https://equitablegrowth.org/new-data-reveal-how-u-s-economic...
"The past three economic expansions have largely benefitted the top 10 percent. In each, the top decile received between 47 percent and 59 percent of all income growth in the expansion."
Automation, robots, software etc. they are all capital share.
I highly doubt automation and robots are a meaningful factor here, but IP and outsourcing have the exact same as automation.
The fact is capital expenditure from company or investors has bought machinery, compute, pipelines, transport, and massive investment to make those workers more productive for decades. As such, the returns to capital as a share has increased. Those places able to deploy capital to add productivity win over those that don’t.
And real total remuneration across all quintiles has increased significantly. BLS among others has all historical data to check.
If/when there’s a period where there isn’t more gains to be had by more investment per worker, and workers become more productive via their own skill (education, diet, genetic implants,…), then more returns will flow that direction.
This is all well known, and easily checked.
That's both true and false. Yes they need very few people to operate, but building and maintaining still need a lot of people.
This is correct, and it has an impact on local employment and social dynamics, but not at the country level.
> They need fewer people to build and to maintain than older ones did.
That's absolutely not true. Quite the opposite. You do need less people to build and maintain a modern plant than to operate an factory in the past.
Also, you need to clarify what you mean by “older”, because heavy industries have automated steadily between the 50s and the 80s, and that process was mostly achieved by the 90s.
And I can't think of an industry that was still labor intensive by the 20s and that has been more impacted by automation than offshoring.
if you formed a co-op of sorts, with let's say 20 people, starting with no land ownership and hardly any tools, they could try to make a business. Whatever they end up starting would be a fairly low-productivity business- washing windows, janitorial services, lawn service, etc. The more tools and land a co-op has to work with, the more productive they can be. With a few million dollars up-front they could have built a factory instead.
The increased productivity generated can be attributed to the capital share of income.
https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2024/jun/worker-sc...
Outsourcing and automation both reduce worker leverage, which reduces wages, which could explain reduced labor share. I'm not sure how one would weight it all.
There's a return on capital than is not spent on employees. That reflects how much capital is growing and how much can be spent on employees in the future.
Just as are the top executives. And the shareholders that have put money into companies that provide "robots, etc.". All these people, including labor, are stakeholders. If there was 5% GDP growth that got reflected as 5% growth in net earnings for the company, one would expect that all the stakeholders would see roughly a 5% increase in their personal earnings from the company. The dollar amount would be higher for higher earners (5% of $1M is greater than 5% of $50k), but the percentage increase would be roughly in line. The real world results are not even close to this "rising tide lifts all boats" ideal.
In any case, it doesn't follow that wages grow with earnings. Wages have historically been a lagging indicator.
Fair point, though it's not completely clear from the comment.
>Wages have historically been a lagging indicator.
Of course, companies don't know in advance that they're going to have GDP-assisted growth. My point was that growth on the back of GDP growth is a collective windfall, and you'd expect it to be evenly distributed. But it clearly isn't.
All human collective endeavors (with few exceptions) require 3 kinds of human-related input: capital, labor and ideas.
Nobody puts their capital into an endeavor in which the plan is for the that capital to provide renumeration for the labor for more than the shortest possible time (*). The goal is always to generate revenue in sufficient volume to pay for the labor, and when that goal is met, that success is a function of all 3 kinds of contribution.
So no, employee compensation does not come from capital, but from revenue that results from the successful interaction of capital, labor and ideas.
(*) non-profits would be an obvious exception, except that nobody actually talks about investing capital in such organizations, we just make "donations" or "grants". That money plays the same role as capital, however.
Nah, it is just capitalism at work. Winner takes all.
[1] https://www.epi.org/publication/strong-wage-growth-for-low-w...
Saying that billionaires "disproportionately" have more assets than non-billionaires is a tautology that says nothing. You might as well say that tall people have disproportionately more height than people who are not tall. Billionaire is a statement about wealth, not income.
> In fact wage growth for the top decile has been recently slower than bottom deciles
Which is a very good thing, but also doesn't address anything. The bottom deciles live from their wages. The top decile either put most of their wages into assets, are already so wealthy that their wages don't matter, or live in luxury they can't afford.
