Evidence for Abundance

Post by ianai » Wed, Jun 29, 2016, 6:38 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #10

smac8 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> while wages for the poorest have stagnated. But that means the percent of disposable income spent on food by the poorest might not be falling at all No, that's not true at all. If wages are stagnant and goods are getting cheaper, then you are getting richer. I see this "stagnant wages" meme brought up all the time, but I don't see why nobody ever talks about cost of goods. Ex: Even the poorest today in the US can a…

> If wages are stagnant and goods are getting cheaper, then you are getting richer. I see this "stagnant wages" meme brought up all the time, but I don't see why nobody ever talks about cost of goods. Because the wages are stagnant in real (that is, inflation-adjusted) terms, which means that the cost of goods is already considered .

Post by woodandsteel » Wed, Jun 29, 2016, 8:19 PM UTC

smac8 wrote: post #9

bazzargh wrote: post #7

One of the graphs struck me as odd - percent of per capita disposable income spent on food, falling. The problem with that is inequality - it's been widely discussed that most of the gains of the last decade have been made by the richest, while wages for the poorest have stagnated. But that means the percent of disposable income spent on food by the poorest might not be falling at all? It turns out USADA do have that…

> while wages for the poorest have stagnated. But that means the percent of disposable income spent on food by the poorest might not be falling at all No, that's not true at all. If wages are stagnant and goods are getting cheaper, then you are getting richer. I see this "stagnant wages" meme brought up all the time, but I don't see why nobody ever talks about cost of goods. Ex: Even the poorest today in the US can a…