U.S. Paychecks Grow at Record-Slow Pace(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
U.S. Paychecks Grow at Record-Slow Pace
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/07/31/us/politics/ap-us-employments-costs.html
13 comments
that graph's axes can make that graph extremely misleading.
Isn't the reasoning backwards though? An employment ratio of 50% means more people are looking for work than if the employment ratio is at 60%, right?
I mean if the employment ratio is 100% surely the labor market would be tight right?
Isn't the reasoning backwards though? An employment ratio of 50% means more people are looking for work than if the employment ratio is at 60%, right?
I mean if the employment ratio is 100% surely the labor market would be tight right?
Labor Force Participation =
Labor Force / Working-age Non-institutionalized Population =
(Unemployed + Employed) / Working-age Non-institutionalized Population =
(People looking for work + People working) / (Anyone who is physically and legally able to work)
Decline in LFP means that the labor force (people employed and/or looking for jobs vs. discouraged but otherwise able-bodied workers) is shrinking relative to overall population.
This is caused by at least 1 of 2 things. (1) A decrease in the numerator: workers becoming discouraged and leaving the labor force - note that if workers simply shift from being employed to unemployed, the LFP ratio doesn't change. (2) An increase in in the denominator: more working-age, non-institutionalized workers in the overall population.
If the LFP is 100% then everyone who is able to work is either employed or actively seeking employment.
If the LFP is 50% then 50% of the total population is not actively seeking employment. With the current unemployment rate of 5.3%, this would mean that 44.7% of the total labor force is employed, 5.3% is unemployed but searching, and 50% is content to not work/discouraged.
Confusing to say the least, but in the end it's a proxy for the amount of discouraged workers in the total labor force.
(Unemployed + Employed) / Working-age Non-institutionalized Population =
(People looking for work + People working) / (Anyone who is physically and legally able to work)
Decline in LFP means that the labor force (people employed and/or looking for jobs vs. discouraged but otherwise able-bodied workers) is shrinking relative to overall population.
This is caused by at least 1 of 2 things. (1) A decrease in the numerator: workers becoming discouraged and leaving the labor force - note that if workers simply shift from being employed to unemployed, the LFP ratio doesn't change. (2) An increase in in the denominator: more working-age, non-institutionalized workers in the overall population.
If the LFP is 100% then everyone who is able to work is either employed or actively seeking employment.
If the LFP is 50% then 50% of the total population is not actively seeking employment. With the current unemployment rate of 5.3%, this would mean that 44.7% of the total labor force is employed, 5.3% is unemployed but searching, and 50% is content to not work/discouraged.
Confusing to say the least, but in the end it's a proxy for the amount of discouraged workers in the total labor force.
How would baby boomers effect this? Their is a huge bump in the work force that is now rapidly retiring.
Annual Growth Rate of Civilian Labor force By Age (2012-2022) [1]
---
55-64: 1.4%
65-75: 5.6%
75 & older: 6.4%
---
16-19: -2.6%
20-24: -1.0%
---
25-54: 0.2%
The share of older people in the workforce is growing rapidly (not retiring like they used to), the share of younger people in the workforce is declining, and the share of middle aged workers remains largely flat.
[1] http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_304.htm
---
55-64: 1.4%
65-75: 5.6%
75 & older: 6.4%
---
16-19: -2.6%
20-24: -1.0%
---
25-54: 0.2%
The share of older people in the workforce is growing rapidly (not retiring like they used to), the share of younger people in the workforce is declining, and the share of middle aged workers remains largely flat.
[1] http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_304.htm
Ideally when people use the employment-population ratio they are using the prime age employment-population ratio. This only includes workers age 25-54 which ideally filters out changes due to demographic shifts.
The labor force participation rate was 62.6% as of June.
That's the same rate as what we had in the late 1970s and early 1980s, before women were more fully into the work force. It's about 2.5% to 3% lower than what was considered healthy for about 25 years. Half of that drop can easily be explained by boomers rapidly exiting the work force.
The U6 has dropped dramatically, from 18% to 10.x%, and there has been seven million full-time jobs created in about 3.5 years.
We clearly have a tighter labor market - just not tight enough yet.
That's the same rate as what we had in the late 1970s and early 1980s, before women were more fully into the work force. It's about 2.5% to 3% lower than what was considered healthy for about 25 years. Half of that drop can easily be explained by boomers rapidly exiting the work force.
The U6 has dropped dramatically, from 18% to 10.x%, and there has been seven million full-time jobs created in about 3.5 years.
We clearly have a tighter labor market - just not tight enough yet.
We clearly have a tighter labor market
(lol) Asserting something doesn't make it so. If you want to goalpost-move and switch to labor participation rate, lets have a look at that long-term graph, shall we?
http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_...
Does that look like a tightening trend to you?
(lol) Whatever, man.
(lol) Asserting something doesn't make it so. If you want to goalpost-move and switch to labor participation rate, lets have a look at that long-term graph, shall we?
http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_...
Does that look like a tightening trend to you?
(lol) Whatever, man.
Global labor arbitrage marches ever onward.
I'm not sure why more people don't bring this up. People love to talk about people outsourcing jobs as if it's "unfair", when it's a growing reality that we really need to face & look at the consequences (as the global pool of talent get bigger & more competitive).
Because it is unfair -- we require companies to treat their workers like human beings and ban certain forms of exploitation, abuse, etc. Facing reality and accepting that if workers can be abused, they will be abused so we might as well be the abusers is one way to deal with this fact. Another would be, for example, to ban all imports made under conditions which don't meet U.S. human rights standards and remove the economic inventive, but instead we go the opposite direction, the direction of "free trade" which is great for people who can afford to spend capital and move operations to countries where they can abuse workers, but not so great for American workers -- we aren't even allowed the opportunity to be abused and exploited.
> ban all imports made under conditions which don't meet U.S. human rights standards and remove the economic inventive
Different countries have different standards as they are developing. The US had different standards years ago and some attribute the higher standards to our relative economic wealth. I'm sure the US will have higher standards in the future as well as it grows wealthier. But the US wouldn't have gotten that wealthy were those same high standards enforced in the past.
Imagine that you think paying a living wage is a moral imperative. In the US, this may include enough money to live in an apartment with air conditioning and a fridge. If you were to impose those same living wage standards to some employer who would normally hire in a poorer country, that employer might as well hire someone in a richer country. Because those in a poorer country never get the opportunity to accumulate any wealth and pass it on to make future generations wealthier (as many American families did), they will never be able to progress. If they remain poor, they demand less from their institutions.
