I swear I had Econ in college, but I don’t remember anyone saying this so succinctly. It’s from a weird place too, but this quote hits home. It’s like population decline, but for money.

It was a truly baffling thing for an American president to say. And University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers explained on MSNBC that things could get very bad as Trump’s scheme becomes reality. Wolfers ntoed that the idea of how much you can afford to buy with your income is called “real income.” And if real income falls, that’s called a recession. Wolfers went on to explain that if things decline as badly as Trump’s example, where someone who bought 30 dolls could only afford to buy two dolls, that’s called a depression.

Video from MSNBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAZxLm6M_V0

  • Hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    TIL every year with a rent increase is a recession. Whenever housing prices increase faster than income that’s a recession. When college tuition goes up faster than incomes that’s a recession.

  • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    “Instead of 30 dolls they’ll have 2. Instead of 2 jobs they’ll have 3. Instead of eating 7 days a week they’ll eat 5. Instead of having roommates in their 20s they’ll have them through their 40s. Instead of inheriting their parents’ house they’ll inherit their parents’ debt.”

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    For decades, ‘middle class’ in America was one income supporting a family of four. In those days, $1 million was considered a vast fortune. Then Reagan got elected. By 1993, when Bush Sr. left office, ‘middle class’ was two incomes to run the home, and $1 million was what a rich guy spent on a party.

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’ve heard that one dozens and dozens of times. They claim that “Women’s Lib” lowered wages. Ask them to show one time that actual wages were cut and they can’t. Doesn’t stop them from repeating it.

        • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          The angle is supply and demand (of labor).

          It’s a damn good thing a bunch of boomers died in Vietnam or it probably would’ve been worse, earlier.

  • Kühlschrank@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    I have had this dream for a while now that the major media networks displayed real income changes next to the Dow and other stock tickers. Just so normal people are reminded of how their money is doing compared to rich people’s money.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      This is a good analysis, but it’s slightly different from OP’s statement.

      Median real wages actually are up since 1979. It became something of a meme post-2008 to say that median wages have been flat since that time. That was true for a few years following the Great Recession, but they caught up and went quite a bit higher. It’s possible the numbers will cycle around to that again, but it’s not where we’re at right now.

      What the graphs in the article are arguing is that wages over that time are much lower than they should be given productivity increases.

      Let’s say you work for one hour making a widget, and you get $1 for that time. Your boss sells the widget for $5 and pockets the difference. Now there’s an increase in productivity, and you can make two widgets in the same hour. You still get paid $1 for that hour, but your boss is selling those two widgets for $10 total now. You’re not getting a raise just because of that productivity increase.

      You might get a raise due to inflation. With 4% inflation, you get to make $1.04/hour, but your boss is now selling those widgets for $5.20 each. This is more or less the story since 1979.

      That difference between productivity and real wages is what’s charted out above. It tells you exactly who the real moochers are in society.

      This all tracks very neatly with a decline in union membership.

      • CainTheLongshot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Does the median income track the boss’s newly increased wages, then?

        It’s something I’ve been thinking about for awhile now. That labor wages are stagnating but because “management” level, and higher, salaries are increasing with productivity, these Median Real Wage statistics are skewed, showing the increase.

        I would have no way of separating out labor wages from the management level wages though, was just curious how it’s calculated.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          It’s all included, but median tends to be less susceptible to a few outliers skewing the numbers. That’s why it’s preferred over averages.

  • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    And if real income falls, that’s called a recession.

    But by that metric, rich people would never experience a recession. If that’s the case, why do we allow them to cause a recession for the rest of us? Madness.

    • entwine413@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s a huge example of the bystander effect. It would only take a handful of people to change the situation.

  • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Unless it’s a Democrat in the White House. Then it’s totally fine! What do you mean you can’t afford food?!! The economy has never been better!!

    /s

    • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Democrat in office: “Who cares you can’t buy food and pay rent? Many people live paycheck to paycheck! The stocks are up, who cares what the plebs have?”

      Republicans in office: “I don’t give two shits about you, the stock must go up.”

      Almost like they have the same goals of “line must go up”. It is baffling how people can ignore various national issues because of the economic system the government props up when their favorite group is in office.

  • ultranaut@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    That isn’t really the definition though. Real income can fall in a recession but it’s not necessarily a recession just because incomes fell. Real income can increase or decrease both during a recession and not during a recession. It’s a lot more complicated than “when your income declines there is a recession”.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The U.S. has been in a recession since Reagan according to the wording right? Housing and such vs wages shows its been in downfall since.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I was a kid in the Reagan years and I can certainly buy shitloads more now than as a young adult. As you say, housing and wages are shit, but I can afford things that were unthinkable back then. For comparison, I was making minimum wage as a 1990 college kid, basically am now at $15/hr.

