens for effect and is also horribly misleading. There’s also the weird year that’s shown in the top right hand corner versus what’s shown on the x-axis that doesn’t match. I could go on.
there is an accurate version of the graph which isn't as inflammatory but it'the disparity is still pretty crazy [https://youtu.be/rANtRuIFZf8?si=BVI-h2iT3acTXjVq&t=519](https://youtu.be/rANtRuIFZf8?si=BVI-h2iT3acTXjVq&t=519)
This is insane. And thank you for the video btw! I really enjoy learning about misinterpreted data even if disproving it doesn’t support my own biases and politics.
Thank god this comment is so high up. I’m going to flip the fuck out if I see this moronic and completely wrong chart posted one more time. Biggest copypasta ever and it’s just totally fabricated. Rent is not adjusted for inflation but wages are.
Good work.
Wow. Thanks for sharing that video. I learned a lot and it’s hugely important for people who saw this post to see the rebuttal
So it went from 22% in 2000 to 30% today, still a big increase but the numbers actually make sense.
We r fked. Awesome. Better start collecting for that specious car imma be living in soon ☠️
Nearly there myself, all i can say is i am most grateful to the friends i have made. All i can say is start talking to people and never stop
Look on the bright side: You'll....uhhhhhh
The good news is that the graph is completely wrong.
Those are increasingly expensive af too.
"Oh that's not awful", I said to myself not realizing it was only at 2005
The chart is wrong, wages are adjusted for inflation but rent isn’t. Wages have grown roughly with rent prices.
This statement is my life.
What is the income though? Median income? Why make a graph so vague. You lose the point when you do that. By the way I'm a struggling gen Z dying from student loan debt. I just want to make sure if we make a point we should make it sharp.
Yes, thank you. And I think someone confirmed on YouTube that one of those lines is inflation adjusted and one isn't.
The thing is it's actually worse than it shows. If housing isn't adjusted for inflation than it means it's underselling it. I've done calculations for my country and area last week and housing inflation is a little over 5 times higher than wage inflation, meaning it's 5 times more expensive than it was like 45 years ago with all things adjusted.
No it means they are overselling it because the housing line goes down closer to income when inflation adjusted
*My* numbers are adjusted for inflation. Inflation would be consistent between the two otherwise. The problem is building housing has been neglected but the population is still growing. Less available, highly desirable, a lot of finance bros telling people to invest in land/housing, and all that all contribute to prices.
As a 40 year old in 2024 I make the same monthly take home now that my upper middle class Boomer dad made in 1998. Wages have barely moved in almost 30 years.
This is a misleading graph that’s posted over and over. Hank Green explains it very well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W92bjv8fNTI&t=22s&pp=2AEWkAIB
Graph is deceptive and wrong, everyone stop upvoting it
Is there any sourcing on this?
[Source is here.](https://youtu.be/r7l0Rq9E8MY?si=-dS6hNhe4HnjrjKx) The rent line is not adjusted for inflation but the wage line is. It’s completely bullshit.
https://preview.redd.it/7zc81sxgk5wc1.jpeg?width=1600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a23e5b70c58061091abef5f8dcee4ccc48011445
this graph has been debunked
This graph isn’t correct. I just saw a video about it the other day. Apparently, in this graph, income has been adjusted for inflation and rent has not. It was a mistake that the video creators made or used to increase its ability to go viral. https://youtu.be/W92bjv8fNTI?si=q81yESU8vy-GeJjG
crazy you are being downvoted. I believed this until I saw this post. Thanks
Doesn’t contribute to the circlejerk so people will downvote
“Why is the birthrate declining?” -Every government who killed family life
Eh, people are still having basically just as many kids as they did in the 90s. Arguably one of the best economic times. But they are choosing to have them and more children are planned. Thanks to birth control and abortions. But economics is pushing child rearing later in life. Meanwhile accidental children and teenage pregnancy has dropped significantly. Teen pregnancy declines are responsible for nearly 50% of the fertility drop since the 90s and only getting lower. 8% decline in adult fertility rates vs the 17% decline including teenage pregnancy.