Many of the things that Americans demand, like environmental standards and a relatively less corrupt political process, are a direct result of our wealth. You can't just mandate higher wages and better living conditions. If you try, unintended consequences are sure to result.
Different countries have different standards as they are developing. The US had different standards years ago and some attribute the higher standards to our relative economic wealth. I'm sure the US will have higher standards in the future as well as it grows wealthier. But the US wouldn't have gotten that wealthy were those same high standards enforced in the past.
Imagine that you think paying a living wage is a moral imperative. In the US, this may include enough money to live in an apartment with air conditioning and a fridge. If you were to impose those same living wage standards to some employer who would normally hire in a poorer country, that employer might as well hire someone in a richer country. Because those in a poorer country never get the opportunity to accumulate any wealth and pass it on to make future generations wealthier (as many American families did), they will never be able to progress. If they remain poor, they demand less from their institutions.
Many of the things that Americans demand, like environmental standards and a relatively less corrupt political process, are a direct result of our wealth. You can't just mandate higher wages and better living conditions. If you try, unintended consequences are sure to result.
I think you have a point with
> "Another would be, for example, to ban all imports made under conditions which don't meet U.S. human rights standards" but it can be interpreted as a "trade barrier, if it's unilateral --you'd need a global enforceable framework, for it to work.
Still, even with that, there'd be offshoring just because cost of living can be much cheaper...
And people in third world economies still deserve to have a job. If the fist world monopolized good jobs, we would not bee seeing the record reductions in abject poverty world-wide. Yes, a side effect is the first world will see some loss in income but not as much as gained by the third world economies.
Without some of this offshoring, first world economies would see much larger waves of economic refugees.
Still, even with that, there'd be offshoring just because cost of living can be much cheaper...
And people in third world economies still deserve to have a job. If the fist world monopolized good jobs, we would not bee seeing the record reductions in abject poverty world-wide. Yes, a side effect is the first world will see some loss in income but not as much as gained by the third world economies.
Without some of this offshoring, first world economies would see much larger waves of economic refugees.
The alternative to being "abused and exploitive" is an agrarian economy with an even lower quality of life. People work in sweatshops because it's their best option. As their economy develops they'll improve working conditions. How does sanctioning them help them improve their lot?
I care about other Americans more than I care about Indians, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Let Indians worry about improving their lot.
We need to get over this White Man's Burden bullshit. It's condescending, paternalistic, and subtly racist.
We need to get over this White Man's Burden bullshit. It's condescending, paternalistic, and subtly racist.
If this specific attack on the power of labor were matched with a corresponding attack on the power of capital, it wouldn't be such a problem.
Unfortunately, intellectual property rights are only getting stronger. Land rights are only getting stronger. Taxes on wealth and unearned income are only getting lower. Employee and union rights are only getting weaker.
Thus the effect of immigration on the downward pressure on wages is magnified.
Unfortunately, intellectual property rights are only getting stronger. Land rights are only getting stronger. Taxes on wealth and unearned income are only getting lower. Employee and union rights are only getting weaker.
Thus the effect of immigration on the downward pressure on wages is magnified.
The consequences are a massive drop in poverty.
http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-pr...
Also a massive drop in inequality, if that's the sort of thing you care about.
http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/
http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-pr...
Also a massive drop in inequality, if that's the sort of thing you care about.
http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/
True, though there need to be controls on this sort of change. That's why we have things like tariffs. If you just open the flood gates on cheap imported labor, you'll decimate the domestic economy and then everyone loses. It's like over-cutting wood for fuel. If you impose restrictions, then forests have time to recover and you have more wood in the long run. If you don't, then forests die out and no one gets any wood. The "wood", in this case, is the money large companies are taking from domestic workers and giving to foreign workers (which they then go and spend in foreign economies i.e. the money is not spent in the economy that supports the large company and said arbitrage bites them in the butt).
More attention to production and productive activity rather than consumption would help. Industry and thrift is what lifts people's fortunes. Not consumption and debt.
The U.S. has many factors contributing to economic competitiveness but also some serious drags: difficulty accumulating capital savings among the middle and lower classes, inefficient cities and suburbs, housing that is too extravagant and expensive for people of modest means, mortgages still underwater, high cost education and a very expensive health care system riddled with fraud. Most of these are due to unwise policies anchored on the public and private accumulation of debt. All of them are solvable with a proper understanding of the issues.
The complaints about the 1% or 0.1 or 0.01% largely can be traced to the architecture of this system which is anything but a free market. It guarantees large cash flows for favored groups who naturally support it.
Refactoring all this will require a great deal of capital spending, internal migration and a shift in incomes away from sectors that have been supported by policy such as finance, gov, education, entitlements, war, retail and healthcare in favor of redesigning the American lifestyle along leaner, more competitive lines. Think smaller homes closer to work and more sharing. Yes it will look more like other more competitive parts of the world do today. It may be called a depression 20-30 years from now but it's better to think of it as cleanup and refactoring-- a clearing out and reckoning of all the bad decisions and policy driven malinvestments of decades.
The biggest thing many people really have control over is their own lifestyle expectations and location. Naturally young people sense this and are cutting back accordingly. Not sure how many are willing to relocate for opportunity.
For average joes in the U.S. the high water mark was probably the 70s and 80s. The stuff that led to America #1 occurred between 1870 and 1960. We've been coasting for a while pretending we still have a beast under the hood and gas in the tank. It's just now becoming ever more difficult to paper over the situation with more debt.
The U.S. still has amazing positive attributes and strengths. Labor force mobility, the most efficient system for consumer goods distribution in the world, generally high quality building and housing stock (albeit inefficiently spread out), generally high knowledge and expectations of service and quality, etc. The list is actually long and the cultures ability to adapt and reinvent itself is a strong reason not to bet against the U.S.
We could opt for a basic income but not at anywhere near the levels of currently expected individual prosperity. We'd have to redefine poverty to something more along the lines of what the rest of the world considers poverty and say, we can help you avoid that. America is not presently designed to support a "middle class" life at $10-20 a day. Some other counties are.