The macroeconomic purpose of inflation as a tool is to lower the wages of high wage earners - because socially you can't really lower people's wages, at best you can refuse refuse them raises. It's easy to raise the income of lower deciles to offset inflation, either through legislation or safety net. Middle-high wage earners who do nothing under inflation face an effective pay cut.
> The guy who's at the 9.99th percentile is a normal salaried worker not doing better.
He is not normal, he is in the top 10%. His income triples or quadruples a median income. He is of course not doing better than himself, but he is doing better than 90% of other people by definition.
Being able to afford a slightly nicer car or house does not change your class. Being able to influence elections, buy lobbying power, play power games, being in the "in" group of capitalism changes your class.
Oligarchs have always been in their own class.
[1] - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/income-puts-top-10-earners-16...
It means having sufficient liquid capital that you can invest it in uncertain outcomes, generally without fear of poverty or perhaps any real negative effects on one's life at all.
Owning a very expensive home in a very high cost-of-living place (or even in a not-so-high cost-of-living place) does not place a person in that position.
the most accepted way to divide in socialist circles is based off where your income comes from, your relation to capital. if you have to work for someone else thats working class (proletariat), if you can be independent you are professional or middle class, if you own the means of production for others that makes you a capitalist. owning a house is only capital class if you rent it out.
from that pov almost all tech workers are professional or working class. with founder ceos its more complicated because they own capital but also work for themselves through their company so you can take them as either. i guess it depends on if you like that person.
It's also utterly deranged even when you just consider that most tech workers get compensated with stock.
You can get money from both labor and capital. This is called "middle class." Don't let it melt your brain, but don't oversimplify to "you owned a stock so are capital class" either. Just give the labor/capital percentages (ordinary income / capital gains) and note how it leans.
New grad tech worker: 100%/0%
Mid career tech worker: 50%/50%
Late career tech worker: 10%/90%
Retired: 0%/100%
Introducing the fact that it's a spectrum and that equity ownership (which a vast majority of people in this industry have) makes you a capital owner is exactly my correction to that.
And yea, once you start getting actual capital and start reaping the benefits of that wealth you start being identified as a capitalist in the socialist world view.
Edit: the comment I replied to originally had this sentence at the end
> Very typical for a certain type of folk. It's also utterly deranged even when you just consider that most tech workers get compensated with stock.
And how many american middle class+ (generalizing beyond tech workers) don't own equity?
Our 401K match maxes out at $50 per paycheck.
I am in a lower tier of the market than Silicon Valley and after 15 years of making over six figure salary I have not been given a single stock, and none of my employees or members of my social circles that don’t work at FAANGs have either.
Note that around half of the US stock market is passively owned, so this is not a small number on aggregate
Further see: my reply to a sibling in this same thread.
Considering how you ignored the response to you asking
> Eh? Which tech company doesn't give RSUs to fresh grads? Startups of course give options.
I assume you are not here in good faith and just want to argue that all is well and good.
Don’t try and hide behind your second argument when your first point was contested and then act all indignant.
Edit:
Responding to
> Further see: my reply to a sibling in this same thread.
I found your other reply here[1], quoting in case you edit it
> Exactly. The original comment in this thread asked if most tech workers here are part of the capital class themselves. Which was answered by saying that if you're employed by someone else, you are part of the worker class and thus tech workers are part of the worker class. > Introducing the fact that it's a spectrum and that equity ownership (which a vast majority of people in this industry have) makes you a capital owner is exactly my correction to that.
You are still assuming that most tech workers are given stock grants and have equity. I fundamentally disagreed with that.
I do not believe that the vast majority of people in this industry have been given equity.
Don’t try and pretend that I am wrong because I disagree with you. Show your work or be dismissed.
For me personally, I am in the top 10%; but a few decades ago, I was not.
People debate how much social mobility there is in the US, but it seems pretty clear that the trend has been toward less mobility. The founding fathers of the US did not want to replace one aristocracy with another. Obviously there are some who think the change makes sense-- not me.