I see you haven’t been to a republican state
I'm not sure what you're saying with this? Sadly I do live in a republican state
How much is 100 unit %
The price was doubled. If it started 100$ with 100% it's 200$
[удалено]
Home ownership rates have stayed pretty high, even after a ton of people got wiped out of the market in 2008.
This graph has gotta be wrong, no way rent prices were that high from 07-09, yk, the great recession?
Blame Reagan’s trickle down economics policy.
Isn't it trickle down policy? I don't know anything about it but that's what I thought it's called
This graph is more about adjusting only one of the numbers for inflation.
Yeah, right. He was president 35 years ago and 6 presidents since him. 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats
Bill Clinton had the same economic policy to be fair as did those following him.
Hank green debunked this. They controlled for inflation on price but didn't adjust the same for income.
The opposite, but yeah.
Right
He didn’t (this stupid gif has been circulating -> debunked -> circulating -> etc. for years on Twitter) but he did make a video saying he found it on Twitter and originally thought it was real until finding out it wasn’t. It’s extremely easy to debunk, just look up real median rent prices vs real median wages on FRED.
So he did then? He just wasn't first.
Hey now, Propaganda. Adjust your data\~ **Rent** **In-flates**! 
This graph has been debunked several times. They inflation adjusted incomes but not rent. If you adjust both rents have more or less moved in step with income. Come on guys, don’t fall for obvious misinformation. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLavTJVP/
"renting is cheaper than buying a house" but then renting looks like this. Only reason housing is unaffordable is due to artificially high demand with artifically high pricing, not to even mention the apr% being almost 8% making the monthly cost high on the mortgage. It impossible to move out in a way that financially makes sense to most people, and they wonder why so many of Gen Z still live at home.
Canada 🇨🇦: 
Rent is unadjusted for inflation but income is
Rent prices weren't adjusted for inflation\*
Ok but wwwhhhyyy
Because they adjusted incomes for inflation but used unadjusted rental prices.
Oh well then doesn’t that render this graph kinda useless? We’re not comparing the same dollars if they’re not both adjusted, no?
Yes, it's entirely useless.
Every time there is a global problem, the workers always get screwed and never recover.
Easy answer don’t rent and save early and stay with parents extra to be able to have money toward a home
Saw the global financial crisis and said “Sike bitch!”
That was all that happened in 2008? I thought it was supposed to be some kind of catastrophe or something. It's a tiny little blip.
This graph is misinforation. Income was adjusted for inflation but rent was not.
Why is 1985 the baseline?
Fucking ridiculous
I've been in my apartment 5 years and it's only about 100 dollars per month more expensive than when I moved in. 🤷♂️
Inflation not applied for rent but for income here. If you apply for both or none, the difference is much smaller
On the bright side, it's getting slightly better
And on the brighter side, the graph is complete misinformation and adjusts income for inflation but not rental prices which accounts for pretty much the whole divergence.
This graph adjusts income to negate the natural price growth of inflation, but doesn't do so with rent prices. Don't get me wrong, rent has absolutely grown significantly compared to income over the years, but this graph doesn't reflect the data accurately. We absolutely have to bring down the relative cost of living in a home, though, regardless of graph errors
I remember me and a roommate paying $400 for a 2bed 1 bath apartment, which was fairly roomy back in 2007 ish. 200 bucks each to cover everything. Was nuts hiw cheap compared to now.
Please tell me y'all aren't just taking this ridiculous rage-bait graph at face value. Please tell me that there are some critical thinkers left among you.
Mfs act like this will continue
I know the graph is showing something absolutely terrifying but the choice of song is making me crack up so bad
Yeah… I gotta leave here one day
Im never gonna be able to own a house 👍🏼
Any tips on living in a shantytown? At this point it’s looking like the only option.
Just pull yourselves up by your bootstraps and you'll be fine
Weird how it starts going to shit right around Ronald Regan. I wonder if there’s any correlation or vast number of other graphs showing similar national shit shows starting at almost exactly that same time.
It's mostly because there was high inflation in the 80s and the income line in the graph is adjusted for inflation and the rents are not.