The U.S. has many factors contributing to economic competitiveness but also some serious drags: difficulty accumulating capital savings among the middle and lower classes, inefficient cities and suburbs, housing that is too extravagant and expensive for people of modest means, mortgages still underwater, high cost education and a very expensive health care system riddled with fraud. Most of these are due to unwise policies anchored on the public and private accumulation of debt. All of them are solvable with a proper understanding of the issues.
The complaints about the 1% or 0.1 or 0.01% largely can be traced to the architecture of this system which is anything but a free market. It guarantees large cash flows for favored groups who naturally support it.
Refactoring all this will require a great deal of capital spending, internal migration and a shift in incomes away from sectors that have been supported by policy such as finance, gov, education, entitlements, war, retail and healthcare in favor of redesigning the American lifestyle along leaner, more competitive lines. Think smaller homes closer to work and more sharing. Yes it will look more like other more competitive parts of the world do today. It may be called a depression 20-30 years from now but it's better to think of it as cleanup and refactoring-- a clearing out and reckoning of all the bad decisions and policy driven malinvestments of decades.
The biggest thing many people really have control over is their own lifestyle expectations and location. Naturally young people sense this and are cutting back accordingly. Not sure how many are willing to relocate for opportunity.
For average joes in the U.S. the high water mark was probably the 70s and 80s. The stuff that led to America #1 occurred between 1870 and 1960. We've been coasting for a while pretending we still have a beast under the hood and gas in the tank. It's just now becoming ever more difficult to paper over the situation with more debt.
The U.S. still has amazing positive attributes and strengths. Labor force mobility, the most efficient system for consumer goods distribution in the world, generally high quality building and housing stock (albeit inefficiently spread out), generally high knowledge and expectations of service and quality, etc. The list is actually long and the cultures ability to adapt and reinvent itself is a strong reason not to bet against the U.S.
We could opt for a basic income but not at anywhere near the levels of currently expected individual prosperity. We'd have to redefine poverty to something more along the lines of what the rest of the world considers poverty and say, we can help you avoid that. America is not presently designed to support a "middle class" life at $10-20 a day. Some other counties are.
Good. Every $1 paid to an Indian worker instead of an American one reduces global income equality and goes a much longer way there (3x or so, according to most PPP measures of India vs US).
That may be true in the short run, but it's a more complex question in the long run. What if uncapped arbitrage has an adverse effect on the American economy? Then there won't be as much money left to export to India.
Or, by off shoring, goods become cheaper, and now you can have more goods and services for the same price. At least that's the promise.
Did you mean inequality?
Harvard School of Economics kindly requests that you blame it on robots rather than trade pacts made by their friends.
Why does it have to be either/or?
There has been steady progress in automation since the industrial revolution. It both created and destroyed jobs.
The overall level of unemployment has never been dictated by automation, only by aggregate demand. When wealth pools at the top, demand is kept artificially low.
The overall level of unemployment has never been dictated by automation, only by aggregate demand. When wealth pools at the top, demand is kept artificially low.
I completely agree, but I see automation as a catalyst that has allowed wealth concentration to proceed at an unprecedented rate which would otherwise be impossible.
Policy is by far the greatest factor, but it doesn't help that businesses no longer need as many employees to get things done. Compare profits per employee at new companies like Airbnb to old companies like Hilton. They are off by orders of magnitude due to automation.
Policy is by far the greatest factor, but it doesn't help that businesses no longer need as many employees to get things done. Compare profits per employee at new companies like Airbnb to old companies like Hilton. They are off by orders of magnitude due to automation.
>It doesn't help that businesses no longer need as many employees to get things done.
I don't think it's a catalyst either. By and large, businesses that are shedding employees are doing so because they can outsource the labor or because demand is low.
>Compare profits per employee at new companies like Airbnb to old companies like Hilton.
Profits per employee is a terrible measure. Airbnb doesn't require a lot of employees because they've essentially outsourced the labor to their customers. The house you're staying in wasn't cleaned by them, but it was probably cleaned by somebody. You were greeted by somebody that wasn't them also. That's not automation; that's arbitrage.
Hilton hotels probably raised their profits per employee by contracting out their cleaning to agencies.
I don't think it's a catalyst either. By and large, businesses that are shedding employees are doing so because they can outsource the labor or because demand is low.
>Compare profits per employee at new companies like Airbnb to old companies like Hilton.
Profits per employee is a terrible measure. Airbnb doesn't require a lot of employees because they've essentially outsourced the labor to their customers. The house you're staying in wasn't cleaned by them, but it was probably cleaned by somebody. You were greeted by somebody that wasn't them also. That's not automation; that's arbitrage.
Hilton hotels probably raised their profits per employee by contracting out their cleaning to agencies.
[deleted]
I'm just gonna leave this here.
https://youtu.be/0D62IX-Vd9g?t=69
"In tech, Apple only needs 5 folk to generate $10 million"
Well, if you pretend the 1.2 million people working at Foxconn in China magically don't exist or are some special kind of robot, yes, those 5 folk are all that are needed.
Well, if you pretend the 1.2 million people working at Foxconn in China magically don't exist or are some special kind of robot, yes, those 5 folk are all that are needed.
There has been steady progress in our ability to offshore work traditionally constrained to localized locations. Chickens being shipped to china for butchering and then shipped back to the states for sale being an example of a job not historically offshore-able. FD3SA has a point. There are multiple factors involved in changes to labor supply and demand.
>There are multiple factors involved in changes to labor supply and demand.
There are multiple factors, but that doesn't change the fact that the effect robots have is pretty negligible. It is a scapegoat for rising unemployment, not a reason.
There is, also, just one overriding reason, which I mentioned.
>Chickens being shipped to china for butchering and then shipped back to the states for sale being an example of a job not historically offshore-able.
Possibly partly because only recently did American chicken butchers realize that instead of tossing the feet away, they could sell them to the Chinese, who absolutely adore them.
There are multiple factors, but that doesn't change the fact that the effect robots have is pretty negligible. It is a scapegoat for rising unemployment, not a reason.
There is, also, just one overriding reason, which I mentioned.
>Chickens being shipped to china for butchering and then shipped back to the states for sale being an example of a job not historically offshore-able.
Possibly partly because only recently did American chicken butchers realize that instead of tossing the feet away, they could sell them to the Chinese, who absolutely adore them.
We can argue about automation, and the cheapest way to make process a product, but there's a limit. America crossed that line awhile ago--in my world.
