[anonymousab]

> but isn't lower wage people getting higher wages a good thing

Their wages did not rise anywhere near commensurate with the increased costs of those goods and services - the same goods and services that those people would be buying

[usaar333]

I don't think that can be true in the Bay. They would have an even higher percent of expenditure to rent, which is flat.

America wide looks at worse flat: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q (ignoring covid years which distort this)

[frmersdog]

What you're doing now is what people are so angry about. Stop, "But the numbers..."ing, humor people's feelings for a moment, and figure out what would need to be done to lift those spirits. Gaslighting is not a good tack.

[usaar333]

I agree that maybe people need their feelings humored, but how is this gaslighting? I'm not denying that there's food inflation or restaurant inflation - I pointed out that it's a narrow way to look at even your own economic position.

Food might be up 30% in biden's term for all I know. And maybe wages are only up 20%. But as long as rent is 0% and asset growth kept track with inflation (it's blown past it), you are still ahead.

I suspect this is just standard human loss aversion at work. I feel this even from my own wife who looks at our economic position worse than me even though it is the same numbers. What's worsened becomes more important than what's improved, even if rationally, it nets out even.

[frmersdog]

>But as long as rent is 0%

My rent was up 30% and it was my largest expense. DoJ has been dragging its heels on punishing the companies that were a part of this gouging-via-algorithmic-price-fixing-and-warehousing, and now that Trump is going to be in office, those lawsuits are likely dead in the water. Very much a "Thanks for nothing, Joe," situation.

In gaslighting, the perpetrator insists on denying the victim's perception of reality, while actually controlling the facet of reality that he denies is altered. In this case, Democrats control the means to alter the economy via leaning on Congress, the Treasury, and the Fed. They manufactured an environment where earners would lose out to the concerns of asset holders (the "soft-landing," rather than a swift and severe FFR rate hike and tightening of Treasury holdings that would have squelched inflation), but insist on telling earners that everything is okay, because the metrics that matter to asset holders are doing well. In carrying water for this line of argument, you're participating in their gaslighting. People aren't doing well, full stop.

[usaar333]

Dems don't control the fed.

A fast rate hike might have caused massive unemployment which would be much worse.

[frmersdog]

They can lean on the Fed, and they did.

A fast hike would have caused pain, but the money printing that we did anyway would have helped mitigate that. Instead, it just went to propping up asset prices. Bank Bailout 2.0; we didn't learn our lesson, and the incumbent party was yet again ousted.