this post was submitted on 01 May 2025
676 points (96.7% liked)

Today I Learned

21679 readers
941 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day 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."

[–] Noodle07@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But I already have depression ?

[–] eronth@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You get to enjoy two kinds at once. Don't let them breed into more depression offshoots.

[–] Noodle07@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Yay the double D !

[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 125 points 3 days ago (6 children)

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.

[–] Lexam@lemmy.world 67 points 3 days ago (5 children)

I'm reading this to That's Amore.

[–] justhach@lemmy.world 60 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Wheeeeeen youuuuuur
Bank accounts dry
And it makes-a you cry
Thats Recessiooooon

[–] witchybitchy@lemm.ee 20 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

when the world seems on fire
but you're told that it's fine
that's depression

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 26 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Yeah, we've been in a recession since the 70s and never stopped.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

pretty much. sometimes did not seem so since we racked up debt to offset. At one point it was considered unsustainable for a country to function with debt/gdp over 100%

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 days ago

correct.

It seems like you're really close to figuring out why a massive portion of the United States is willing to vote for anything as long as it's not the status quo.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] makyo@lemmy.world 54 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 29 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Do you have the formula for that? I might be up for doing that here on Lemmy locally once a month or so.

[–] ozoned@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago (5 children)

holy shit! Both of you! PLEASE DO THIS! That'd be AMAZING!

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (7 children)

There is a variable called Gross National Income (GNI) corrected for inflation which is likely the variable Wolfers refers to. You can report it, but it will not be very different from GDP corrected for inflation which the media writes about all the time. Essentially production =income except for some small nuances.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 67 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They blame it on women wanting careers and a life outside homemaking.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 13 points 2 days ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 57 points 3 days ago (4 children)

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.

[–] monkeyman69@lemmynsfw.com 21 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I can see the lightbulb over your head lighting up..

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] entwine413@lemm.ee 24 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] Wilco@lemm.ee 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

By doing what? Posting where the CEOs live so people can .... protest. Yea, dox them and/or track movements to organize totally non-violent protests.

Stalk the shit out of them and show up carrying signs. Work in shifts if they come to your area.

[–] TheOctonaut@mander.xyz 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It felt like "shoot them in the streets" was plainly obvious a few months ago but that's harder than an Instagram story.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] yonaz@lemm.ee 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Found this one: https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

I think I have seen similar or parts of that type of data before, but not all of it in one place

[–] frezik@midwest.social 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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 1 points 2 hours 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Propaganda and wedge issues are super effective in a population of adults that peaked in the 8th grade.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago

Oh I know, decades of propaganda and teaching people that ignorance is strength has worked wonders for the fascists.

[–] ultranaut@lemmy.world 28 points 3 days ago (3 children)

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 9 points 2 days ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] idunnololz@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

And what metric is this measured in? Big Macs?

[–] Rednax@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It is a unitless measure, since you divide income (euro) by price of goods and services (euro).

[–] Franklin@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days 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

[–] LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago (3 children)

...that isn't what a recession means. I mean decreasing buying power is concerning but there are lots of times when that can happen when the economy is hot. In fact, a weakening economy can lead to deflation which increases buying power.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

…that isn’t what a recession means. I mean decreasing buying power is concerning but there are lots of times when that can happen when the economy is hot. In fact, a weakening economy can lead to deflation which increases buying power.

You can't say all that and not tell us what you think it is. Also, I think they're talking overall, not the top 10% buying power.

[–] LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Well, the official definition is when GDP contracts for 2 straight quarters (although apparently the fed can fudge that a little bit if the decline is negligible and unemployment goes up, like what happened under Biden)

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] kevin2107@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

oh shit....

load more comments
view more: next ›