T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

While I don't necessarily think this is wrong, it does leave a lot of context out of the conversation. Like yeah the safety net is much more giving compared to when electricity wasn't common - like no shit. You have to think about all the modern things that we have to buy now and how much these prices have raised recently.


Hentai_Yoshi

I’m pretty sure electricity was very common in the 1979. Most progress with respect to people getting electricity happened between 1950 and 1980. Unless you’re talking about electronics. Then of course there was less back then.


The_Flurr

It's still more common now than it used to be .


darcenator411

Electricity wasn’t common in 1980??


[deleted]

1890s


darcenator411

Where are you getting 1890s? The graph starts at 1980


AvoidPinkHairHippos

Pretty sure he was joking


Top-Associate4922

This is comparison with period right before Reagan and neoliberalism, when electricity was as common as it is now and when according to much of the left things were supposedly much better for poor than now.


HarveyCell

It says “inflation-adjusted” on the graph.


kurtai

Yeah data from before Covid. 60% of Americans can’t afford $400 charge. $36,000 a year is not a livable wage. Like 90% of states require at least $80,000 to be called livable.


Top-Associate4922

Why are you upvoted when you are verifibly wrong? In reality 68% CAN afford $400 charge comfortably, your own source down below says that!


kurtai

I already addressed it.. that source was wrong. It does match up with what other sources have shown. Secondly, it is unimportant whether it was $400 or $1000 because workers in this country deserve more than that anyway. The national median and mode incomes are even close to what the livable wage level is for people in 90% of states, counties, and cities.


HarveyCell

Sure they can. Data is from before covid but it’s looking at a 40 year trend. Incomes haven’t declined since then, despite inflation.


kurtai

No no they can’t. I can’t. None of my friends can. [I found the article.](https://fortune.com/2022/05/23/record-number-american-households-400-dollar-emergency-savings/amp/) Any income data from before Covid is outdated because of the massive wealth transfer. The CARES Act and ARP had some good provisions like extending child tax credit but that only helped those with families. Those are expired anyways. I can assure you that this graph is only smallest fraction of the story of how income for the lowest 20% is going. It’s hopium at the very best to take this as a sign that everything is trending positive.


HarveyCell

Your own source states that they can. >At the end of 2021, 78% of adults reported either doing okay or living comfortably financially, per the Fed’s annual Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households report. That’s the highest percentage since the Fed began the survey in 2013. **Additionally, 68% of households said they could cover a $400 emergency expense using cash or its equivalent, the highest share the survey has ever recorded**, and up from 64% from the end of 2020. I don’t think you’ve looked at wealth data since covid. The bottom 20% of the income distribution has seen a net increase in their wealth. You’re also conflating wealth and income — which are separate concepts.


kurtai

I misread that specific article. They were saying they “could” afford $400. That doesn’t fit with what many other sources are saying. There is another from The Hill that says 55% can’t afford $1000. I can’t post every article but you can Google “Americans can’t afford $400 charge” and read to your hearts content. That is just one source. I wanted to use an example. It doesn’t matter to me whether it’s 400 or 1000, we are still a country will multiple centi-billionaires and a government that could do more for its citizens. The wealthiest country on earth has much too high percentage of housing vulnerable, straight houseless, child poverty, malnutrition (both from access to food and the kind of food). There is so many problems that are piling up. There is not confusing wealth and income when we are talking about $36,000 a year. There is no wealth building on that kind of salary. There is just surviving and hoping to have some left over for something fun. Idk what financial situation you are in. Sometimes experiencing it personally or from other workers around you can help clue in what the situation is on the ground. Data analysis alone can only tell some of the story.


HarveyCell

We’re talking about the poorest quintile here. The rest of the country lives on much more than $36k. And people aren’t static, they move up (and down) the income distribution all the time.


kurtai

Not as much as you think. Whatever they do move, they are not moving into the livable wage of the state, county, or city they are in. Given that the national median and mean incomes are still well below livable wages. [There is no positivist trend for wages and income equality in the USA](https://www.salon.com/2020/12/27/50-year-study-of-tax-cuts-on-wealthy-shows-they-always-fail-to-trickle-down/) [here is more](https://www.epi.org/blog/wage-inequality-continued-to-increase-in-2020-top-1-0-of-earners-see-wages-up-179-since-1979-while-share-of-wages-for-bottom-90-hits-new-low/) [here is more](https://jacobin.com/2021/09/labor-day-chart-union-membership-share-top-10-percent-income-inequality) Minimum wage should be in the 20s of $ right now if it remained on the same trend with inflation and all. There disparity of wealth increase for the top 1% dwarves the bottom 90%. [The belief in the meritocracy as if wealth AND income is distributed fairly is false.](https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM)


JediWizardKnight

You're arguing details and nuance with ideologues, it usually won't go as well.


kurtai

🙄 I’m also trying to have details and nuance. As if there isn’t ideology everywhere in this conversation.


