[xapata]

> If that is your argument

I wasn't arguing for a particular point, but I do happen to advocate for basic income policies funded by progressive taxes.

> to about 2008

I must have overlooked that you were talking about a longer time period than the pandemic. Most people recently have been discussing the stimulus policies and correlated (not necessarily caused) inflation. There's been a trend of saying they were counter-productive for lower income households, which is not supported by FRED measurements.

[jujugoboom]

> I wasn't arguing for a particular point

From my original comment, my statement you took issue with was

> Instead, we see most wealth going to the richest of Americans, with the lions share of wealth created during the last 2 years of resurgent economic boom going to the top 1% of Americans

which is a very substantiated claim[1]. Your counter argument was that in the same time frame, the bottom 40% have seen real wage gains. My counter to that argument is that while it is true, it still doesn't reflect where most of the money is actually going, and is a disingenuous argument that makes the situations of the lower 50% seem better than it is. I never argued that stimulus policies were bad for lower-income households. Not sure what point you're trying to make to me.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/16/richest-1percent-amassed-alm...

[xapata]

> Not sure what point you're trying to make to me.

I wanted to add nuance to the statement about most wealth going to the top. The last two years have also been great for (some groups of) poorer Americans. Real wages had been going down since the 1970s. Now, up (for some cohorts). Unemployment is down.

The world has detail.

If I had to make a point, I suppose it'd be that summaries can be misleading. But, I'm not interested in engaging in a debate of points and counter-points. There's no judge here, awarding victory and speaker points. I suppose upvotes are tracked, but we've moved off the front page. Not so much traffic to give us a sample.

[jujugoboom]

> If I had to make a point, I suppose it'd be that summaries can be misleading.

Then I guess I have to agree with you, when discussing where wealth went during 2020, and the state of the lower 50% of Americans, it is misleading to only point out that the lower ~50% experienced wage growth without also pointing out that a majority share of overall wealth still went to the 1% and that the real gains have still not caught up with the terrible situation they've been in for years. As for the original point, the claim that the majority of wealth created since 2020 has gone to the 1% is not made any more nuanced by including that real wages have increased for the bottom 50%, as all it does is distract from the actual issues at hand.

[xapata]

> distract from the actual issues at hand.

On the contrary, noticing that real wages increased for the poorest 40% may motivate policies like a universal income / citizen dividend. Perhaps a higher steady state inflation is necessary, 4% instead of 2%, to keep unemployment low and real wages rising for the poorest.

Have you considered what happened to the wealthiest 1% as inflation fears led to increased interest rates? I'm guessing the nominal wealth declines affected the wealthiest most of all. I haven't seen measurements of that, yet, but I have seen some headlines about Musk and Adani.

[jujugoboom]

> On the contrary, noticing that real wages increased for the poorest 40% may motivate policies like a universal income / citizen dividend.

Its an interesting argument but it has already been seen in America where neo-libs and the GOP have shifted most of the blame for inflation to the stimulus checks, so I doubt it.

> Perhaps a higher steady state inflation is necessary, 4% instead of 2%, to keep unemployment low and real wages rising for the poorest.

The only way I could see higher inflation leading to higher wages is worse material conditions leading to more workers fighting for higher wages. Unless there's some weird economics at play, I don't see any other reason why inflation would increase wages, and if that is the reason, I'm not going to support any platform that only works because it increases misery.

> Have you considered what happened to the wealthiest 1% as inflation fears led to increased interest rates?

Yes, they saw a small adjustment in net worth down 7% at the beginning of 2022, although that seems to have flattened out since then, and real wages have only increased since early 2021, when they fell ~1% in Q1 2021. I'm not sure what you'd do with this, because increasing interest rates reduces inflation, which works against your (since you don't like the word argument) idea that we should keep inflation higher.

[xapata]

Nominal wages are a part of inflation, so there's nothing about the inflation rate that inherently changes real wages. If all components of inflation increased uniformly, purchasing power would stay constant. Inflation is only a drag to the extent that it's surprising.

However, there seems to be a relationship between inflation and unemployment. It's been cloudy, but the hypothesis is that low unemployment causes higher inflation. I further conjecture that sustained low unemployment flattens the income curve, leading to higher real wages at the low end.

Regardless, low unemployment is a good thing in its own right.