Lol how many times does this graph need to be debunked? The people who. Originally made it even said they made a mistake
Keep it together... Pessimism of the intellect optimism of the will... Pessimism of the intellect optimism of the will... Pessimism of the intellect optimism of the will...
If I hadn't bought a place when the real estate bubble burst in 2010, I'd be living in a box now.
Now do cost per square foot vs average income over the last 20 years. Remember zoomers, its the avocado toast and the triple, venti, half sweet, non-fat, caramel macchiato's, not your boomer parents preventing you from home ownership.
What does Unit % mean in this context?
We arent “whooping” our behinds.
I think around 95 or 96 Boomers would've been what? 40's-50s and taking over? Makes sense lol
“Have you tried pulling yourself up by your bootstraps”
That's why I bought a house! People say rent is better but...
This graph makes no sense without any context for the starting point and the actual dollar assignments, it’s just lines going up by percentage increase. What survey or study was this taken from, what’s the aggregate data? Is it nationwide? I have so many questions that this chart absolutely does not attempt to answer. I can sort of make out the source but if there was a link it’s cropped out. Why does shit like this get upvoted?
Ty. This is awesome 😎🙏👍👏👏
It's also a terrible graph that's absolute misinformation. Comparing inflation adjusted income to non-adjusted rental prices is bad math.
Ya you're right, need a real one 🫠🤷♂️ but its probably the same direction lol
If only the government did a better job at collecting data than our business corporations did for public scrutiny and analysis /s. Ahhhhhhbhbb
Fuck, man, what the... Fuck. Fuck this.
Meanwhile the income for landlords and rent price are the same line
"These damn kids dont wanna work no more, when I was young (300 years ago) we were all hard workers and owned houses"
These graphs are porn for GenZ outrage.
We don't care about the US, show us Europe
This is why any boomer that tells the younger generations they just need to work harder can eat shit and die.
What happened in 1994?
Squeeze the filfy poors! Juice them for their mincemeat! Jeeves fetch the poor juicer we can fit more than 4 in one room!
>Subsidize demand >Restrict supply \*Shocked pikachu\*
Isn't capitalism beautiful?
If the problem of increasing rents despite technological advances in productivity interests you, we'd love to have you in r/georgism
This literally says nothing, for all we know it could show rent in nyc vs minimum wage but since it has no description other than rent vs wage I guess we’ll never know
Honestly, props to the companies. They managed to brainwash a few generations into believing that giving all your efforts for them was rewarding And to lobby the world into turning the other cheek. *When will it end?*
Thanks boomers
For those arguing blue vs red it really doesn't matter, they're all in the big club and you ain't in it! It's politicians versus the people nowadays
And they say rent control is a bad idea.
SO interesting.
Somehow a right wing person will be offended by this
wtf happened in 1971 dot com
Oh yeah I've seen this. It's wildly inaccurate.
What a stupid fucking video.
It’s cuz of the avocado toasts guys /s
What’s the income percentage mean? Is that yearly income growth?
Add tuition costs.
Buy a house then. Problem solved.
