I mean, if you’re getting richer and richer as time goes and retire at the point where your purchasing power is at the highest it’s even been, then yeah, you’re doing pretty good for yourself.
Central Banks aim for 1 to 3% year on year inflation, if you’re at 3% year on year wage increase then you’re golden, people with a collective agreement don’t have that in most cases!
You plan to bring actual arguments to the table or you’re only able to be sarcastic and when it comes to actually developing a point you just prove that you don’t know shit about fuck?
I’m not the person you replied to, but I’ll take a stab.
@cmbabul stated in GP that they hand out raises for exceptional work of no more than 3% per year.
So, to recap in a piecemeal fashion, we’re talking about:
at best 3% in a year, lower is possible
for what is deemed exceptional, so by no means guaranteed
You saw this and ran with it. While doing so, you changed the premise to:
guaranteed 3%
everyone
every year
On top of that, presumably, because inflation currently exceeds 3% and has well exceeded 3% for almost the last three years, you changed the premise somewhat more into a career’s length timeframe.
The average inflation rate for the last 50 years is 3.8% per year,
Even when looking at a break-even inflation rate for the last 30 years, we’re looking at 2.40%, so we’re talking about a .60% pay increase.
No wonder that this doesn’t impress @bunchofnumbers.
Never mind all that, though. I’m more interested in why you decided to change that premise.
I didn’t change the premise, we’re talking about work so you need to look long term not just over two years. That’s 3%/year if you keep the same job from the beginning of your career to the end of it, that means getting 3% even during the years where inflation is under 2%, which people don’t take into consideration since it the last few years are fresh in their memory and it makes 3% seem like a bad deal.
As I mentioned a guaranteed 3% would be better than most collective agreements. I’ve been under 6 of 7 of them with 3 different major employers and most times when inflation was normal our raises were at 2% or even a bit under that.
We haven’t taken the seniority pay rate increases into consideration either, only the employees at the max step would be at 3%/year max.
My sarcasm implies the point. Your “arguments” are just stating something is good enough because “positive means more better”, while ignoring the complexities of the issue at large. How much is enough? And averaging out inflation over time indefinitely without specifying time intervals is disingenuous. Defining useful time intervals for that which aren’t inherently biased to sway the overall argument is in itself a debate to have. This is all without challenging the assumption that the worker’s value stays the same or increases very slowly over time, so they must be happy with an effective raise.
Seeing as how you don’t care to address the obvious major points that come up in conversations about inflation vs wages in your argument to begin with, and are happy just making hammy assertions, I’m happy to just mock them without putting in too much effort. Why would I let myself fall prey to the bullshit symmetry principle to someone already signaling bad faith with hammy statements?
I mean, if you’re getting richer and richer as time goes and retire at the point where your purchasing power is at the highest it’s even been, then yeah, you’re doing pretty good for yourself.
Central Banks aim for 1 to 3% year on year inflation, if you’re at 3% year on year wage increase then you’re golden, people with a collective agreement don’t have that in most cases!
Oh boy!
You plan to bring actual arguments to the table or you’re only able to be sarcastic and when it comes to actually developing a point you just prove that you don’t know shit about fuck?
I’m not the person you replied to, but I’ll take a stab.
@cmbabul stated in GP that they hand out raises for exceptional work of no more than 3% per year.
So, to recap in a piecemeal fashion, we’re talking about:
You saw this and ran with it. While doing so, you changed the premise to:
On top of that, presumably, because inflation currently exceeds 3% and has well exceeded 3% for almost the last three years, you changed the premise somewhat more into a career’s length timeframe.
The average inflation rate for the last 50 years is 3.8% per year,
Even when looking at a break-even inflation rate for the last 30 years, we’re looking at 2.40%, so we’re talking about a .60% pay increase. No wonder that this doesn’t impress @bunchofnumbers.
Never mind all that, though. I’m more interested in why you decided to change that premise.
I didn’t change the premise, we’re talking about work so you need to look long term not just over two years. That’s 3%/year if you keep the same job from the beginning of your career to the end of it, that means getting 3% even during the years where inflation is under 2%, which people don’t take into consideration since it the last few years are fresh in their memory and it makes 3% seem like a bad deal.
As I mentioned a guaranteed 3% would be better than most collective agreements. I’ve been under 6 of 7 of them with 3 different major employers and most times when inflation was normal our raises were at 2% or even a bit under that.
We haven’t taken the seniority pay rate increases into consideration either, only the employees at the max step would be at 3%/year max.
My sarcasm implies the point. Your “arguments” are just stating something is good enough because “positive means more better”, while ignoring the complexities of the issue at large. How much is enough? And averaging out inflation over time indefinitely without specifying time intervals is disingenuous. Defining useful time intervals for that which aren’t inherently biased to sway the overall argument is in itself a debate to have. This is all without challenging the assumption that the worker’s value stays the same or increases very slowly over time, so they must be happy with an effective raise.
Seeing as how you don’t care to address the obvious major points that come up in conversations about inflation vs wages in your argument to begin with, and are happy just making hammy assertions, I’m happy to just mock them without putting in too much effort. Why would I let myself fall prey to the bullshit symmetry principle to someone already signaling bad faith with hammy statements?