And when you dig a bit more, you kinda find out this isn't really true?
I mean look at this AI summary of asking "Was Jeff Bezos born into wealth"
> Jeff Bezos was not born into wealth; his mother was a 17-year-old student and his adoptive father was an impoverished Cuban refugee who arrived in the U.S. alone at age 16. However, his maternal grandfather owned a large Texas ranch and later provided roughly $250,000 to help fund the launch of Amazon
Oh so his parents weren't wealthy only his grandparents. That's totally different
You know what my Grandpa gave me? A used car worth about 3 grand. Still amazing, I'm still very grateful to him! But the comparison here is absolutely not in the same league!
And I'm still a fortunate one, because many people get much less than a car from their families
Everyone's life is a mix of skill and luck, so to discredit skill, you would need to quantify the luck. An easy example is a lottery winner, a hard example is a Bezos. Any investor with the foresight to see what Bezos could do with grans money, would jump past her in line and give him triple.
I don't think that really matters? The fact that they even had that shot at all is such an incredible opportunity above people whose family simply cannot afford to even try
There are far far more stories of investors giving nascent broke startups money than families.
US Household Wealth Distribution (Q1 2026, Fed DFA)
Group | Share of US Total Net Worth
------------|-------------------------
Top 0.1% | 14.4%
Top 1% | 31.6%
Top 10% | 67.9%
|
Bottom 90% | 32.1%
Bottom 50% | 2.5%
The top 1% alone holds more than the entire bottom 90% minus the upper-middle segment.
To be in the top 10% you would need roughly 1,8 Million $ in assets (that's probably 90% of HN useerbase)
Basically, the bottom 50% are a slave class that doesn't even participate in the economy.
LE: The richest 20% are the only ones powering the U.S. economy, per Moody's Zandi. K-shaped economy all the way.
While there are many people who are currently in the bottom 50% and will probably stay there; no one is a slave who has to stay there.
My original post (which is somehow unpopular on HN) points this out. I spent my first 30 years in that group and worked my way out of it.
That's like saying not everyone who finds themselves homeless must stay homeless, as if they can just choose to go buy a house.
>I spent my first 30 years in that group and worked my way out of it.
And what did the job market look like over the those 30 years versus today? You probably weren't competing with infinity AI bots at every resume application.
Not here to steal your thunder and deny your individual success story, but the tired "I pulled myself by my bootstraps" doesn't mean anything to the people who are strugling.
not true, labor productivity has been steadily increasing: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB
workers are simply capturing less of the economic value generated by their labor.
- The amount I'm working hasn't increased. Still an 8 hour day.
- My job honestly is easier than it used to be; certainly less menial.
- Strictly speaking, the education requirement is actually lower. It's easier and a lower bar to learn to become a decent designer in AutoCad than to learn to effectively use old drafting tools (even though the formal four year engineering degree still takes four years).
But it's also true that in spite of this, my output is higher. Should I capture the increased output or should the innovators of the tools? What about the firms that invest in procuring these tools and production technology? Should the customers capture the increased output through lower prices? Or should the innovators, firms, and customers all get less, and instead my wages should get bigger?
Those in control will try to capture as much of the return as possible. How much value the worker captures is based on their relative power (ability to move to a higher paying employer, scarcity of skillset, laws such as minimum wage, etc).
In almost all of the cases the "innovators" are themselves workers whose share of the outcome has been dropping. And the "customers" have never gotten a piece of the profits; we are already past the point where reduced prices would have happened (competition) in this system.
And I think that by "firms" you really mean some combination of executives and investors/shareholders. That is where the gains have been centralized. Do you really want to argue that management and investors deserve to have more of the gains? What have they done that makes them so much more valuable than similar groups in bygone days?
I would contend that the accountant should not - it should flow to who bore the cost of the input (capital owners). however, if you starve labor of those gains, it destroys the consumer base that capital relies on to buy its goods and services. therefore, society requires broad wealth distribution to function, which implies some level of redistribution by the state is needed.