It's time for tariffs, and making it a little harder for Americans to do business overseas? And visa versa? (If you're not an American citizen; you shouldn't be able to buy real-estate here--period--put this into effect today?).
What do we gave to lose at this point? The 1 percenter's have a lot to fear if we came to our senses?
I happen to know a few multimillionaire's who have exploited labor/materials/environment of developing countries for the last 20 years; I guarantee you couldn't stomach just what they do with the money they saved by being Greedy. I am tempted to call them out? One day maybe? I know this; their kids usually end up despising mommy, and daddy once they figure out just how they ended up so wealthy.
(Shipping chickens overseas to save on processing costs sounds like a myth? I really hope it's not true?)
It's time for tariffs, and making it a little harder for Americans to do business overseas? And visa versa? (If you're not an American citizen; you shouldn't be able to buy real-estate here--period--put this into effect today?).
What do we gave to lose at this point? The 1 percenter's have a lot to fear if we came to our senses?
I happen to know a few multimillionaire's who have exploited labor/materials/environment of developing countries for the last 20 years; I guarantee you couldn't stomach just what they do with the money they saved by being Greedy. I am tempted to call them out? One day maybe? I know this; their kids usually end up despising mommy, and daddy once they figure out just how they ended up so wealthy.
(Shipping chickens overseas to save on processing costs sounds like a myth? I really hope it's not true?)
I'm sure it's growing at a record rate for the 0.1% though.
The 0.1% don't need paychecks.
Paychecks are for chumps when you're pulling in returns on a large stock portfolio.
What really worries me about the terribly slow income growth is its inevitable effect on the housing market. There is a huge disparity between median income growth and median house prices.
Check out this FRED graph comparing median income growth and new housing price growth: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1yY7 We see that median income growth is flat at 1.8% while price growth of new housing has picked up dramatically from 1.3% in 2011 to 9.9% YoY growth in 2013.
In nominal terms median income has grown $6,000 over the past decade while the price of a new house has jumped up by approximately $70,000. In real terms (adjusted for inflation) real median income has dropped -$4,000 while new house prices have increased by $2,000. [1] I'll leave the calculation of the 10-year % change of real median values as an exercise for the reader.
As a recent grad with a decent job, there is still no way in hell I'm going to be able to afford a mortgage on any decent, middle-class house in a semi-urban area for a very, very long time, unless I want to move to Detroit or a similarly bankrupt/developing part of the US. I'm also speaking from a debt-free perspective: if I had come out of school with $100k+ in student loans, forget about it.
The only kind of jobs that are going to pay for good houses in the future are banking/tech/fortune 500, which have median salaries of ~60k right out of school and a well-compensated track to climb. These jobs are becoming increasingly scarce and hard to obtain, especially with competition from out of country talent.
I wouldn't be surprised at all to see my generation (I'm 22) having an extremely low & delayed demand for purchasing housing, and to eventually see what is happening in Detroit (houses abandoned, rotting away [2]) happen on a smaller scale across the country where there is too much housing supply for too little demand.
And no, prices will not equalize to accommodate lower salaries because real estate always appreciates in the long run...right? The Chinese, Canadians, Mexicans, Indians, and British seem to think so: foreign investments in US real estate totaled $108bn over the past year, or 8% of total existing home-sales dollar volume. Unsurprisingly, they are "spending more money on fewer homes," aka they are driving real estate bubbles in major cities such as NYC and SF. [3]
So we'll see a bunch of late 20, early 30 something's living together, splitting the rent in what would have once been a 4-6 person family house in order to make ends meet/be close to work. Maybe they'll even drive for Uber on the weekends. Welcome to the sharing economy.
[1] The median sales price of a new house in June 2005 was $226,100, which would be $279,000 in 2015 dollars. As of June 2015 the median sales price is $281,800. I used this inflation calculator because FRED didn't have an inflation-adjusted real median sales price graph: http://www.saving.org/inflation/inflation.php?amount=226,100...
[2] http://www.motherjones.com/photoessays/2010/10/detroit-house...
[3] http://realtormag.realtor.org/daily-news/2015/06/18/foreign-...
Check out this FRED graph comparing median income growth and new housing price growth: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1yY7 We see that median income growth is flat at 1.8% while price growth of new housing has picked up dramatically from 1.3% in 2011 to 9.9% YoY growth in 2013.
In nominal terms median income has grown $6,000 over the past decade while the price of a new house has jumped up by approximately $70,000. In real terms (adjusted for inflation) real median income has dropped -$4,000 while new house prices have increased by $2,000. [1] I'll leave the calculation of the 10-year % change of real median values as an exercise for the reader.
As a recent grad with a decent job, there is still no way in hell I'm going to be able to afford a mortgage on any decent, middle-class house in a semi-urban area for a very, very long time, unless I want to move to Detroit or a similarly bankrupt/developing part of the US. I'm also speaking from a debt-free perspective: if I had come out of school with $100k+ in student loans, forget about it.
The only kind of jobs that are going to pay for good houses in the future are banking/tech/fortune 500, which have median salaries of ~60k right out of school and a well-compensated track to climb. These jobs are becoming increasingly scarce and hard to obtain, especially with competition from out of country talent.
I wouldn't be surprised at all to see my generation (I'm 22) having an extremely low & delayed demand for purchasing housing, and to eventually see what is happening in Detroit (houses abandoned, rotting away [2]) happen on a smaller scale across the country where there is too much housing supply for too little demand.
And no, prices will not equalize to accommodate lower salaries because real estate always appreciates in the long run...right? The Chinese, Canadians, Mexicans, Indians, and British seem to think so: foreign investments in US real estate totaled $108bn over the past year, or 8% of total existing home-sales dollar volume. Unsurprisingly, they are "spending more money on fewer homes," aka they are driving real estate bubbles in major cities such as NYC and SF. [3]
So we'll see a bunch of late 20, early 30 something's living together, splitting the rent in what would have once been a 4-6 person family house in order to make ends meet/be close to work. Maybe they'll even drive for Uber on the weekends. Welcome to the sharing economy.
[1] The median sales price of a new house in June 2005 was $226,100, which would be $279,000 in 2015 dollars. As of June 2015 the median sales price is $281,800. I used this inflation calculator because FRED didn't have an inflation-adjusted real median sales price graph: http://www.saving.org/inflation/inflation.php?amount=226,100...
[2] http://www.motherjones.com/photoessays/2010/10/detroit-house...