        I’m probably not making sense, but the goods available to me now are stunning compared to previous decades. And I’m not only talking about compute power, but while we’re there… Dad got me a VIC-20 in the 80s, $1,700 in today’s money. For that much I can outfit a family of four with decent phones and likely pay less monthly than our AT&T bill in the day. And what’s “long distance”?

        My water bill was around $20 in the 90s, still is today. I had all the tools to cut my water, gas and power back on, I was that poor. Even at $15/hr. I can easily pay all that along with my wife’s $17hr. (Always had roommates or live-in girlfriends, same difference.)

        Education and housing prices have exploded, but not so much other stuff. My first ever real shopping trip was $75 (1990), that’s $175 in 2025. $220 is our usual Aldi bill and I’m buying shrimp, chicken, beef, good stuff. Guess I’m saying that consumer goods and services are shitloads cheaper, or were. Give us a few months.

        And as ever, I’m fucked once again on health care. Guess where I live.

        • booly@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Housing, education, and healthcare costs have grown much faster than inflation.

          Food, energy, cars, appliances and home goods, furniture, apparel, and other durable goods have generally grown slower than inflation, at least between 1980 and 2020. Much of the last 5 years of inflation, though have eaten away at some of those gains of the previous 30-40 years in those categories.

          Electronics, technology, entertainment, most services have generally gone down in price.

          So the basket of what we buy is different, with different ratios. A time traveler from the 80’s would be shocked to learn just how many ready made rotisserie chickens or pizzas you could buy for the wage equivalent to one hour of warehouse work, or how many big screen TVs you’d need to pay the average monthly rent for a 1-bedroom apartment. Plane tickets between New York and LA are basically cheaper than one month’s rent in the cheapest possible home you can find in either of those cities. The ratios are all different than before.

          But with housing costs high, it kind of puts all of the effort into that single basket. When it used to be that 1/3 your income could comfortably go into housing costs, now in many cities it’s closer to half, even for people up the income scale, because the rest of life beyond having a roof over your head is just cheaper in comparison to that very basic need for shelter.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          So from 1960-1990 (30 years) prices went from about 60 cents to 1.66 per pound for beef. That’s that’s a 270% increase. The median salary went from 5,600 to 29,900. That’s a 533% increase.

          From 1990-2020 (30 years, lucky we are skipping covids inflation) prices went from 1.66 to 3.18. that’s 191% increase. Wages went from 29,000 in 1990 to 68,000 in 2020. That’s 234% increase.

          So what we see is a wage to consumer goods ratio decrease from 263% to 43%.

          So our economic wealth as a country is managing to increase faster and faster, yet the consumer wealth fell off awhile ago. If you follow the stock market youd see the Dow Jones increased from 2,700 to 30,000 from 1990-2020. So comparably we should see a 1,100% increase, not a 43%.

          Granted none of this matters at the end of the day. The fact is, we are producing a fuck ton of products, and fewer and fewer are reaping the rewards of such day after day.

          If you evaluate accessibility of things after subtracting the baseline requirements to stay alive it gets real sketchy how close many Americans are getting by.

          https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/wholesale-and-retail-prices-for-chicken-beef-and-pork/

          https://www.multpl.com/us-median-income/table/by-year

          https://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-036.pdf

          • booly@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Beef is a bad example. It used to be cheaper than chicken and similar to pork, but the real cost of that land use policy that would allow such grazing in the west, and then the subsidies that make factory farm feedlots possible, wasn’t properly borne by the ranchers themselves. Today’s cost of beef is a better reflection of the true cost of raising that meat, that inefficiently.

            If you do the same analysis with chicken or pork, you’ll find that we can and do afford to eat a lot more of those particular meats than we used to.

            I fully expect beef to go like tuna, and slowly become a luxury item only for the rich within my lifetime. That is more of a trend with beef itself than broader trends in inflation generally.

  • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Economics just redefines terms as needed for the moment. Recession is really a label that can’t really be applied until after you’re in it anyway.

    Inflation has also gotten watered down to be less meaningful once it started being a problem.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Inflation got watered down, what do you mean? It’s just math for inflation. Capitalism uses inflation as a tool to expand the economy but at the end of the day by the definition listed on the post they are just saying if your wage doesn’t increase faster than the inflation your life resources are in recession. That’s at least how I read it. If you can’t buy as much shit as you used to, you’re doing worse. Which happens to individuals without happening to everyone, but if the average person can’t buy as much shit as they could before, then it seems like recession is an adequate term.

    • Franklin@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Entry level codling job, 3.2 - 4.5 Big Macs/hour 17 years of experience in Java, PHP, Rust, Python, Cobol, C#, C++ and Typescript required