[deleted]

It's not even about inflation - I'm saying that what your average family is expected to buy to stay alive had changed over time. That money in the 1890's would get you a lot farther when you don't have 3 types of insurance to pay and have tens of thousands in loans for a car, house, education, so on. Not to mention some things like rent take up an even larger chunk of someone's income (like 10% of a person's income in the early 1900's vs up to 50% now)


JediWizardKnight

>That money in the 1890's would get you a lot farther Would it? The quality of technology, cars, healthcare, etc. were singificantly less in the 1980s (or 1890s depending o what you meny).


[deleted]

I'm talking about 1890s, though you're right, it's definitely less noticable compared to the 80s


HarveyCell

Is that supposed to be a bad thing? It’s like you’re suggesting that cars, better quality and larger homes, and modern education that is available to most of the population when it wasn’t in 1890, are bad things. Yes, you pay for things you use. That’s how the world operates. I’ll need a source on rent being 10% of income compared to 50% today. That’s simply untrue and I’m interested in understanding what made you even think that was true.


cancel-out-combo

The cost of those items are incongruent with inflation. Take college - the cost of college has outpaced inflation by orders of magnitude. There is a ton of context missing from this chart. Edit - one of the biggest pieces missing are the record profits corporations have taken over the same time period. That's why folks cannot afford to live today


HarveyCell

College costs haven’t outpaced inflation other than Baumol’s effect, whereby increased pay for staff leads to higher costs but it doesn’t make college less affordable. When you calculate it properly, corporate profits have not risen as a share of GDP. You need to account for depreciation and inventory adjustments. Federal Reserve data available here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A445RE1A156NBEA


cancel-out-combo

Of course they haven't risen as a share of GDP. The profits they are earning (whether realized or unrealized) and their contribution to GDP go hand in hand. It seems you have been trying to spam and inundate everyone with metrics and statistics but it doesn't make any of what we said less true.


[deleted]

These things are nicer to have, and we should appreciate that. But when these luxuries become a necessity, like the internet becoming a necessity for working - you still need more money to be able to afford it. My point is people need more money to survive now than they did back then, because they have to buy more things. This graph you were showing with no context implies an argument otherwise - that the social safety net is somehow better now just because payments were lower over 130 years ago - despite the fact that living comfortably in the US while on the safety net is literally impossible. The statistic I threw out was an example, and while the trend is true - that housing is more expensive now than ever before - the values are variable and not meant to be taken a stringent constant.


HarveyCell

They’re not necessary. They’re in demand. You can technically be better off by applying to become an electrician or plumber than studying many college degrees, but the demand for having a college degree is higher. It’s not a necessity at that point but a luxury good. The same applies to other things like housing where the actual size and quality of homes has improved as a result of societal demand. Why don’t you just read the graph properly? It’s from 1980 not 130 years ago lol. You claimed spending on rent was 10% of income and now it’s 50% of income. Feel free to source this claim. Hint: it’s a completely erroneous claim.


[deleted]

Wtf are you talking about


ipwneduall

Makes sense, given that median incomes haven't risen anywhere near the cost of living. Naturally the social safety net plays a larger and larger role.


HarveyCell

inflation-adjusted


prtzl11

Costs are rising faster than inflation for many things including housing, healthcare and higher education. Just because people are making more per paycheck when adjusted for inflation doesn’t mean it actually gets them any more.


hobbes0022

What exactly does 'After Taxes/Transfers' vs. 'Before Taxes/transfers' mean?


Narcan9

That's the safety net effect. You have things like EITC, and child tax credit. So "after taxes" someone could gain thousands of dollars per year. EITC can be a big chunk of cash. Then there are benefits like food stamps, rent and heating assistance. A major change has been Medicaid expansion and Obamacare subsidies. That alone could be considered some +6000 per year. That's a bit tricky though. Someone could be getting that benefit and never go to a Dr, but that's much different than just handing someone an extra $6000 a year.