[3] http://realtormag.realtor.org/daily-news/2015/06/18/foreign-...
The ironic thing is that the insane price of housing was partly a direct policy decision, supposedly intended to make you feel wealthier so that you would spend more and stimulate the economy.
The Fed calls it the 'wealth effect'. In private it was known as "foaming the runway" (making sure to spread out the foreclosures post-2008, so as not to bankrupt any major banks).
To this day they're still scratching their head about why QE might be causing people to spend less on consumables (saving for an apartment, perhaps? paying rent?).
The Fed calls it the 'wealth effect'. In private it was known as "foaming the runway" (making sure to spread out the foreclosures post-2008, so as not to bankrupt any major banks).
To this day they're still scratching their head about why QE might be causing people to spend less on consumables (saving for an apartment, perhaps? paying rent?).
On the one hand there isn't any arguing with the numbers, but the if the foreclosure crisis has shown us anything, it is that house prices don't "only" go up. When there is no one to buy them, or people who are living in them can't afford them any more, the price goes down. Sometimes significantly.
So it is impossible for house prices to rise so high that "nobody" can afford them, although the job categories that can afford them might change.
The question I ask is, what is the next transition? Do programmers buy all the future houses?
So it is impossible for house prices to rise so high that "nobody" can afford them, although the job categories that can afford them might change.
The question I ask is, what is the next transition? Do programmers buy all the future houses?
So it is impossible for house prices to rise so high that "nobody" can afford them, although the job categories that can afford them might change.
500 million not-so-Red Chinese looking for a place to park their new money beg to differ...
500 million not-so-Red Chinese looking for a place to park their new money beg to differ...
Unfair--there aren't nearly that many princelings.
It's more like 5 million of China's elite are engaged in a mass theft from 1 billion other Chinese, and after expropriating as much wealth as possible and destroying as much of the environment as possible they want a nice hideout so that when the revolution comes they're not the first up against the wall.
It's more like 5 million of China's elite are engaged in a mass theft from 1 billion other Chinese, and after expropriating as much wealth as possible and destroying as much of the environment as possible they want a nice hideout so that when the revolution comes they're not the first up against the wall.
Hey ChuckMcM. Good to see you around HN again.
Check this out: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments...
Specifically p.18 Figure 8.
Figure 8 shows that since 1980, real income has grown 174% for the top 1 percentile of earners, 56% for the 81st-99th percentile, and 16% for anyone earning below the 81st percentile. Also note that these are 2011 numbers, and that inequality has gotten worse in the past 4 years.
This is probably the most succinct and alarming graph that shows the degree to which inequality is growing and wealth is being transferred to the top 10% of earners in the US.
Historically, a strong middle class has driven housing which in turn powers consumption, the engine that powers America's economy. [1] Housing construction was heavily subsidized on both the supply (construction) and demand (purchasing) front by the government after WWII - in 1940 only 44% of Americans owned a home whereas in 1960 62% could make this claim. Along with this spike in ownership came increased consumption of all goods that owning a new home implies - a car, a dishwasher, utilities, spending on children, etc.
Owning a home also reflects well on an family's balance sheet: After paying off the mortgage in 10, 20, 30 years, the property is usually a middle class family's most valuable asset by far.
With the decline of the middle class, less and less working class people will be able to afford to own a home. Instead, they will be forced to rent. [2]
The rich will invest in real estate as they have since the beginning of time, and will seek rent as a generally reliable form of earning a return on their capital. With employment numbers improving, but income staying relatively the same, we can foresee a picture of more people working just to pay the rent, and not having enough left over to afford a mortgage, kids, etc.
So to answer your question: the people with money will own the property, and the people without money will work to afford rent. Unless the government take serious steps towards reversing the rapid accretion of wealth to the upper quintile of earners, the future of housing for my generation looks very bleak in my opinion.
[1] http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/content/jcr/31/1/236.full.pdf
[2] http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf
Check this out: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments...
Specifically p.18 Figure 8.
Figure 8 shows that since 1980, real income has grown 174% for the top 1 percentile of earners, 56% for the 81st-99th percentile, and 16% for anyone earning below the 81st percentile. Also note that these are 2011 numbers, and that inequality has gotten worse in the past 4 years.
This is probably the most succinct and alarming graph that shows the degree to which inequality is growing and wealth is being transferred to the top 10% of earners in the US.
Historically, a strong middle class has driven housing which in turn powers consumption, the engine that powers America's economy. [1] Housing construction was heavily subsidized on both the supply (construction) and demand (purchasing) front by the government after WWII - in 1940 only 44% of Americans owned a home whereas in 1960 62% could make this claim. Along with this spike in ownership came increased consumption of all goods that owning a new home implies - a car, a dishwasher, utilities, spending on children, etc.
Owning a home also reflects well on an family's balance sheet: After paying off the mortgage in 10, 20, 30 years, the property is usually a middle class family's most valuable asset by far.
With the decline of the middle class, less and less working class people will be able to afford to own a home. Instead, they will be forced to rent. [2]
The rich will invest in real estate as they have since the beginning of time, and will seek rent as a generally reliable form of earning a return on their capital. With employment numbers improving, but income staying relatively the same, we can foresee a picture of more people working just to pay the rent, and not having enough left over to afford a mortgage, kids, etc.
So to answer your question: the people with money will own the property, and the people without money will work to afford rent. Unless the government take serious steps towards reversing the rapid accretion of wealth to the upper quintile of earners, the future of housing for my generation looks very bleak in my opinion.
[1] http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/content/jcr/31/1/236.full.pdf
[2] http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf
I've seen the numbers, after I read Piketty's book (and the critiques) I was looking at how this plays out. On the one hand do you have the 1% buy up all the land, build castles, and the rest of us serfs work in extortionate rental units?
I really don't think that is where the market ends up. So how does it change? Extra-market capital tends to distort things, like expat Chinese buying up houses in the Bay Area for cash, but given the supply of housing I can't see them or the rest of the 1% cornering the supply. I do see enclaves of the super rich, but there have always been those (think the Hamptons, or Los Altos Hills). But the miles and miles of tract houses in surburbia? Not so much.
So when the middle class loses their purchasing authority, the demand for houses softens, new housing starts slow down and resale of existing homes takes longer. Then prices flatten out until they catch up with the buying power. (or drop down to a level of affordability).
A lot of artificially low prices were created during the foreclosures of 2009 - 2013 but that force has largely abated.
