Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 354 posts

Re: Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth

#201

Post by Ray20 »

9rx wrote: post #175
nickpp wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What happens when competition with deeper pockets price dumps you into oblivion? Funny you should ask. There was a famous case from the beginning of the last century where German bromide producers price-dumped it the U.S. in an effort to undermine Dow's efforts in the same direction. The result? They failed miserably. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Chemical_Company > your apologism of capitalists is disgusting F…

> Free market capitalism is the only system proven to work, over and over again. How come nobody practices it, then? In fact, right now the world's biggest economy is doubling down on trade restrictions.

> How come nobody practices it, then?

Under capitalism, the rich are forbidden to rob the poor. Most elites are very unhappy with such ban.

Re: Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth

#202

Post by refurb »

einrealist wrote: post #135

That's the myth of Trickle-down economics in action.

But it’s not.

The error people make all the time is assuming these groups are static and always have the same people in them over time.

They don’t.

A great example were the people in the 0.1% percentile of income. Evil rich people!

Turns out people who end up in that group, only do so for a single year in their entire life.

Things like selling a company or getting a large windfall propels them into the 0.1%, then after that they fall back towards the median.

Same with the lowest income group. People move in and out that group each year.

Re: Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth

#203

Post by refurb »

hellgas00 wrote: post #9

"people earning roughly less than $806 a week — slowed to an annual rate of 3.7 per cent in June, down from a peak of 7.5 per cent in late 2022" With inflation dropping from 9.1% in June 2022 to 2.7% in June 2025, real wages for these low earners are now growing for the first time in years. The Financial Times failure to mention this context makes me question their motives.

It’s how journalism works today.

Do actual research to make sure you understand a topic? Nah!

Come up with a conclusion, then go looking for evidence to support it, cherry picking if needed? Absolutely.

Gotta get those clicks

Re: Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth

#204

Post by iinnPP »

vineyardmike wrote: post #178
dns_snek wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If these reports say that things are better for low income people, why do people living that reality overwhelmingly disagree? Any statistics derived from inflation figures are doomed to be wrong when the inflation data was wrong to begin with. I'm not in the US, but our inflation data was just as wrong as I've heard the US data was. Official numbers were 10% but literally everything went up at least 20%. Everyone I s…

> why do people living that reality overwhelmingly disagree Because a hard life feels harder when prices rise. If you're at the bottom of the wage statistics, even a large increase in salary (eg. 20%) will still leave you struggling day to day, before inflation in your costs. > Official numbers were 10% but literally everything went up at least 20% Inflation numbers consider a wide variety of things. It's probably at…

Ingredients household here. My grocery bill doubled in 7 years without any packages of anything.

Largest increase has been on every fresh food item grown in our many greenhouses. Such as lettuce (increased 200% from ~1 to ~3 for iceberg lettuce) and tomatoes.

I keep a decent memory of pricing at multiple stores and can agree with part of your comment, packaged food got it worse.

Edit: Ontario Canada

Re: Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth

#205

Post by [deleted] »

fzeroracer wrote: post #118
ta20240528 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question - it has a partial answer: minimum wage is to provide a living to a single young person for a shortish period. Not a family. Especially not families with - for other reasons- only one breadwinner. The problems of poverty (to the extent the US even experiences it) are broader than demanding someone make uneconomic decisions with their investors capital.

> Good question - it has a partial answer: minimum wage is to provide a living to a single young person for a shortish period. This is false and not at all the reason why the minimum wage exists. It was created to bust sweatshops. You are making the same argument as the people that were defending sweatshops. It may be the argument proponents make now to argue against raising it, but it was not why it was created. Roo…

[deleted]

Re: Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth

#206

Post by mna_ »

refurb wrote: post #202
einrealist wrote: post #135

That's the myth of Trickle-down economics in action.

But it’s not. The error people make all the time is assuming these groups are static and always have the same people in them over time. They don’t. A great example were the people in the 0.1% percentile of income. Evil rich people! Turns out people who end up in that group, only do so for a single year in their entire life . Things like selling a company or getting a large windfall propels them into the 0.1%, then af…

Someone who inherits a couple million from a dead relative is not in the same league as Bezos who is rich enough to buy entire countries. Bezos is not coming down to the median any time soon. There are different leagues to this game.

Re: Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth

#207

Post by amanaplanacanal »

refurb wrote: post #202
einrealist wrote: post #135

That's the myth of Trickle-down economics in action.

But it’s not. The error people make all the time is assuming these groups are static and always have the same people in them over time. They don’t. A great example were the people in the 0.1% percentile of income. Evil rich people! Turns out people who end up in that group, only do so for a single year in their entire life . Things like selling a company or getting a large windfall propels them into the 0.1%, then af…

I suspect when people think of evil rich people, they are thinking if wealth, not annual income.

Re: Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth

#208

Post by 9rx »

reliabilityguy wrote: post #134
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> absolutely do once the math of tariffs makes your manufacturing abroad not competitive with onshored one If someone bet on e.g. our Japan tariffs three months ago, they lost money. (Nobody did. The types that take Trump at his word on tariffs aren’t making economically significant decisions.)

I do not know why anyone would bet that the executive order defined tariffs would stay. It was and still clear as a day that Trump uses them to force people to the negotiation table. Obviously, negotiated deal may look different. Regardless, tariffs as an instrument have their merit with Trump or without Trump. Strategically, US has to bring manufacturing (and as much of a supply chains) back, there is no way around…

> Strategically, US has to bring manufacturing (and as much of a supply chains) back, there is no way around it.

Strategically, it needed to keep manufacturing. It is too late now. Its labor and capital is already fully deployed towards innovation. Innovation that is now realizing that it is being stifled without a local manufacturing base, granted, but at this point pulling labor and capital away from innovation in order to build a manufacturing base again will only stifle it further as the rest of the world, which is quickly closing the innovation gap, keeps moving forward.

The US cannot afford to see that happen. So, in order to save face, what the tariffs will end up doing is open the doors for foreign capital and labor to flood into the US instead. While that will put factories in eye's view, it does not "bring back manufacturing" or resolve the strategic need. It merely lets what was strategically trying to be defended against inside the house, which is an even worse position.

Re: Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth

#209

Post by sethammons »

reliabilityguy wrote: post #160
gambiting wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Regardless, tariffs as an instrument have their merit with Trump or without Trump. Strategically, US has to bring manufacturing (and as much of a supply chains) back, there is no way around it. Well no. Not really. Not for everything anyway. Some things like electronics - sure, but it's a matter of national security not economy - it doesn't have to make financial sense, it just has to exist so that the country can…

> Well no. Not really. Not for everything anyway. So, you and I are in agreement that for some things it makes sense, right? Both strategically, and economically.

Nearly every economist agrees with targeted and strategic tariffs.

Nearly every economist disagrees with blanket tariffs.

They think this for reasons. Historic ones. Logical ones. Modeled ones. Do some basic research. Talk to an AI. This is not advanced material.

Re: Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth

#210

Post by amanaplanacanal »

reliabilityguy wrote: post #160
gambiting wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Regardless, tariffs as an instrument have their merit with Trump or without Trump. Strategically, US has to bring manufacturing (and as much of a supply chains) back, there is no way around it. Well no. Not really. Not for everything anyway. Some things like electronics - sure, but it's a matter of national security not economy - it doesn't have to make financial sense, it just has to exist so that the country can…

> Well no. Not really. Not for everything anyway. So, you and I are in agreement that for some things it makes sense, right? Both strategically, and economically.

For some things, it might make sense. Across the board tarrifs like this current administration is doing them is just idiocy.
Post reply on HN