34 sats \ 9 replies \ @Coinsreporter 15 Mar
So, they are sliding up not down. But did you just consider what it meant to earn $100k in 1967 and what's in 2020. $100 in 1967 should have been like $1000k at least.
reply
1 sat \ 1 reply \ @DemandUtopia 15 Mar
Yeah, @zuspotirko here's a thought experiment: suppose Bitcoin becomes the world's reserve currency and it triggers a gold age of economic growth. Within a few decades almost no one lives on less (the equivalent of) $35k a year. Very few live on $100k a year. Almost everyone has a standard of living way beyond that.
What would this graph look like? The "High Income" area would fill 90%+ of the area.
There are a lot of struggles with the middle class standard of living these days, but this graph doesn't show it right.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @zuspotirko OP 15 Mar
A future where 90% of people earn 100k in 2020 constant Dollars sounds awesome. Don't you think a society where 90% earn the equivalent of 100k in 2020 should call 90% of people "High Income"? To repeat: we're talking 2020 constant Dollars here, not each years respective earnings and distribution.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Mar
The chart says that these are 2020 Dollars, so 100k is the same in both periods.
Of course, there are problems with inflation adjustments.
reply
25 sats \ 4 replies \ @OriginalSize 15 Mar
Those problems compound as well. The gov says 2-3%. I see more like 6%.
reply
42 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Mar
It's tough to say, because much of what we use in daily life didn't even exist in 1967. VCR's cost thousands of dollars when they first came out. Can you imagine what internet enabled smart phones would have cost?
Big blockbuster films didn't even exist then and big action movies were made with puppets and strings. What would people have paid to see Dune on IMAX?
The examples are endless and mostly just illustrate how difficult these kind of living standard comparisons become over long stretches of time.
reply
134 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 15 Mar
Well that is already in the govt figures.
The govt uses "hedonic adjustments" to negatively adjust CPI to account for new developments that didn't exist in the past.
Secondly they use "baskets of goods", so instead of tracking a specific item (like Tbone steaks), they track a "meat basket" and the elements of that meat basket is adjusted over time. (ie. 50% Ground meat, 25% steaks, 25% brisket, etc)
I think both of these things: Hedonic adjustments + variable baskets are really just accounting tricks to keep reported inflation artificially low.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Mar
Hedonic adjustments account for quality improvements in products that already existed, not previously non-existent products.
The introduction new products is a known issue for inflation adjustments.
Whether it's "just" an accounting trick or not depends on who you're talking about. There are plenty of economists who argue for those methods in good faith. It's also not a coincidence that whenever they tweak the methodology it makes the status quo look better.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 15 Mar
Well said. You hit the bull's eye.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @zuspotirko OP 15 Mar
It's already inflation adjusted. Constant 2020 Dollars.
reply
43 sats \ 1 reply \ @kr 15 Mar
narrative violation 👀
reply
65 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Mar
That's what I was thinking. Look how averse the commenters are to good news.
I think it's pretty obvious that we're materially wealthier now than in the 60's.
reply
56 sats \ 2 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 15 Mar
I'm not sure if that will be the case. I found this study that shows stagnation or decline in income compared to the costs of healthcare, education, and housing. Won't the upper class just get higher?
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/04/20/how-the-american-middle-class-has-changed-in-the-past-five-decades/
reply
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @zuspotirko OP 15 Mar
Yeah, basics developed worse than luxuries over the last years and decades.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jakoyoh629 15 Mar
Good point
reply
13 sats \ 4 replies \ @grayruby 15 Mar
Sure they are getting richer in dollar terms. Are they getting richer faster than the dollar is devaluing though?
reply
20 sats \ 3 replies \ @zuspotirko OP 15 Mar
It's already inflation adjusted. Constant 2020 Dollars.
reply
48 sats \ 2 replies \ @grayruby 15 Mar
Give it to me vs money supply and then lets talk.
reply
15 sats \ 1 reply \ @zuspotirko OP 15 Mar
That probably looks way worse and more "stepped" instead of smooth.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 15 Mar
People may have higher incomes, they also have significantly higher cost of living. So ultimately are they richer or poorer? I would say some are much richer but most are poorer.
reply
8 sats \ 0 replies \ @lrm_btc 15 Mar
This supports my theory that a growing percentage of the voters are out of touch with poverty. Housing regulations come at a cost, for instance, and the voter who isn't focused on cutting costs typically ignores this.
reply
10 sats \ 4 replies \ @arrivederci 16 Mar
Income is the wrong way to look at this. You're missing the truly rich if you're only looking at income.
Since the late 60s there has been a massive increase in wealthy rent-seekers, i.e. ppl who haven't got wealthy from actually working, either in a job or profession or by creating a business but by extracting rent from (leveraged) assets.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Bell_curve 16 Mar
Private equity?
Carried interest?
Capital gains?
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @arrivederci 16 Mar
Sorry b_c, I'm not really sure what you're saying or asking here
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 16 Mar
What are examples of extracting rent?
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @arrivederci 16 Mar
Yeah, I wouldn't point the finger at any of the things you mentioned. None of them intrinsically qualify as 'rent-seeking'.
It's more the whole system has changed to reward rent-seeking. So you can be rewarded for owning shares in rent-seeking companies, you can be rewarded with capital gains in a housing market where everything is done to prevent the house market undergoing corrections, etc. etc. Nothing wrong with owning shares or getting capital gains on a house, per se.
Edit : that hasn't answered your second comment on what are actual examples of extracting rent, sorry. Bit too tired now to give a proper answer to that one.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @antic 16 Mar
Kind of looks like the middle class is becoming more middle.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @anon 15 Mar
"Constant 2020 dollars"
Lot of bullshit in that phrase. Who wants to bet the are using CPI (3.9%) and not money supply growth (7.1%) for that.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @zuspotirko OP 15 Mar
Yes? What's your point? That's exactly what the statistic is openly about?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 15 Mar
The point is you can come to the opposite conclusion:
the middle class is collapsing because they're getting poorer not richer
if you use the rate of money supply growth (from 1967 to 2020) to adjust the 2020 dollars.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @NIPPLENATOR 15 Mar
deleted by author
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 15 Mar
How about the purchasing power of those dollars over time? Do the same chart against oil or property and it will look a lot different
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Enemy_of_the_state 15 Mar
$100k is not nearly high income, give me a break. That is paycheck to paycheck at best even for a small family. $100k in 1985, sure, but not 2024!
$500k+ I would consider to be high income. Call it upper middle class. Business owners make this easily, even high skilled professional employees. For a man supporting a family, this is a level where you aren’t constantly neurotic about money.
reply