That said, a lot of my kids generation really aren't that interested in "owning" a house, but I don't know if that will change as they move into raising families or not.
Good metrics to watch though seems to be days on market for existing homes and new housing starts. And that seems a good trailing indicator of how the middle class is doing.
I really don't think that is where the market ends up. So how does it change? Extra-market capital tends to distort things, like expat Chinese buying up houses in the Bay Area for cash, but given the supply of housing I can't see them or the rest of the 1% cornering the supply. I do see enclaves of the super rich, but there have always been those (think the Hamptons, or Los Altos Hills). But the miles and miles of tract houses in surburbia? Not so much.
So when the middle class loses their purchasing authority, the demand for houses softens, new housing starts slow down and resale of existing homes takes longer. Then prices flatten out until they catch up with the buying power. (or drop down to a level of affordability).
A lot of artificially low prices were created during the foreclosures of 2009 - 2013 but that force has largely abated.
That said, a lot of my kids generation really aren't that interested in "owning" a house, but I don't know if that will change as they move into raising families or not.
Good metrics to watch though seems to be days on market for existing homes and new housing starts. And that seems a good trailing indicator of how the middle class is doing.
That first graph is a terrible graph. Median income doesn't start at zero. That they overlap suggests a connection. What is it? I get that the less you earn the less you'll be able to afford (housing-wise). But I doubt that the relation is linear, especially as the purchase is "lumpy".
Other than that I agree with you. The trends aren't encouraging, certainly not.
Other than that I agree with you. The trends aren't encouraging, certainly not.
I agree that the graph was bad. I also made the rookie mistake of comparing a real value with a non-inflation adjusted value. I've updated the graph so that both datasets are in the same units and described the data with more accuracy/depth. Thank you for pointing this out.
Here is the original (bad) graph for reference: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1yYi
Here is the original (bad) graph for reference: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1yYi
> These jobs are becoming increasingly scarce and hard to obtain, especially with competition from out of country talent.
I doubt the accuracy of this statement. For example, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts 8% growth in the near term for Computer Programming jobs[1].
[1] http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/c...
I doubt the accuracy of this statement. For example, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts 8% growth in the near term for Computer Programming jobs[1].
[1] http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/c...
You want to look at the BLS page for software developers. There are 3 times as many as computer programmers.
Income is much higher and job growth is predicted to be 22%.
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/s...
Income is much higher and job growth is predicted to be 22%.
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/s...
If I was in your position I would save like mad for the first couple years to get a down payment and then buy a modest 2-3 bedroom house and rent out the spare rooms it's a great way to get financial independence early on if you have the discipline to make it work.
While owning real estate would be nice, I'm not too interested in becoming a landlord.
I see the wisdom in your advice (this country was founded and continues to thrive on strong property rights) I just don't think the tradeoff of my time and energy managing a household would justify whatever rent I could pull in from a 2-3 bedroom in Somerville MA, Silverlake CA, Austin TX, Oakland CA, or Queens NY.
I see the wisdom in your advice (this country was founded and continues to thrive on strong property rights) I just don't think the tradeoff of my time and energy managing a household would justify whatever rent I could pull in from a 2-3 bedroom in Somerville MA, Silverlake CA, Austin TX, Oakland CA, or Queens NY.
> As of June 2015 the median sales price is $281,800
As a Canadian, I'd love to have that problem, our average is $453,560.
http://crea.ca/content/national-average-price-map
As a Canadian, I'd love to have that problem, our average is $453,560.
http://crea.ca/content/national-average-price-map
Mortgage rates are much lower than they were 10 years ago, though, meaning overall affordability of a 30 year mortgage hasn't changed that much. The tough part is that rates are so low now, prices are on very shaky ground of rates start to rise, even a little bit.
Things need to shake up a little bit... 5+ years of >20% inflation even with the dip 5-6 years ago it's starting to get silly again... At least here in the phx area...
well, one doesn't pay for the house itself, one mostly pays for the right to live at that location. Very limited number of good locations and large number of locations where housing is affordable and nobody wants to live - we, the People, make some locations good and others bad.
Yet another measure of pay, compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, shows wages are accelerating. Hourly pay for a typical employee rose 3.2 percent in June from 12 months earlier, according to the Atlanta Fed.
Wow, this is what passes for journalism? Write an article about slow wage grow (notably only this last quarter, it grew the quarters before that). Then, finish up the article with another wage growth metric that is actually looking pretty good.
Ugh.....
Wow, this is what passes for journalism? Write an article about slow wage grow (notably only this last quarter, it grew the quarters before that). Then, finish up the article with another wage growth metric that is actually looking pretty good.
Ugh.....
> Yet another measure of pay, compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, shows wages are accelerating. Hourly pay for a typical employee rose 3.2 percent in June from 12 months earlier, according to the Atlanta Fed. While that is double the annual pace of 1.6 percent in February 2010, it is still below the pre-recession levels of about 4 percent.
Eh. Its still below the norm.
Eh. Its still below the norm.
The surprising thing here is that the NYTimes left out a graph and a direct link to source data in this article.
Just wait until minimum wage reaches the $15 per hour utopia. That huge sucking sound you'll hear are more jobs leaving the country.
The cynic in me thinks some politicians actually want more disparity, poverty and suffering. Why? Because those are the people who vote for them and keep them in office.
The only people who are nearly always OK despite wars, recessions, poverty and national disasters are the political class. They exist in virtual isolation from reality.
It's a really sick feedback loop: In order to stay in power you need people who are UNHAPPY with their lives, not happy. The unhappy masses will vote for whoever promises to improve their standing. Their "champion", if you will. Therefore, as a politician, you talk about doing things for them and after elections you drop them on their heads, pretend to do a few things when, in reality, you didn't make it better for anyone except yourself.
There are great examples of this in South American politics. They've been suffering from this problem for decades on end. This is like a virus that is hard to eradicate. Why? Because it is hard to make the masses vote for anyone but the person who tells them they are going to solve their problems and give them things. In other words, people don't make logical long-term decisions and continue in an endless loop despite the fact that things never get better for them.
I mean, pick a country and look at their "war on poverty". Not just the US. Everyone has a version of this. And the poor never get richer. It's pure pandering and manipulation. It's sick, really.
The cynic in me thinks some politicians actually want more disparity, poverty and suffering. Why? Because those are the people who vote for them and keep them in office.