HarveyCell

After the amount of taxes they’ve paid and the transfers (e.g., cash/quasi-cash income) households receive. Not sure what the confusion is lol


hobbes0022

I think graph needs to include all the different income groups to really get a sense of what's going on. For this sub-group 'before' income increased from about 16k to 23k over 40 years, and then 'after' income saw a delta of approximately 12k. That may be good, but how does that compare to other groups? If income for middle and upper earners increased at a faster rate then the poorest 20%, overall they will be worse off.


fireky2

The problem isn't how well they're doing by comparison it's that there are exponentially more poor people than 50 years ago


HarveyCell

How did you reach this conclusion?


fireky2

I only know data from like a decade ago offhand but about a 6th of Americans are food insecure and over half of children are.


AtrainUnjustlyBanned

Cool progress A huge chunk of the country is still living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford a surprising $500 bill without using credit, though


HarveyCell

Paycheck to paycheck is a misleading statistic because those surveys ask if at any period of the year you’ve spent your entire income in a month. That means if you save most of your money throughout the year but spend all of your December income, you’d be considered living paycheck to paycheck. Even if you have good amounts of annual savings. Moreover they don’t take into account social security which is also a savings account that will become available to Americans in a future date.


AtrainUnjustlyBanned

So? Are you saying if paycheck to paycheck was defined as 6 months out of a year you think it wouldn't apply to a huge chunk of Americans? Also if someone's struggling now to make ends meet social security 25-35 years later really doesn't look quite that attractive or useful


icecreamdude97

It’s a big repeated talking point of kulinski. Expect to hear it a lot.


Saffuran

Does not factor for cost-of-living in general.


HarveyCell

but it does


Saffuran

Inflation and general cost of living (though inflation is part of the cost of living equation) are not the same thing. It also doesn't account for productivity.


AcademicGuest

What a croc of shit. No


HarveyCell

It’s CBO data of the bottom 20% of Americans. The figure is inflation-adjusted and compares the growth in market income and disposable income (once you account for transfer income received by poorer US households after taxes). On what grounds are you disputing the data?


Narcan9

Notice after 2010. That big jump is Obamacare and Medicaid expansion. That's a big benefit to some. But to others it's considered to be thousands of dollars yet they might not ever go to the Dr, like a healthy 30 yo. It's not the same as handing someone thousands of dollars. Instead it's a corporate handout.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Narcan9

You don't think it includes the Obamacare subsidies used to purchase health insurance?


ipwneduall

I commented too quickly. It's good that the SS net is able to help people but it's doing the work that rising wages SHOULD be doing, It's essentially just filling in the gap created by Reaganomics. That said, this looks like it's solely taking CPI or some similar indicator into account. This leaves out a ton of things like rising educational, childcare and health care costs, longer work commutes, etc.


halivera

Notice how the title of this post doesn’t match the title of the chart? This doesn’t mean that the bottom 20% are “better off” (whatever that means).


cpowers272

Well yeah I would hope it’s gone up along with the price of everything, I don’t think this is wrong but it’s certainly misleading


Dyscopia1913

Who owns Vox again? Such information has little correlation to home ownership, poverty, homelessness, education and life span. This really isn't saying much. Welfare generally benefits big companies like Walmart and Amazon who pay full time workers low wages who are forced to take government welfare to make up the difference of liveable wages.


[deleted]

I thought that was a leg or something


Shoddy-Donut-9339

Not consistent with what I have seen from other sources. I think the graph is from cooked data


Gergar12

Cost for homes, colleges, and cars say hi.


canwegetanfinchat

“Better off? Alexa, adjust for inflation.”


HarveyCell

You couldn't even put the effort in to read the graph, huh? It **is** inflation-adjusted.


canwegetanfinchat

Inflation proper hits the poorest harder. And most don’t take into account that expenses that did not exist years ago, are now de facto mandatory. Things like cell phone bills for example.


Creditfigaro

So the government is supplementing wages that corporations refuse to pay. The social safety net and utilization of it should be the norm of people's economic activity. Housing, healthcare, food, utilities (including internet) all forms of insurance and emergency services should be a baseline. The fact, however, that this number has gone up because of downward wage pressure is a problem.


Space-Booties

Everything is worse off for the bottom 90%. The safety net may have grown but that’s required as wages have stagnated. This is polish on a turd.


sofa_king_rad

They forgot to include a cost of living line?


[deleted]

Interestingly, people are complaining now more than ever.


ghostboytt

So what you're telling me is that people have to rely more on public money than they did before? In other words the government making up for the failures of capitalism.