Because most Americans can’t afford to loose a week of pay?
Because it’s a zero-sum game and most Americans are losing so rich fucks can have their “good economy”.
Biden is so fucking out of touch it’s embarrassing.
it’s a zero-sum game and most Americans are losing so rich fucks can have their “good economy”.
That does seem to be what his rhetoric is pointing at:
“But for all we’ve done to bring prices down, there are still too many corporations in America ripping people off. Price gouging, junk feeds, greedflation, shrinkflation,” Biden added.
“bring prices down”? Does Biden think we’re in a deflationary period or is he intentionally misleading people?
EDIT: It’s weird how when people ask why prices haven’t come down they’re mocked for not understanding the difference between deflation and lower inflation. But when the president of the United States confuses them and I point it out I get down voted. Classy people. Classy.
The latter or both.
On the contrary, the fastest growth in real income right now is among those in the lowest quintile. Which means income inequality is actually decreasing for the first time in decades.
“Fastest growing in real income” sounds really fancy.
But it’s a bit misleading. I assume you’re looking at percentage gains. For someone working 40 hrs/week 42 weeks a year, a dollar raise (which is huge for that “lowest quintile”), would equate to a bit more than 2,000 per year.
At federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr, that dollar gain represents an increase of 13%. At 15 an hour, its a 6% gain. At 200k/year? Barely a percent. For Walmart CEO, for example, who’s salary is 24.1 million is barely even worth mentioning at .08%.
Said another way, Walmart has 2.2 million “associates” which iirc, is everyone whose not a manager. Let’s say 3 million people who aren’t corporate because I don’t care to go get the accurate stats and frankly want to keep the math easy.
So if they gave them all a 1 dollar raise, that would cost Walmart 3 million dollars. Last year, Walmarts annual gross profit was 147.568 billion, with a 2.65% increase over ‘22. An increase of 3.8 billion dollars.
You know the difference between a million and a billion? About a billion. That hypothetical dollar increase would have been a rounding error on their financial statements.
So if they gave them all a 1 dollar raise, that would cost Walmart 3 million dollars.
I think your numbers are off. It would cost $3m to give 3m workers a bump of exactly one dollar on exactly one paycheck. That’s not a 13% increase. It’s not even a 0.01% increase.
If you actually wanted to increase the wage of 3m full time workers from $7.25 to $8.25, it would cost $6 billion.
Walmarts annual gross profit was 147.568 billion
This isn’t really relevant. Gross profit is Walmart sales minus what it paid manufacturers for its products. So if it buys a TV for $200 and sells it for $300, that’s $100 in gross profit.
Gross profit is used to pay employees, rent, utilities, advertisers, etc. The amount left over after paying the bills is the operating income. Then they pay taxes on that, and the actual earnings (aka net income) are left over.
Nearly all of Walmart’s gross profit was used to pay employees, etc. Their operating income was $23 billion in 2023, which is a decrease of 20% from the previous year. Of note, this coincides with pay increases for Walmart’s hourly workers, from $17.50 to $18/hr on average.
Nearly all of Walmart’s gross profit was used to pay employees, etc
That’s a mountain sized “etc” covering mainly shareholder dividends and artificial profit minimizing for tax avoidance purposes.
The publicly reported profit margins are always AFTER those things and as such as informative about reality as having literally no information.
No, operating income does not take dividend payments into account.
The fact is that employee payroll/salaries is one of Walmart’s biggest expenses by far, and gross profit does not include it. So you cannot use gross profit to argue that Walmart could afford to give its workers a raise.
It’s the equivalent of looking only at someone’s salary and then saying they should put more away for retirement. You are ignoring their expenses.
Hmm , in 2020 the interest rates for buying a house was around 3.1%, now it’s around 6.8%. When we’re pricing people out of the ability to afford housing (interest rates going up affects rent prices too, who knew) people will be rather upset… especially given that they see little to no benefit from this “good economy” given the layoffs in certain sectors, the gas prices being over 9000, and not one, but two wars abroad where at least one of the parties in each is perfectly fine targeting civilians.
But hey, at least Google and Amazon are raking in the profits, I guess.
Okay but did you read that the economy is doing good? Try reading it again.
Let’s see this fucker live on minimum wage and try to afford an apartment.
Real wages have been growing in the past year, especially for those in the lowest quintile. In fact, there are almost no adults making the federal minimum wage any more.
Half joking response- but wouldn’t the survivorship bias mean those who were surviving only on minimum wage alone didn’t survive for very long?
I think you’re on to something, but in reality people will quit a job that doesn’t provide enough to live on. In other words, the job is the one that doesn’t survive, not the worker.