The only people who are nearly always OK despite wars, recessions, poverty and national disasters are the political class. They exist in virtual isolation from reality.
It's a really sick feedback loop: In order to stay in power you need people who are UNHAPPY with their lives, not happy. The unhappy masses will vote for whoever promises to improve their standing. Their "champion", if you will. Therefore, as a politician, you talk about doing things for them and after elections you drop them on their heads, pretend to do a few things when, in reality, you didn't make it better for anyone except yourself.
There are great examples of this in South American politics. They've been suffering from this problem for decades on end. This is like a virus that is hard to eradicate. Why? Because it is hard to make the masses vote for anyone but the person who tells them they are going to solve their problems and give them things. In other words, people don't make logical long-term decisions and continue in an endless loop despite the fact that things never get better for them.
I mean, pick a country and look at their "war on poverty". Not just the US. Everyone has a version of this. And the poor never get richer. It's pure pandering and manipulation. It's sick, really.
Democracy has been gamed since its invention. Unfortunately, the poor were extremely valuable as a servant class for the rich throughout our pre-industrial history.
Nowadays however, with automation, the rich are becoming quite independent of serfs as capital increasingly substitutes for labor at a rapid pace.
This does not bode well for the majority of the world's population of non-wealthy laborers.
Nowadays however, with automation, the rich are becoming quite independent of serfs as capital increasingly substitutes for labor at a rapid pace.
This does not bode well for the majority of the world's population of non-wealthy laborers.
According to BLS statistics wage growth has actually been quite good for "supervisory" employees, it's "non supervisory and production employees" (82% of the labor force) who have seen pitiful wage growth.
With all the mandated economic inefficiency increases, I don't know how / if any growth is happening? Why should we want it to?
Without growth, inequality will become a lot less tolerable. The economy must grow or collapse.
On the whole, this may be true but there are available diverse methods of making inequality more tolerable, many rather independent of growth. If growth soothes covetousness, it is only in a way subject to hedonic treadmill effects. But, education, meditation, medication, censorship and many other tactics could lessen such effects in ways not necessarily subject to diminishing returns.
For example, one can look at these photos in many different ways:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/income-inequality-los-an...
From such a distance, a trailer like the one I was born in does not seem much smaller than a mansion. None of this was around in the year 1491. If I had the only building, say, a trailer, in the state of Wyoming, and then someone builds a mansion that I can see, it does NOT necessarily follow that I suffer more. Besides, never forget, growth is always what creates inequality in the first place. Before the seeds sprout, bean plants are of equal height, and it is nigh impossible to keep them equal in height, although with sophisticated bioengineering or grafting techniques it may be possible.
Cognitive processes, possibly exacerbated by the consumption of deleterious media, can induce suffering in humans at any level of wealth; many are brought to deepest anguish because they cannot live forever, they can believe that "reality is broken" because they maladapt their motivation systems to video games (I'm talking about me here), etc.
Income is becoming more and more equal; some people are upset because this is happening across national borders and think they deserve more pay for the same work because of their birthplace, but I think this is ultimately untenable—it is natural that we are in anguish because our cost-of-living is higher, but it is getting harder and harder to starve. Once we have our daily bread, toleration of life is somewhat up to us.
I think the starkest problem with inequality is the often subconscious worry about attracting a mate, even in those with no intention of procreation. Perhaps this downward pressure on birth rates is unavoidable as carrying capacity is met or exceeded.
As for the fear that the economy must grow or collapse, many economies have shrunk before. Surely, I must admit one could define collapse so as to make "The economy must grow or collapse" a true statement.
For example, one can look at these photos in many different ways:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/income-inequality-los-an...
From such a distance, a trailer like the one I was born in does not seem much smaller than a mansion. None of this was around in the year 1491. If I had the only building, say, a trailer, in the state of Wyoming, and then someone builds a mansion that I can see, it does NOT necessarily follow that I suffer more. Besides, never forget, growth is always what creates inequality in the first place. Before the seeds sprout, bean plants are of equal height, and it is nigh impossible to keep them equal in height, although with sophisticated bioengineering or grafting techniques it may be possible.
Cognitive processes, possibly exacerbated by the consumption of deleterious media, can induce suffering in humans at any level of wealth; many are brought to deepest anguish because they cannot live forever, they can believe that "reality is broken" because they maladapt their motivation systems to video games (I'm talking about me here), etc.
Income is becoming more and more equal; some people are upset because this is happening across national borders and think they deserve more pay for the same work because of their birthplace, but I think this is ultimately untenable—it is natural that we are in anguish because our cost-of-living is higher, but it is getting harder and harder to starve. Once we have our daily bread, toleration of life is somewhat up to us.
I think the starkest problem with inequality is the often subconscious worry about attracting a mate, even in those with no intention of procreation. Perhaps this downward pressure on birth rates is unavoidable as carrying capacity is met or exceeded.
As for the fear that the economy must grow or collapse, many economies have shrunk before. Surely, I must admit one could define collapse so as to make "The economy must grow or collapse" a true statement.
Because otherwise debt doesn't make any sense and people hoard cash. Then the general economy slows.
I'm not sure debt makes sense to many people today. A friend of mine was well into at least 5 figures of debt for pre-law and law schooling. He told me he wasn't worried about such a huge debt because he could just declare bankruptcy (this is premeditated theft). I told him that student loan debt isn't allowed to be discharged by bankruptcy. This was news to the legal scholar.
I got into the #1 ranked (by US News and World Report) graduate school in my major. I decided I did not want $180,000 of debt. My parents thought I should go and, in a mistake, I accepted their offer to pay for the first semester so I could try it. The quality of instruction was a bizarre joke. The buildings were beautiful but the equipment students were allowed to access was so out of date as to be useless, so I had to procure my own. Many things that were free or cheaper at cheaper schools were more expensive. One professor flat out told us that he did not read the papers he assigned us to write. As long as we sent him an email with a Word doc attached, we got full credit (and no feedback). What was of very high quality? A few famous professors, but mostly the other students, who had also come because of that advertisement in US News and World Report.
