After adjusting for inflation, wages are higher than at any point in U.S. history, and after adjusting for age and sex, the percentage of the population that is employed is around its peak in U.S. history.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Yes, but it’s included in the proportion to which you buy those things. So if you’re spending a lot less on other things, but more on housing, it’s a wash for your overall expenses. The point is that compared with overall expenses, wages went up more.

      • rc__buggy
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I don’t think that’s correct, but I’m no economist.

          • rc__buggy
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 hours ago

            Well something is wrong, because my equals in the 1970s had a higher quality of life than my peers do now. Maybe tradesmen just got left behind because those wages now include people making $150k as entry level programmers, etc.

            • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              It’s describing an average. There are definitely subgroups doing both better and worse

      • rc__buggy
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        OK, so this is how my smooth brain thinks about it:

        Housing is double when adjusted for inflation. Milk is obviously not. I think milk has stayed flat since they started tracking it in the '90s.

        If I paid the same (adjusted for inflation) for my house and paid double (again, adjusted) for milk I would have a lot more money left over at the end of the month. I don’t think CPI takes into account how much milk I drink compared to the one house I need.

        • homura1650@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 hours ago

          CPI does weight items by based on spending patterns (although the details of how to determine this weight are complicated and the main reason there are multiple inflation indecises).

          The 2022 CPI has a 0.178% contribution from the price of milk, and a 45.065% contribution from the price of Housing. Housing itself is subdived into several subcategories. Notably, neither the purchase price of a house nor the typical mortgage are included. Instead, homeowners cost of shelter is covered by “owner’s equivelent rent” which attempts to answer what the owner would be paying if they had to rent the house they are living in.

          https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/relative-importance/2023.htm

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          The market basket approach they use looks at the mix of goods and services people buy. So yes, it captures the fact that housing is more of a typical person’s budget than milk.

          • yes_this_time@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 hours ago

            I did a quick search and couldn’t find an answer.

            I wonder if part of the disconnect is that they are using just a general “dwelling” in CPI. As opposed to price per square foot. That is, is dwelling size shrinking, while costs are growing, this could cause housing costs to be understated in CPI