True or False? Inflation devalues wages.

Median new house price:
1963 $18,000
2010: $$221,800
Increase: 1,132%
http://www.census.gov/const/uspriceann.pdf

Median family income:
1963: 6,249
2010: 60,236
Increase: 863%.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/families/2011/F06AR_2011.xls

Relative increase in new housing prices to median family income: 28%

New housing prices in 2010 were relatively 28% higher in 2010 than 1963. But the houses are much more substantial as well.

 

True, my parents were the exception, they didn't drink, smoke, or do drugs so they had money for the things they needed. And YES, Iri, most of my friends back then had parents that did both. The kid across the street had a father that worked in the same saw mill as mine and the kid slept on a pile of dirty blankets in a corner on the floor. In the middle of their living room floor was a hole about 3 ft. X 4 ft. burned all the way through. His clothing was never clean and always ragged and his father drank like a fish. As with today, it's what a person's priorities are that determine what you have or don't have. It's also determined by what you do with your time after work and how ambitious you are. Dad took part of that big barn and turned it into a body shop and worked in it after he got home from working in the saw mill. And before you get carried away, I have worked as many as 3 jobs a week but still could never afford anything like they had.

- - - Updated - - -

Now, go back to 1956. 1963 is the year I got married. By the way, in this area I could have bought a new house in 1965 for $8,995. A real nice one ran $12,995.

 

What did your father make in 1956?? And in what part of the country did you live?? We lived in southwestern Oregon at the time.

 

what a joke, you're projecting your own state of mind

 

Of course it does, and this is why our wages have actually been stagnant for over 40 years, and just the 10 years we are so often told!

 

And this is because the consumer pricing index became about things you can buy at Wal-mart, instead of the things you need to live, like HC, education, food, housing, fuel......you know the things most Americans spend 100% of their pay checks on these days!

 

Do you guys just make up whatever you want?

 

Wal-Mart had almost $450 billion in revenue in 2012. So apparently people don't spend 100% of their pay checks on the things you mentioned. And it's funny you mention housing since that is one of the primary reasons for the low inflation. This is a great testament to Republican logic though. Apparently, everybody in the country spends 100% of their money on food and gas. Two things that are controlled by global demand and fluctuate widely by external factors outside of USD inflation. You guys just make up whatever you want... it's amazing to watch!

 

And where does it say "adjusted for inflation"?

Also, why should anyone listen to you, after you have proven by posting this out of context information that you don't understand the issue?

Just like most of our issues today though, this comes down to accounting fraud, in the way inflation is figured!

 

You should address the thread topic before you start posing questions. It's a simple "true or false" choice.

 

Nice spinning their sweetheart. I always liked spinners.

Simple question, did what they count for purchasing power change from 1970-2010?

Spin away, little spinner!

Next your going to tell me how we count GDP has any actual bearing on the health of our economy, LMAO!!!

 

Even if wages were increasing, the wage earner would still be better off in the absence of inflation. For example, an individual who got a 2% raise during a corresponding period of 0% inflation would have a net gain of 2% in their wage's purchasing power; however, during a period of 1% inflation, the wage earner would only net 1%, even though they increased their purchasing power. Inflation devalues your dollars no matter how quickly you are accumulating them. You can outpace inflation but inflation is making you worse off than you would be otherwise in terms of what you could have purchased.

 

You didn't specify real wages. And it's actually been pretty consistent with inflation throughout.



- - - Updated - - -

How is that spin. It's basic logic. And GDP does have a bearing on the health of our economy. It measures the amount of dollars that exchanged hands for new goods and services each year. Let me guess you do your own measurements of the health of our economy? Lol!

 

You fail to associate rising wages with inflation. Of course anyone would be better off if they increased their wages with out any inflation. The question then becomes why would wages increase with out inflation?

So to assume you would be making the same amount of money over a period of time with out inflation is ridiculous. But you are ridiculous, so it makes sense.

 

Why don't you post the Lehman Brothers asset sheets from 2007 while your at it?

Oh wait, you mean I keep talking about accounting integrity, and what is being counted in those numbers, and you keep on acting like a dog that just heard a whistle:

No, I can just look at the way we count GDP, and how it has been changed over the years, and know it is complete BS, and that we have no way of gauging actual economic growth!

 

So you just make up whatever numbers you want to believe to fit your failed ideology?

What has changed that makes it BS. You can pretty much pick anything in this world and America most likely is the #1 or #2 producer/consumer of it in the world. We are robust and we consume and produce more than any other country in the world. GDP seems pretty accurate if you ask me. But I guess you are in the business of making up your own numbers. Must be fun!

 

LOL, you do realize that you out yourself with statements like this.

No one here believes that even you are stupid enough to reason that, because I don't trust the numbers you are providing, that this means I must make up my own.

What exactly is it you fear about accountability and transparency?

 

Ummm, when living wages fail to keep up with inflation , its harder to purchase goods and services, because commodities are worth more than the currency. So if you sale goods, less people will be able to purchase your products, or less of your products will be sold.

As you'll notice, wages have either stagnated or even worse decreased, since the the collapse of the housing market, and yet prices for goods have been on the increase. And, you have massive spending and the devaluation of our dollar to think. Most people see the connection, all except for the retard denialist, who trolls these threads screaming about how massive spending is the cure all, and inflation doesn't matter at all. Couch couch..... akp dip(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

These are mind games that people with failed ideologies play. They dismiss any data they don't like, they come up with all kinds of retarded philosophical questions, and they just make up whatever they want on the fly to push their retarded beliefs. Unfortunately, I don't really care about your opinion on things. Show me data, show me facts. And another problem for you is the data proves that America is robust and we produce and consume more than any nation in the history of mankind. So maybe you have had bad luck in America, but you would be part of the minority.

 

I've shown you we don't have any data, you have the illusion of thinking you know something!

 

So no data... just your thoughts? Yea, I've pretty much known that all along. It's kind of hard to make a case against America's robustness with out diving in to some crazy philosophical bullchit. You can pretty much pick anything from airports, movies, makeup, oil, or even legos and it's pretty much a guarantee that America produces or consumes the most of those in the world.

 

That's because there is no way to demonstrate the association is causal. The hypothesis "inflation causes wages to increase" is not testable or falsifiable.

 

OK, the lone dissenter, akphidelt, says if wages increase year to year, keeping up with inflation, then wages are not devalued. OK, for the moment, let's grant the assumption that they do (I know they really don't, but whatever). The OP still holds true because it devalues WAGES ALREADY EARNED. Even if the new wages catch back up to the inflation (temporarily), the money you earned last year has been devalued. So if you try to save any money, you know, for a rainy day when you have unexpected expenses or wages DON'T rise with inflation, those savings are siphoned away. The inflation devaluation doesn't just happen at the moment the wages are earned, it keeps happening. So the OP is true no matter how you look at it.

 

It doesn't need to be testable or falsifiable to come to a logical conclusion that increases in cost such as labor (wages) would cause an increase in prices (inflation) or an increase in prices (inflation) could lead to an increase in the demand for labor causing an increase in wages. The only thing you need to understand that is common sense.

 

There you go again with "could". Now let's talk REALITY. Inflation is up, wages are down. Everyone with half a brain knows that. Please, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point, though admittedly also providing some decent entertainment as we watch you swirling around the drain.