One of my fellow students was heavily involved in the local Occupy group. He is full-on and consciously Cloward-Piven. With no intention of ever paying back his six figures in loans (if he had the money, he might not pay it back because of his principles, and the lack of sufficiently fearsome use of force) he lives off of taxpayer money and channels it into activism against the interests of those taxpayers forced to let him suckle. What's was his real, stated, conscious plan for dealing with his student loan debt? To get Elizabeth Warren elected president. He believed she would discharge it all in a Ecclesiazusaen jubilee and thereby further fuck over people like me who were price responsive and avoided debt, attending less prestigious institutions that already have to deal with unmerited and statistically documented discrimination. I don't know what he's doing now that Warren isn't running. Probably supporting Sanders. And probably supporting loan forgiveness, but also, simultaneously, and outrageously, continuing to support these loan programs because it redistributes wealth to his favorites.
His university program provided no information about student outcomes in terms of employment or income. If the school even cared to gather the information, it was kept secret.
My parents' retirement plan is to never retire. They had some savings, but, after the stock market crash, the Affordable Care Act has tripled the cost of their insurance. I am worried about ever getting a job with the Masters in CS I am pursuing at a school I can afford with savings from the three years I worked after leaving that disaster of a school after the single semester trial. I am so worried about helping my parents, who have paid for other peoples' kids to go to more prestigious schools even as the government seems to be taking no steps against school prestige discrimination.
Sorry for blabbering on.
I got into the #1 ranked (by US News and World Report) graduate school in my major. I decided I did not want $180,000 of debt. My parents thought I should go and, in a mistake, I accepted their offer to pay for the first semester so I could try it. The quality of instruction was a bizarre joke. The buildings were beautiful but the equipment students were allowed to access was so out of date as to be useless, so I had to procure my own. Many things that were free or cheaper at cheaper schools were more expensive. One professor flat out told us that he did not read the papers he assigned us to write. As long as we sent him an email with a Word doc attached, we got full credit (and no feedback). What was of very high quality? A few famous professors, but mostly the other students, who had also come because of that advertisement in US News and World Report.
One of my fellow students was heavily involved in the local Occupy group. He is full-on and consciously Cloward-Piven. With no intention of ever paying back his six figures in loans (if he had the money, he might not pay it back because of his principles, and the lack of sufficiently fearsome use of force) he lives off of taxpayer money and channels it into activism against the interests of those taxpayers forced to let him suckle. What's was his real, stated, conscious plan for dealing with his student loan debt? To get Elizabeth Warren elected president. He believed she would discharge it all in a Ecclesiazusaen jubilee and thereby further fuck over people like me who were price responsive and avoided debt, attending less prestigious institutions that already have to deal with unmerited and statistically documented discrimination. I don't know what he's doing now that Warren isn't running. Probably supporting Sanders. And probably supporting loan forgiveness, but also, simultaneously, and outrageously, continuing to support these loan programs because it redistributes wealth to his favorites.
His university program provided no information about student outcomes in terms of employment or income. If the school even cared to gather the information, it was kept secret.
My parents' retirement plan is to never retire. They had some savings, but, after the stock market crash, the Affordable Care Act has tripled the cost of their insurance. I am worried about ever getting a job with the Masters in CS I am pursuing at a school I can afford with savings from the three years I worked after leaving that disaster of a school after the single semester trial. I am so worried about helping my parents, who have paid for other peoples' kids to go to more prestigious schools even as the government seems to be taking no steps against school prestige discrimination.
Sorry for blabbering on.
cenal(1)
But we have good unemployment numbers right? I cant help but think that right now might not be the best time to expect everything to line up perfectly.
>best time to expect everything to line up perfectly
When is, if not today. Certainly not... tomorrow.
When is, if not today. Certainly not... tomorrow.
I think it is as simple as... we used to make stuff & the economy was great. Then the rest of the world made stuff. And there are way more of them living with way less money. So the balance shifted & now they make stuff. We don't make anything. Which was nice for a while, but after a while, if you aren't making stuff then you aren't getting paid.
We make more stuff than ever before.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/INDPRO/
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IPMAN
The rest of the world also makes more stuff than ever before, which just means that we all have more stuff.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/INDPRO/
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IPMAN
The rest of the world also makes more stuff than ever before, which just means that we all have more stuff.
You do realize you can't buy food or housing with "stuff" that is cheaper or more advanced than it was 10-20 years ago, right?
Food production is up, and our waistlines indicate consumption is as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security#/media/File:Food...
House sizes have also been increasing, even as # of people living in a house has been dropping.
https://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf
We simply have more of everything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security#/media/File:Food...
House sizes have also been increasing, even as # of people living in a house has been dropping.
https://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf
We simply have more of everything.
So then why is food and housing more expensive than it was 20 years ago?
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=8l2
https://us.spindices.com/indices/real-estate/sp-case-shiller...
I'm not saying there isn't "more of everything", I'm saying there is less to pay for the most important everthings.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=8l2
https://us.spindices.com/indices/real-estate/sp-case-shiller...
I'm not saying there isn't "more of everything", I'm saying there is less to pay for the most important everthings.
Wages have increased more rapidly than food CPI.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1yYT
Case-Shiller is an investment index, not a consumption one. You might as well say "look, S&P has gone up, everything is more expensive!"
In fact, wages have increased relative to the cost of housing (i.e., rent or owner equivalent rent) also.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1yYW
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1yYT
Case-Shiller is an investment index, not a consumption one. You might as well say "look, S&P has gone up, everything is more expensive!"
In fact, wages have increased relative to the cost of housing (i.e., rent or owner equivalent rent) also.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1yYW
I enjoyed this video in which Yanis Varoufakis explains some geopolitical macro economics during the post WWII and cold war era, why the crash/recovery of 2008 is mutating into different forms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEUWxNifJJ8
The U.S. had to be very creative in order maintain power when they no longer had any economic surpluses (surpluses which greatly diminished from wars like Vietnam).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEUWxNifJJ8
The U.S. had to be very creative in order maintain power when they no longer had any economic surpluses (surpluses which greatly diminished from wars like Vietnam).
If that were true then you'd expect GDP to lag as well, which it isn't. It's not that more wealth isn't being created by the nation, it's that the wealth that is being created is mostly being hoarded by capitalists.
And interestingly the capitalists in question appear to be homeowners:
http://www.newgeography.com/content/004888-pikettys-wealth-d...
http://www.newgeography.com/content/004888-pikettys-wealth-d...
Laughable. Any reasonably intelligent person who makes this claim is either willfully ignorant or dissembling for political reasons. The population employment ratio is below 60%:
http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_...
The labor market is not tight and hasn't been this over-supplied since the early 80s.