mozz

I edited it to add a correction. I shouldn't fib for the sake of making a more entertaining link to the posting, maybe.

Yeah. I was telling a fib for comedic effect. Semmelweis is actually a lot more impressive, to me, because he was able to deduce that something important was going on and what the solution was, without having any idea what the mechanism might be, simply from observing and following the data. He didn't need to know the details to know it was a problem; he just trusted the evidence without needing to have a narrative built up in his head to attach it to.

Also, once he realized it was killing people, he wouldn't shut up about it until they literally had to kill him to make him stop. That puts him over the line from good scientist to hero, to me.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

I feel like we've been over this at this point

1. There are quite a lot of countries where the poorest 10% are fucked. The US isn't unique in that respect
2. A lot of countries are struggling to hold their heads above water at all, after the Covid apocalypse; the fact that by almost any metric you want to choose, the US is actually gaining right now puts it in an enviable position given what happened
3. The fact that the average worker, and the poorest 10% worker, are both making gains of significant size when usually they are the first ones to get fucked even harder when times are tough, is notable, and "we haven't fixed things for them yet or even close to it" doesn't negate that

Pick any or all

Yeah that's me, Mr. Deceptive, over here explaining what the cumulative wage growth is, and the cumulative inflation, so that people can compare the two and see which one is higher

I actually originally cited the source which simply said that inflation-adjusted wages had grown by 12%, incorporating both into a single number, but that led to a certain amount of confusion, so I separated it out into the two relevant numbers

You know, like a terribly deceptive person would do

(And yes, the poorest 10% of this country is still fucked and needs quite a lot of help. My point was not that they're doing okay now, it was that they have seen substantial gains relative to where they were, which is a notable thing, and that we should keep doing the things that got them going in the right direction for once in God knows how long.)

Yeah that's me, Mr. Dishonest, over here explaining what the cumulative wage growth is, and the cumulative inflation, so that people can compare the two and see which one is higher

I actually originally cited the source which simply said that inflation-adjusted wages had grown by 12%, incorporating both into a single number, but that led to a certain amount of confusion, so I separated it out into the two relevant numbers

You know, like a terribly dishonest person would do

(And yes, the poorest 10% of this country is still fucked and needs quite a lot of help. My point was not that they're doing okay now, it was that they have seen substantial gains relative to where they were, which is a notable thing, and that we should keep doing the things that got them going in the right direction for once in God knows how long.)

Yeah, I definitely don't know why I've spent so much time on this 🥲

This is like trying to explain to a drunk person why they can't drive home

Stock market

Who the fuck said anything about the stock market

The article talks about "growth" which is presumably GDP, which is a bullshit metric absolutely, but the overall context is:

The growth rate is high, the unemployment rate is at historic lows, household wealth is surging, and wages are rising faster than costs, especially for the working class. There are many ways to define a good economy. America is in tremendous shape according to just about any of them.

The stock market is based on total crap and can swing up or down by like tens of percents on a whim for literally no reason at all. The only reason stock market even got mentioned tangentially was because Trump said something about the stock market, and they mentioned that at the end of the article.

IDK why I've spent so much time on this. Honestly man it seems like you're literally just saying anything, casting about for some thing you can poo poo or disagree with that has nothing to do with what I or the article are saying.

You brought 20% cumulative inflation into it, which is perfectly fair to do of course. But then, after that, I brought in 35% cumulative current-dollar wage growth, because for me to say 12% might sort of invite a comparison between the 20% and the 12%.

Okay, so now you are agreeing with 35% cumulative current-dollar wage growth, right? It sounds like. Nailing down individual facts with you is a little bit arduous it seems like. I'm honestly just gonna completely leave aside what you seemed like you were saying about the 12%, and how much of what happened is Biden's doing versus not, just to keep things simple.

Okay, so. You're agreeing now (right?) with 35% or 32% or whatever, just saying it was dishonest without context. So. Have I understood that correctly? And if so, what did you mean when you said:

Too bad prices are up 20% on average since 2020, and aren't coming back down. That the 2023-2024 inflation rate is only 3% doesn't matter when wages never caught up with the giant price jumps from the pandemic.

To me, low-income wages caught up and blew past the giant price jumps from the pandemic (although, yes, the lowest income segment of American society is still way too big and still needs a ton of help; on that we agree). Median wages have kept pace within a couple of percent. Average wages have kept pace with and exceeded the giant price jumps from the pandemic. So, what did you mean by this? Like what are the numbers and metrics for the part that "never caught up"?

I am sorry to seem like I'm hammering on this one point, but me just starting to talk about how this one statement was inaccurate led to this whole extensive argument and multi message sustained bickering and all sorts of new topics and arguments, but that wasn't me that did all that. I was just saying, no, that one statement is just factually not accurate, and it seems like we're just now getting back around to where we can factually talk about it.

Boy do I have some good news for you

The nation’s unemployment rate has sat below 4 percent for more than two years now, the longest such streak since the 1960s. With labor markets persistently tight, low-income workers have finally secured some leverage over their employers, and wage inequality has fallen as a result.

Dude if you have a disagreement with the article, let's have it. You tried to disagree with it in economic terms and it seems to me like you got tripped up on basic understanding of inflation-adjusted dollars versus non-inflation-adjusted dollars, which is why you're recasting the whole thing in emotional terms like "not some kind of economic saviour," but this new framing doesn't leave a lot to actually discuss. It just takes it into the realm of bickering and fact free opinion judgements.

The majority of people in the country believe that Trump is better on the economy than Biden, even though Trump is a fuckin trade war starting PPP fraud factory closing disaster. The idea that Biden is hurting the economy is not just un-heard-of, it is a majority view, which makes worthwhile a factual discussion of whether or not it is true.

The last article I posted before this morning that dealt with Biden in any capacity was almost a month ago. The thing about me posting article after article you are literally just making up. Comments, I post a lot of.

The article is a little bit explicitly "rah-rah Biden," I'll grant you that. On the other hand, if it's true, then that's legit, and I haven't really seen anything to illustrate that it might not be true other than a pretty large amount of obfuscation in the comments arguing other points that have more convenient answers (like "are low income workers doing okay yet" which they are not).

I am pointing out that, as far as I can tell, you made a fundamental error of confusing inflation-adjusted wages for non-inflation-adjusted wages, leading your entire point to be backwards from what your own source was claiming. And so I asked you what's up with that, and if you want to explain, or if I have misunderstood anything.

You choosing not to explain (but instead abandon the details completely and insult the whole concept of doing math to demonstrate or understand something) pretty much provides the answer, to me. But sure! Keep going about how I'm just spouting propaganda that doesn't match the factual reality. The more that you can take it into the realm of us just being hostile and condescending to each other, I think, the further away from "hey let's look at the facts and what's actually going on," and the better for you (and that tactic is working to a certain extent, I think.)

Saying low income workers in America don't make a living wage, and that it's not a healthy economy or society, I'll 100% agree with. Pretty sure I made that clear already, but if I did not, there it is again.