Bay Area families making $117,000 a year are now qualified as Low Income

[Rational Poster]

I don't know what any of that means. I'm just asking how a "few percent" from the top will give "lots of money". We'll assume a 100% transfer rate, and no bureaucratic shaving.

It's not that hard to grasp.

If I make 100K and I don't have to give 30K to the government anymore I'll have 100K instead of 70K.

If a multiple billion dollar corporation and their owners with trillions in assets had to pay a bit more to make up the difference America would be a better place.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If you'd stop being a nutball, and a Crooked Clinton denier, you could appreciate the simple concept that the value of money makes quicker moves than wages do, and depreciates people standard of living further by destroying the value of savings.

Can I interpret the fact that you're throwing out childish partisan attacks rather than addressing the issue to mean that you realize how silly you sound but aren't willing to just admit that you goofed?

At best the effect you're positing would have a minimal, short-term effect. Why do you think employers would offer and employees would accept lower real wages because of inflation that happened before they were born? What's the mechanism?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well you're both wrong, actually. The quality of life for a poor person now is greater than for a rich person in 1913. I think he's talking absolute and you're talking comparative.

Depends how you measure quality of life. What I'm saying is that people work fewer hours for higher incomes today than they did in 1913, and that inflation from that period has no impact on quality of life today.

 

[Pessimystic]

So glad we got out nearly 20 years ago.
We still go down to visit family, but I will never go back.

 

[Greoric]

Well you're both wrong, actually. The quality of life for a poor person now is greater than for a rich person in 1913.

I'm not saying otherwise, mate. But when we're talking about the effect that a depreciating value of money has on people, that's obviously deleterious. So much so that for a one person working full time was feasible a generation ago, it is not any longer.

Jack is a coo coo bird. He accepts all kinds of whack job shit when it comes to economics, and then uses the science-denier card (without any background in science) when he's shown to not know what the fuck he's talking about.

 

[Greoric]

Depends how you measure quality of life. What I'm saying is that people work fewer hours for higher incomes today than they did in 1913, and that inflation from that period has no impact on quality of life today.

The savings is the real fucking killer, but hey, I'm willing to see data that wages don't stick.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm not saying otherwise, mate. But when we're talking about the effect that a depreciating value of money has on people, that's obviously deleterious. So much so that for a one person working full time was feasible a generation ago, it is not any longer.

Jack is a coo coo bird. He accepts all kinds of whack job shit when it comes to economics, and then uses the science-denier card (without any background in science) when he's shown to not know what the fuck he's talking about.

When have I been shown to not know what I'm talking about? You are denying science here. And making up facts.

The savings is the real fucking killer, but hey, I'm willing to see data that wages don't stick.

You don't understand what wage stickiness is. Wages don't go down even when the value of labor drops (people have an aversion to seeing nominal wage declines). That has no bearing on the issue. Inflation drives nominal income up as much as it drives other prices up. This should be very obvious. And I notice that you didn't answer my question about *why* you think inflation would reduce wages. Does it increase the supply of labor without increasing the demand for it? Does it hurt the bargaining position of workers? What?

 

[Greoric]

Can I interpret the fact that you're throwing out childish partisan attacks rather than addressing the issue to mean that you realize how silly you sound but aren't willing to just admit that you goofed?

At best the effect you're positing would have a minimal, short-term effect. Why do you think employers would offer and employees would accept lower real wages because of inflation that happened before they were born? What's the mechanism?

Huh? Any evidence that employers move wages for their employees day to day to sync up with the value of the dollar?

My man, we've gone into it how many times now? And you're still in denial about what caused the GFC. You're saying the exact fucking opposite for the accepted conventional understanding. Flat Earth much? How embarrassed must you be!

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

spending two hours in a car each way to bookend a long workday so I don't have to deal with winter? fuck that, I like winter.

 

[Gregolian]

spending two hours in a car each way to bookend a long workday so I don't have to deal with winter? fuck that, I like winter.