So you might expect a rise in unemployment, but in fact we are seeing low unemployment. This suggests that employers respond to vacant minimum wage jobs by increasing the wage. And in fact there are plenty of well-known employers (e.g. Wal-Mart) where nobody works for minimum wage any more.
I’m also not sure how relevant my experience is to this whole thing since my work experience is 100% contract work in a specialized field instead of salaried or employer scheduled. From my perspective everything is becoming gig work, but that might not be the case. I think it’s hard to budget for groceries getting more expensive if one year I make 85k and the year after, I make 25k. Employers just don’t seem to have as much money to spend on advertising as they used to, so finding work is hard unless you take less than what you’re used to taking.
All my peers seem to be having issues with finances nowadays unless their parents are helping them out or have a partner making quite a bit as well. Combine that with businesses forcing the end of work from home means we have to move back to expensive cities. It’s looking pretty bleak even from my pretty privileged vantage point.
One thing to keep in mind is that you may not be in the bottom quintile. And if you’re not, then you may have a very different view of the economy.
Income inequality is decreasing right now, but many people don’t understand that this necessarily involves some zero-sum adjustments. You cannot reduce inequality if everyone grows at the same rate, something must be transferred from the upper X% to the lower X%. And if you’re in the upper X%, then the economy might feel worse to you than it really is.
I’d be interested to see a source on if income inequality is decreasing because I haven’t seen any articles about that tbh. In fact, since 2020 when I last looked at graphs on it, it’s seemed like the gap is just getting wider and wider every year.
And if I was told things would get harder for me and other people in my bracket to make it easier for people making less than me, I’d be fine with it, but I’m not seeing an indication that that is what’s happening. But to be honest, so long as I’m seeing record profits for corporations and billionaires continuing to breathe, I’ll continue to think income inequality is continuing to get worse regardless of a study that states the contrary.
Reduction in income inequality started under Biden, after 2020
But there’s some pretty good news that doesn’t readily appear in the steady stream of government data released each week. After decades in which the gap between the richest and poorest Americans grew by leaps and bounds, the strange rebound from the pandemic has led to something different: a slow reduction in inequality across the economy. Incomes of people in the bottom half of income distribution grew by 4.5% in the last calendar year, much faster than the 1.2% average income growth of all Americans
people will quit a job that doesn’t provide enough to live on
Or they’ll get a second job. Or a third job. Or start doing gig work.
Especially if the job provides them with health insurance.
Either way, they aren’t working any minimum wage jobs.
Okay but they’re still living off ramen and putting off medical treatment and hoping their car doesn’t blow up
The solution to all those problems involves increasing real wages. Which is what has happened for the last year, especially for the lowest quintile.
Dude. Rents are skyrocketing, grocery prices are insane, everything is wildly more expensive and wage growth isn’t keeping up for a lot of people. This kinda “well look at the data” thing that the Democrats constantly do is not helpful. They always fail to account for some part of reality and it shows just how disconnected these rich fucks are from the common person.
So many people are living paycheck to paycheck and that is disastrous for a country without socialized medicine and with the incredible costs of retirement. Homeownership and freedom from vampire landlords isn’t a possibility for a vast majority of people and many are paying a significant portion of their take home just to keep a roof over their heads and the lights on.
They have no clue what it’s like to walk a day in a normal person’s shoes.
No doubt many people are suffering. But wages for the lowest quintile have been outpacing inflation for the past year. Which means that overall, most of those in the lowest quintile are better off now than they were a year ago. Of course, doing better is not the same as doing well.
most of those in the lowest quintile are better off now than they were a year ago
Yes, and on average each human has roughly 0.98 testicles.
The goal of public policy is to benefit the public as a whole. So the average will always be a more useful metric than the experience of an individual, or even a hundred individuals.
By that logic, Medicare for All would only cover less than one testicle
Except testicle coverage is a policy, not a valid metric. A valid metric is the outcome of a policy, like average deaths from testicular cancer.
They were still in a horrible situation a year ago, so they’re better off but still bad.
Meanwhile the CoL has only gotten worse year on year, every year.
This isn’t new. The cost of living always goes up. It’s supposed to. Because when it goes down, you are in a recession and probably about to lose your job.
Because prices are still jacked up from inflation? Seems like they go up but never come back down?
Gee, ya think?
The article makes a misleading statement about inflation right off the bat. That it’s at a three year low and that’s a sign of good things.
But inflation doesn’t work like that. This just means prices are increasing at a slower rate. Not that prices have gone down.
Also inflation is not a measure of the cost of living. CPI is ostensibly a measure of cost of living but it’s not particularly good at that either
CPI is fine when it isn’t manipulated to hell like the government does to make things seem better than they actually are.
