Just a moment...
www.americanprogress.org

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
    518·
    28 days 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@sh.itjust.works
      101·
      28 days 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
        71·
        28 days 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
        34·
        28 days 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
          4·
          28 days 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

          • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            23·
            27 days ago

            That’s the whole point of CPI. It flattens a large aspect of capitalism into one magic number. It simplifies things for politicians and pals. But it’s not an objective measurement for meaningful science, especially as used in these types of articles (OP).

        • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          33·
          27 days ago

          It captures the fact that housing is some percentage of people’s expenditures. But the measurement of housing and the percentage of expenditures are both subjective. It’s a choice of measurement not a capturing of some objective “fact”.

    • Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world
      8·
      27 days 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.

      I may be misunderstanding, but doesn’t spending a greater percentage on housing necessitate spending less on other things? Someone who spends 50% of their earnings on shelter has to make more careful budgeting decisions than someone who only spends 30% on shelter. With a smaller portion of income to spend on anything else, people will put off purchases that they can’t afford. Using that proportional difference to claim “it’s a wash” sounds like circular reasoning. At least, it doesn’t seem to account for all the purchases people would have made if they weren’t putting such a high percentage toward this one basic need?