This is becoming less and less true, because now consumption is becoming dominated by asset owners, to the point that a good jobs report is bad news because it means the fed are less likely to drop rates and through that inflate asset prices.
absolutely true. I am not convinced that consumption can be wholly fueled by asset owners though.
a saas subscription is (per user) probably cheaper than a lathe, easier to stop investment into (no need to resell to recoup some of the loan, just quit paying). A closet full of unused saas subscriptions is worth even less than a closet full of idle lathes.
And yet, these subscriptions make the knowledge worker even more productive (in dollar amounts) than a lathe operator.
obviously a knowledge worker can just subscribe to claude and start building, but building in a vacuum isn't worth a lot more than the closet of saas subscriptions. It's a mutal dependency, and it's the combined efforts of the team that results in this tremendous value add. I wonder if there isn't something there that is above and beyond the capital input and the risks associated with deploying that capital.
But maybe that's an argument for workers of the world uniting and founding their own companies together
Where the benefits of that end up is one of the most fundamental questions of politics. As you note, there are arguments for it to flow to any combination of several different groups. Deciding how much goes to each group is what politics is all about, in the end.
Consider the taxi or unskilled worker examples here:
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/a-new-look-how...
All to say, as an individual, individuals rationally try to maximize leverage in a negotiation to capture the increased output. But what happens to classes of workers in different jobs varies. My take is that capital appears to be gaining leverage over wages back from many classes of workers, even if some limited classes of expertise are stable or gaining.
Basically it's taking fewer bodies to create more value, and that value creation is so intense that even workers getting "ripped off" feel like they are making bank.
But for this to work, employers have to believe that hiring better workers matters.
You do capture the increased output by benefiting from a society where the cost to build safe buildings has drastically reduced.
Just because you don't get an immediate financial benefit doesn't mean you haven't benefitted from the increased output.
yes
As someone trading labour for a wage should I adjust my productivity to match the tools I’m using? That is to say if I’m using CAD should I bother using the tool to raise my productivity? Or should I just match my old hand drafting productivity rates? Should I attempt to raise my productivity rates with these new tools to meet or exceed the best rates from my coworkers?
What can we do to align my interests with those of my employer?
Please...
> But it's also true that in spite of this, my output is higher. Should I capture the increased output or should the innovators of the tools? What about the firms that invest in procuring these tools and production technology? Should the customers capture the increased output through lower prices? Or should the innovators, firms, and customers all get less, and instead my wages should get bigger?
No, only your boss deserves to gain from you productivity increase, that's obvious.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=tjto
So in terms of how much consumers are making in relation to their expenses, it's been remarkably steady this whole time.
household expenses have been increasing without commensurate wage growth, resulting in lower savings: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT
observation_date OPHNFB_PC1
2000-01-01 2.99256
2001-01-01 2.58092
2002-01-01 4.27146
2003-01-01 3.68422
2004-01-01 2.97991
2005-01-01 2.18582
2006-01-01 0.99665
2007-01-01 1.58927
2008-01-01 1.30737
2009-01-01 4.07061
2010-01-01 3.15513
2011-01-01 -0.02491
2012-01-01 0.93870
2013-01-01 0.59941
2014-01-01 1.00795
2015-01-01 1.27023
2016-01-01 0.61567
2017-01-01 1.49513
2018-01-01 1.40965
2019-01-01 2.13337
2020-01-01 5.30657
2021-01-01 2.06281
2022-01-01 -1.46786
2023-01-01 2.13277
2024-01-01 2.91010
2025-01-01 2.25154
Ford now makes more cars, with fewer people. Sears used to have people who took photos, laid out catalogs, opened envelopes (with checks in them).... Amazon has none of that. We replaced switch board operators, with mechanical, then digital switching. More calls routed, fewer people required. go back 45 years and "draftsmen" was a job - replaced by auto cad.
All these industries have seen massive productivity.
Are the people flipping burgers more productive? Plumbers? Welders? Teachers? Nurses? -- to some extent yes, because of technology but not to the same extent as the previous businesses. Anything that qualifies as "service economy" work has not seen the same gains as Ford (see: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/phenomenal-gains-in-manufactu... )
There's a variant of this, however, in activities that are done essentially by 1 person (as is true for most of the examples you mention in your last paragraph). You can improve their individual productivity - more pipes fixed, more joints welded, more patients well-attended to (*) - but in the end you cannot get rid of the individual doing the work in the way automated manufacturing has.