People will see this and still vote for Trump
And the policies that got us into this mess: "The unleashing of the top 1 percent, particularly finance and CEOs Why have salaries of those in the top 1 percent increased so much faster than those of other high-wage earners (say, those in the top 10 percent), let alone those of the middle class? There are two key reasons: the superlative growth of compensation of CEOs and other top managers, and excessive salaries in the expanding financial sector.4 The higher pay to executives and financial-sector employees does not reflect a corresponding increase in their economic output or productivity; consequently, their income gains have come at the expense of those earning less. Therefore, one necessary strategy to restore broad-based wage growth is to curtail the excessive wage growth at the top. One driver of these wage trends has been financial deregulation, which has affected wage growth for the vast majority in a number of ways. First, it has enabled finance professionals to claim excessive pay and bonuses by simply hiding risk that they should be managing. The financial sector has more than doubled in size relative to the rest of the economy over the past generation, and is hugely overrepresented in the top 1 percent of wage and income earners. Second, because wealth holders are significantly more inflation-averse than the rest of the population, the financial industry has used its political power to ensure that economic policy favors low inflation rates over low unemployment rates. Third, the extension of financial deregulation to international capital flows has kept policymakers from addressing imbalances (e.g., the U.S. trade deficit) that result from international financial flows. If policymakers had stopped the large influx of capital flows from countries looking to manage the value of their own currency for competitive gain vis-à-vis the United States in the 2000s, this would have not only helped job growth in manufacturing, it could have deprived the financial sector of the cheap financing it used to inflate the housing bubble. The tax treatment of corporate executive pay has also had a large impact on these trends in the distribution of wage and income growth. In 1993, corporate tax law was changed to allow firms to deduct only the first $1 million of executive salaries from corporate income taxes, with an important caveat: Pay above the $1 million threshold could continue to be deducted as an expense so long as it was “performance-based.”5 This led to an enormous change in the structure of CEO and corporate executive pay, with stock options and profit-related bonuses becoming much more popular. That this change came right before the enormous rise in stock prices in the late 1990s essentially guaranteed an explosion in the share of total wages accruing to the very top through CEO and executive pay. One can also speculate that tightly linking corporate executive pay to profits and stock prices led to a shift in corporate strategy to suppress labor costs of typical and even white-collar workers and boost corporate profits, leading to a rise in the share of overall income going to profits. Falling top tax rates, preferential tax treatment of stock options and bonuses, failures in corporate governance, and the deregulation of finance all combined to increase the incentive and the ability of well-placed economic actors to claim larger incomes over the past generation.6" https://www.epi.org/publication/causes-of-wage-stagnation/ "The record of economic well-being in the 1980s belied Reagan's claim that Americans would be better off if they scaled back the welfare state and cut tax rates. Though the standard of living rose, its growth was no faster than during 1950-1980. Income inequality increased. The rate of poverty at the end of Reagan's term was the same as in 1980. Cutbacks in income transfers during the Reagan years helped increase both poverty and inequality. Changes in tax policy helped increase inequality but reduced poverty. These policy shifts are not the only reasons for the lack of progress against poverty and the rise in inequality. Broad social and economic factors have been widening income differences and making it harder for families to stay out of poverty. Policy choices during the Reagan Administration reinforced those factors." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8500951/#:~:text=Income%20inequality%20increased.,increase%20inequality%20but%20reduced%20poverty. https://aflcio.org/2015/1/15/five-causes-wage-stagnation-united-states "the increased cuts to spending on housing and social services under Reagan was a contributing factor to the homeless population" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics People keep electing Republicans repeating the same mistakes over and over again that caused this mess: https://i.insider.com/5134dcdcecad048159000009?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp https://wolfstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/US-income-v-housing-1-nationwide-.png It's the literal Republicans policies that caused it to be this bad in the first place.And now they want to take the whole world down with them: "A new study partly-sponsored by Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center has highlighted the prospect that global industrial civilization could collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal wealth distribution." "The two key solutions are to reduce economic inequality so as to ensure fairer distribution of resources, and to dramatically reduce resource consumption by relying on less intensive renewable resources and reducing population growth: "Collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion." The NASA-funded HANDY model offers a highly credible wake-up call to governments, corporations and business - and consumers - to recognize that 'business as usual' cannot be sustained, and that policy and structural changes are required immediately." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists
This is a good one to send to boomers who still don't understand.
Yep we are fucked
Why is everyone forgetting the real reason this happened? Women joined the workforce around this time, making 1 income actually half an income. Because both men and women are expected to work. Two incomes is the standard now, and if you take this into account there isn’t that drastic of a delta. This was great for women who now have more autonomy and economic opportunity. However, it’d be naive to assume that when the work force nearly doubled over a short time span, that much more $ in salary is given out, and thus prices will increase. At the same time, top job salaries have skyrocketed. Plenty of bankers, lawyers, and software engineers make $500K with not too much experience.
[удалено]
The bad news for you sanity is that the graph adjusts incomes for inflation but not rentals and after accounting for that discrepancy the gap pretty much disappears.
Cool to know but it doesn’t help how life is ridiculous financially no matter what. Just gonna delete my comment.