Winter >>>> Summer

Come at me bros.

 

[Greoric]

When have I been shown to not know what I'm talking about? You are denying science here. And making up facts.

My man, you don't even understand something as fundamental as interest rates. That's probably why you've arrived at your whack job flat earth theories instead of what everyone with any modicum of finance appreciation understands to be true.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Winter >>>> Summer

Come at me bros.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Huh? Any evidence that employers move wages for their employees day to day to sync up with the value of the dollar?

The dollar value doesn't change noticeably day to day. Further, as I said, if the effect you're positing were real, it would have only a very small and very short-term effect. It wouldn't change wages over a period of years.

My man, we've gone into it how many times now? And you're still in denial about what caused the GFC. You're saying the exact fucking opposite for the accepted conventional understanding. Flat Earth much? How embarrassed must you be!

What do you think caused the GFC, what do you think I think caused it, and what do you think conventional wisdom is?

 

[Jack V Savage]

My man, you don't even understand something as fundamental as interest rates. That's probably why you've arrived at your whack job flat earth theories instead of what everyone with any modicum of finance appreciation understands to be true.

Without more specifics, it's impossible to tell what you're talking about. But I think you're just lashing out because you're embarrassed about the point I made in the other thread (when you thought I was insulting you because you're a male nurse rather than because you insist on chiming in on a subject you know nothing about) and about your mistakes in this one.

 

[Gregolian]

In total reality though given I'm a big dude I prefer winter to summer simply cause at a certain point you can't remove anymore layers to cool down without getting arrested for indecent exposure.

 

[Greoric]

When have I been shown to not know what I'm talking about? You are denying science here. And making up facts.

You don't understand what wage stickiness is. Wages don't go down even when the value of labor drops (people have an aversion to seeing nominal wage declines). That has no bearing on the issue. Inflation drives nominal income up as much as it drives other prices up. This should be very obvious. And I notice that you didn't answer my question about *why* you think inflation would reduce wages. Does it increase the supply of labor without increasing the demand for it? Does it hurt the bargaining position of workers? What?

Not at the point of negotiation, no. But employees don't renegotiate their pay check every week, bi-month, or month. They'll get a good renegotiation annually (maybe?), hopefully to keep pace with the difference in purchasing power from that point. In the interim from when they bargained for their wage to when they get compensated at a higher wage, they've lost purchasing power. The goods and services they're consuming in that period are adjusting to the value of money, when their wages are not.

Glad I could help.

 

[Deleted member 409801]

The value of currency has definitely shifted, but standard of living has too. I mean we're using the word "standard" here when most people are baffled that I don't have a TV. "Standard" like 2 generations ago ago was not a smart phone, a big screen TV, air conditioning, internet. Shit, I'm 35 and just in my lifetime we had AOL and a landline. The cost of living has certainly risen, but so had the quality of living.

Equating having more material " stuff" that you've got to work longer to pay for directly with the quality of ones life is dubious at best .

No offense , but I actually find it a bit sad that someone could spend any amount of time actually reflecting on that sentiment and agree with it.

Does the quality of your days rise in conjunction with the speed of your internet ? Was it half as good when you had the Iphone 4?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-sharply-across-the-country-new-report-shows/

 

[xcvbn]

When half of that goes to housing it doesn't leave a whole lot after taxes.

 

[xcvbn]

I should have realized that historical perspective is a meaningless concept to one such as yourself.

Look at him tuck tail like a bitch.

FDR was as close to a socialist president we've had and his policies directly led to the biggest and fastest rise we've ever had as a nation. It's worth revisiting.

 

[xcvbn]

Like 30 fucking years ago, lol.

30K in the 80s is 70k today

And he probably had a union for the entirety of his employment, full benefits, and retired with a pension like my old man. Those things are worth double what his salary was.

We're surrounded by fucking idiots.