(*) even with a nurse though, this starts to break down for activities where time is a critical part of whatever is being done. Sometimes caring well for a person is primarily a matter of spending time with them, and this is certainly true for teaching as well. In such cases, you cannot make the person "more productive" no matter what technologies you might provide them with.
It looks like this is another facet of the "bitter medicine" that we're seeing around housing in general.
The first article that I saw pointed out that there is a correlation between productivity and regulation (of construction permitting etc). I would believe that because it has a corollary with "housing starts" (a measure of new construction) and its regional strength in the red/south portion of the country.
My understanding is that "fixed" costs like rent and groceries have gone up and taken more of people's budgets, while wages failed to catch up with this inflation.
If that's the case, it's markedly different from "situation on the ground is unchanged". I don't know how the overall pie is doing, but it has not grown enough to compensate for the labor share drops shown in the article. The slice on my plate is certainly lighter.
I would encourage you to go work with average Americans in average towns. The facts on the ground are stark and eroding.
So, the people you are mentioning making 12-18/hr, are literally below 1 in 4, to less than 1 in 10. These are not “average middle class Americans” except maybe in that higher end. These are low wage earners and are far below “average”.
I mean absolutely nothing normative by this statement, nothing about whether this is good or bad or what we should do policy, socially, whatever. But saying someone making below the 10th percentile is average is like saying someone making $75/hr is average.
But even this feels like it is overstating things. You say folks are one car repair away from being homeless. And there is a lot of polling that shows people would struggle to pay for repairs. But full on homelessness? I can only assume that you are describing towns/cities that offer no transport assistance at all, that lands people into being so dependent on a car. I believe it, but I struggle to think this is literally half the nation.
The reality is that when 40% of your income goes to rent, how many days of work can you miss before you can’t pay rent? If your car breaks down, how many days will your employer tolerate while you try to get it fixed, assuming you have the money to fix it.
You don’t have to believe me, just look up the state on the percentage of Americans living pay check to paycheck.
Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with your given scenario. I actually lost my car when I was younger. Was a rough few months while I got used to commuting without one. And I was lucky to have a roommate that kept my cost of living down.
And I remain a proponent of increasing pay to service providers. As well as finding ways to provide cheaper living conditions. First time home buyer programs are great, but seem unlikely to be relevant for the workers we are talking about? I see the median age of home care nurses in rural areas drifts up to 51-53. Which, granted, I see the median age of first time home buyer is drifting up. I don't think it is as high as those workers, though.
I do think there is a problem here. I just don't think it rises to "half the nation lives in abject poverty."
That is, Henry Ford changed the world because he deployed capital to make workers so productive that they could afford to buy the cars they make.
A person paid to do child care in an organization with overhead, who has to pay taxes, etc. is not productive enough to put their own children in child care. So child care fails to revolutionize the world the way the car did.
I would agree with you that more capitalism would be better but only if you acknowledge that monopolies are not capitalism; they are the logical end and death spiral in unregulated and unmanaged capitalism.
They are the black hole that a dead star collapse into.
They are highly productive but the market doesn't value them. It values the backup forward on a basketball team - an almost completely non-productive job - more than a doctor. It values the owner of a company at $1 trillion, which is obviously absurd.
A $1T founder is rewarded for building a massive system that employs hundreds of thousands of people, moved technological progress forward dramatically, and has positively affected the lives millions.
A doctor provides life-saving care, but they are physically limited to helping one person at a time. A backup NBA forward might not save lives, but their work is broadcast and monetized across millions of screens at once.
Arguing that entertainment is "non-productive" ignores human nature. People gladly pay to be entertained. If sports have no value, do you feel the same way about books, art, and movies?
Probably the highest paid athletes in the world are european soccer players and the thing there is that these salaries can be justified in terms of the value top players bring in a game where being relegated can bring the money train for a team to a halt. You don't see working-class soccer fans complaining about this (they feel the value!) but the owners and many representatives of capital get fuming mad about it.
