Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dfrey 703 days ago
They have given us fuck all for raises during a period of rampant inflation and now they want to take away the one good thing that covid-19 did for workers.
3 comments

I'm not sure if you got the memo, but you need to jump jobs if you want more money. This goes triple if you're not a top 5% worker.

BLS has been tracking this number and it has skyrocketed in the last generation (Number of Jobs Held in a Lifetime): https://www.bls.gov/nls/questions-and-answers.htm

I must be missing something.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsoy.pdf ("young baby boomers" age 18-56, years 1978-2020)

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsyth.pdf ("older millenials" age 18-36, years 1998-2021)

The "Chart 1" in both of those seems to be almost the same logarithm and the 18-56 "baby boomer" chart at age 36 appears to be roughly the same number of jobs. It might even be slightly higher in the baby boomer chart at age 36.

A period of rampant corporate profits
Never forget this - if this were "real" inflation and not corporate fuckery then their profits would be down.
In a real inflation, why would profits be down? If the company has any pricing power, they just increase the price. In fact, the definition of inflation is prices increases.
If it is just corporate profits the state and county sure piled on by increasing my property taxes 40% over the past 3 years. That's an extra $300 a month for me which is more than my car payment.

edit: changed country to county

Did the value of your property also increase over that time period?
So the assessor says. But what does that have to do with how much tax reveneue the local government needs to operate?
yeah, almost entirely due to inflation, it isn't like I improved my home.
Median incomes have outpaced inflation over the last several years.

https://www.axios.com/2024/02/05/wages-outpacing-inflation

And at the same time people struggle to pay rent. Official inflation numbers doesn't correlate how 'median' earner spends its salary.
The rent-strugglers have the loudest voices... (and they're not "wrong" just skewing the media)
lies, damn lies, and statistics.

It's an oft-mentioned point in the last few yearss to focus on raw income and not on spending power. if you get 50% more pay but rent doubles, the vast majority of people would have less spending power. same with job numbers. "Unemployment is historically low!". meanwhile, gig and part time worked soard while full time jobs dipped.

In addition, you look further and realize how people who "gave up" after 2-3 months without an interview are not counted as "unemployed" and you realize there's a lot to break down, that no one is breaking down

Indeed it's complicated, but BLS does count them as "discouraged":

https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/persons-not-...

https://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#discouraged

BLS may not be perfect but they're not idiots and it's wildly better than other countries.

Does the median earner when considering the entire country struggle to pay rent? Or is it just the median earner in certain extremely expensive metro areas that happen to get a lot of focus in the media because that's where the journalists live?

The numbers OP cites can be 100% accurate and reflective of reality while it is still also true that people in the Bay Area struggle to pay for housing.

There is every chance that income is a multi-modal distribution, and thus one should not talk of a single median.

However, the person to whom I was replying used cheap and not-so-cheerful language to suggest that it was possible to talk about this en masse. Assuming that to be reasonable, I replied with an en masse response.

Certainly if you break it down at the county level, I expect you'd find multiple different patterns, and would then be faced with which ones to call "typical" or "indicative".

Housing costs are not included in measures of inflation.

While they have gone up (almost certainly faster than inflation), they are not part of the inflation numbers that we hear in the news.

> Housing costs are not included in measures of inflation

Yes, they are [1][2].

[1] https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/methodologies/RIPfac...

[2] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-does-the-consumer-pri...

My apologies, home ownership costs are not included in inflation measures. But I was wrong and you're correct: rents are.

Which actually makes my point even more clearly: yes, there are a lot of anecdotes about not being able to make the rent, but these are not supported by the statistics for inflation and median income. Doesn't mean that they are wrong, but makes it more likely that there are other reasons for the proliferation of these stories.

> home ownership costs are not included in inflation measures

They are, as one of the inputs to imputed rent for owner-occupied housing.

> lot of anecdotes about not being able to make the rent

A lot is explained by regional variation. For example, real mean wages in San Francisco are back where they were in 2017 [1].

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MWACL06075

I don't love the game of "someone posted a random article with some numbers that they found from a 5 minute Google search, but now I have to do the much harder & longer work of verifying if it's legitimate or misleading"
Since HN doesn't allow pasting images into comments (good!), I did not paste the numerous charts from the St. Louis Fed and others that I have bookmarked to show this data in various different ways. Also, the FRED numbers only go to 2022 in their data plotter, which is a problem if you want newer data (it exists).

What would prefer me to do? Post a dozen links that all the same thing, arguably less obviously?

I have not seen a single one yet that shows a decline in real wages.

No, wages have been falling since 2021 when accounting for inflation.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/inflation-has-outpaced-wage-gro...

Maybe this isn't that Axios journalist's field, but that huge spike of 9.1% annual inflation in 2022 won't be made up for by a 1% difference in 2024. Showing only the current rate and not the cumulative effects seems disingenuous.

> Maybe that Axios journalist isn't the smartest

You're both right. Real wages are down from the pandemic, but that's because they spiked massively due to the stimulus spending [1]. Real wages today are where they were in Q1 2020, which was the highest they had been since at least 1982.

Both the Axios and Journal charts are confusing because they're taking the first derivative of a complex curve.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

Thanks for posting that graph. When I went to FRED to get it, i only got a data series to 2022. I consider this be the most definitive measure that I've seen yet.
Tangent:

How do you navigate Fred effectively? I can usually find something close to what I want, but not exact through Google searches of the site.

> How do you navigate Fred effectively?

Kagi :P. I know the names of most of these data series, so it’s searching e.g. real weekly earnings fed fred.

thanks!