(Funny, growing up in youth soccer in the US taught me to think of the game as an exercise in Brownian motion where there are too many people on the field who aren't held accountable. It wasn't until I had an argument with a recommender system that couldn't accept that I hated soccer that changed my mind and turned me into one of those sports fans who rolls out of bed Saturday mornings to watch the Premier League that I realized how high the stakes are in the European game.)
Acting is about art, which brings up different issues and value. But looking at broadcast sports, the marginal value of doing that work is still zero: If that person didn't play football, someone else would and the entertainment benefit would be the same (excluding the few extraordinary athletes like Messi).
If there was some accountability those teams would be better or would be playing at a different level or not at all. So I'd argue pro/rel is a net plus because it leads to better play. Personally I watching the New York Red Bulls (Major League Soccer) play in person but overall soccer is the US is not up to international standards.
What blows my mind about soccer in the UK is that interest is so great that they can support two leagues below the Premier League and I know there are leagues below those. When I went to the Cornell/Syracuse game which is a legendary matchup that attracts a lot of youth players in the audience I was just thinking of the depth and width of the pyramid of soccer play from Kindergarten all the way to the world cup which is what makes the soccer universe so compelling. (Kinda wish more of us enjoyed college soccer!)
From a sports perspective, sure, I agree. I've often thought that the only non-competitive position on a sports team is owner. If anyone else, coach or player, performed for one year like the some team owners do for decades, they'd be out of a job. Owners won't agree to losing their jobs (fire the bottom 5%?), but relegation ... but would the other owners want the biggest market, for example, relegated?
But this discussion is about societal value. Whoever wins and loses, every game is net zero in entertainment value (whatever that is worth): 1 win and 1 loss. Every relegation is net zero: one team promoted, one relegated. Every championship: 1 team wins, another finishes 2nd, etc., no matter who it is.
The $1T business owner doesn't provide nearly that much marginal value to society.
The backup (or starting) NBA forward provides zero marginal value - if they didn't do it, someone else would and the outcome for society, entertainment, would be the same. It doesn't matter how well they play basketball; that doesn't make it more entertaining (with a few extraordinary exceptions). People in the US enjoy college sports, where performance is much worse, as much as professional sports. People root for their 'bad' local team as much as a good one: they do prefer winning, but that is a zero sum tradeoff with the other team's fans.
The income for the two examples are the results of economic distortions.
My kids' teachers provide contribute far more than the latter, and far more than they are paid.
Only someone blinded by ideology.
In Capitalism surplus economic value goes to the Capital class, so it seems like it is working as designed.
Why do you assume that Capital class has an ideological loyalty to the capitalist system? If they can get rich without having to compete or do any kind of effort, don't you think they'd prefer that to actually 'working' for the money? Once they've got theirs, do you think they care about what happens after?
Look at the good deal that the UAW has gotten for auto workers in the system, both US car makers and the union are pretty happy right to keep this system in place and shrink in the face of technological change like electrification not to mention abandoning small cars for large cars that are profitable for now.
(Funny how I often I see "good old boys" driving Asian compacts because they can afford Asian compacts, and I see office workers driving big-ass trucks)
There's an extreme selection bias there. If you run an agency that works with low income families you're not going to see a representative sample of the overall population.
Maybe. Unfortunately, what digitaltrees wrote here is ambiguous. It could also be read as this:
Our caregivers serve low income families. Those caregivers, who are our employees, earn $12-18/hr which is above minimum wage. Our employees absolutely struggle. Our employees are the ones using food banks and housing assistance because many are one car repair away from homelessness.
digitaltrees: which interpretation is correct?
I got into this to build software to lower admin expenses and improve operations for an otherwise under served industry. We are making progress and have supported thousands of people in having stable careers. The horror stories I could tell of other agencies exploiting people due to incompetence or malice are shocking.
???
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
Note this is already inflation adjusted, so "housing, food, gas, medical care costs are all increasing" is already accounted for.
The more relevant statistic is that median real wages have only grown by about 29% across 40+ years (~0.6% per year)
Since 2000, medical care costs have risen by 121.3%, hospital services by 275%, college tuition and fees by 196%, compared to consumer goods by 86.1%. Things like TVs and electronics went way down in costs while the essentials have absolutely skyrocketed. The cheap stuff drags the average down.
You need a lot more than a single graph to argue against the quality of life going down for Americans.
Where are you getting household income from? It clearly says "Personal Income"
So the case that quality of life is trending downward is still completely valid and shows why you can't just point at a single graph and say "see? line go up therefore quality of life fine"
Labor force participation rate for both males and females has basically been flat for the past decade, so the recent discontent about "costs are all increasing while wages are stagnant or worse" is still unsupported. Moreover the 1970s was never an era of stay at home moms. Female labor force participation rate was already 45%, against around 78% for male. It also topped out at around 60% (so basically 15% increase, max) with the rate for males dropping.
Median personal income is per individual, which is obvious. After I corrected myself the question then became "did the typical individual's real income keep pace with the cost of the things they can't avoid buying?". The answer is no. And I already showed why.
There is a pretty clear down-trend post-COVID here.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2025-economic-we...
If you put Germans whose lives function in a US-style, even just getting to work will be a huge drag.
Misery depends on the structure of society. Here in Sweden I can walk to work. This means that I'm spending zero money on travel to work, and that my travel to work contributes $0 to Swedish GDP. But this is actually better than if Swedish GDP were higher and I was traveling by car.
This is one way in which GDP can be extremely misleading.
That's you. but nobody In Sweden drives to work?
I see walking to work as an relative to each individual and their job lcoatiopna dn circumstance of where they live, not a country related thing.
For example, ,ost of my jobs in EU that me and my gF had required a car to get to work because companies put their offices out in the boonies to save money so walking was not an option, and neither was public transport.
> But this is actually better than if Swedish GDP were higher and I was traveling by car.
GDP growth "experts" would disagree. It's the reason we don't have mandatory WFH for white collar jobs after Covid proved it's possible and salves the environment
A smaller fraction than in the US. I think most people I know drive.
>I see walking to work as an relative to each individual and their job lcoatiopna dn circumstance of where they live, not a country related thing.
Well, it isn't. It's about how walkable environments are.
>GDP growth "experts" would disagree. It's the reason we don't have mandatory WFH for white collar jobs after Covid proved it's possible and salves the environment
Well, they may disagree, but the whole point is the goal of society isn't GDP, since GDP is easy to game with things like creating situation where people are effectively forced to waste energy, drive to work-- that sort of thing.
Then why are people(westerners mostly) bullying Japan for stagnant GPD growth and refusing mass migration to boost their GDP?
* Median household income in Mississippi: $44,717
* Median wage in Germany: €5,370 per month, equals $73,565.
So even the individual median wage in Germany is more than 50% higher than the median household income in Mississippi.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
But in addition to the raw numbers, you have to keep in mind that they don't account for cost of living and that different countries account for various services differently, especially health care.
I would assume this doesn't account for Germans having different healthcare costs which will aboslutely wreck the average American household with how fucked our system has become.
People watch too many influencers and lose track of reality -it’s not all Beverly Hills and Kardashians and Real Wives of X-town everywhere. That’s fantasyland.
Gentrification has also bought up a lot of the older areas and created what feels like faux poverty aesthetic gated apartments and over priced eateries with random shit sprinkled in like Axe throwing places. (Please someone where did all of these axe throwing places come from)
Things are also different down here because you see a massive loss in land/homes lasting families for generations due to petro-chemical and now data center companies buying up whole towns to bulldoze and built into pollution centers.
I'm seeing a lot more cars with doors, bumpers and windows missing because people just need their scrap heap of a car to continue to get them to work across town. We don't have walkable cities and even homeless people sometimes have cheap bicycles with scrap weedwacker motors bolted on because they can't afford a car or the time to get a license.
Someone else brought up the real truth, a lot of us are living paycheck to paycheck and entirely beholden to how much room we still have on various credit cards to buy food after paying bills. Eternal debt slavery is becoming extremely common.
It's not abject poverty, its just dire circumstances for a huge number of everyday folk.
People want healthcare, they want cheaper housing, they want high quality jobs, they want lower crime. Material outcomes absolutely matter and there is zero evidence to suggest that "high incomes" in the US translate to anything except more blood for corporations to extract.
A lot of the US looks like they're doing great but fits into the category above.
Non-poverty would look like:
* You make enough money to pay for your own food, housing, and transportation in full, with enough buffer for emergencies, without needing to borrow a cent
* You make enough money to be on trajectory to save up to pay for your own food, housing, transportation, and medical expenses in retirement when you are physically unable to serve the workforce
So you're saying I'm in poverty because I couldn't buy my house and my car outright?
> and medical expenses in retirement
You're saying I'm in poverty because I understand and intend to use Medicare?
These are trivially poor definitions.
My definition is if you need to borrow money to put a roof over your head, at the minimum renting, you're in poverty. There are huge chunks of the US population borrowing money to pay for rent.
If your locality doesn't provide adequate public transit, then a car is a necessity, and the onus is now on the locality's economy to make sure everyone can access that; if your locality doesn't pay high enough to afford that car without borrowing money, then yes, you're in poverty. Alternatively, the locality can choose to provide adequate, safe public transit, and the bar of poverty would change.
Most of the US doesn't think this way because they're delusional and have been conditioned to feed the financial system and pay for things with money they don't have.
I think this isn't as unreasonable as it seems to everyone living it. It's like water to the fish.
We are conditioned that everything should be fueled by more and more debt, and your dollars should constantly be devalued so you can't stop grinding.
The little people can never be allowed to just work enough to accumulate what they need and then take it easy.
The best approximation would be the homeless population in the US (about 500k people), but even then most homeless would not even qualify.
"Half" is a gross exaggeration.
I assure you that when your basic housing and nutrition are uncertain and missing even a few days of income will result in cascading effects of hunger and homelessness, the underlying stress is overwhelming.
It doesn’t have to be this way, we don’t let bullies steal all the toys on the playground and destroy the very ecosystem that they want to have fun in, why are we letting capital accumulate in the hands of the most effective capitalists at the risk of destroying the very markets that let them succeed.
I say that as a capitalist, if we lose the system because we allow unchecked Monopoly and wealth concentration, we won’t get it back.
Maybe it feels good to say "actually everyone is a victim of capitalism", but it muddies real necessary work when it comes to determining whether to prioritize how resources need to be allocated between a disabled person living on the streets vs a graduate student who is currently just a little underwater on their credit card payments.
I find it hard to believe that half the US would meet the criteria for any reasonable definition.
Any definition of "abject poverty" that includes a comfortable lifestyle and $12-15k excess income every year is not a serious definition.
Source? All the ones I know of use questionable methodology like: "being able to afford a 2 bedroom apartment at median wage".
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/08/19/more-amer...
I'm asking you the question because a statement like 50% of [population] is making a claim to some notion of what they expect society to look like
you introduced the benchmark "not being able to afford a 2 bedroom apartment at median wage", though I would expect a modern day society that makes any claim to be wealthy to be able to have above 50% of it's population to be able to support something like that as that would indicate they can support a small family
You're saying that's not a good benchmark, so I'm trying to understand:
1) Do you have a different benchmark?
2) Is your key complaint that being unable to own a 2 bedroom house doesn't mean that individual or family is in "abject poverty"? In which case fair, though I would ask what does mean abject poverty for you?
It seems like you're saying 2, but I want to be sure
The exact number is heavily contested[1], so I know better than to provide my own. That said, the official poverty lines are a pretty good place to start, and it's pretty safe to say is that whatever the line for "abject poverty" actually is, "2 bedroom apartment on 1 person income" is pretty far away from that. That claim doesn't require me to provide a specific poverty line.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#M...
Well, that's (at minimum) what you need to raise a family and replace yourself in the labor pool.
Either the Western world allows people the financial and real estate resources to have children in the next 5 years or we're all fucked. The tail end of the boomers enters retirement in 10 years and while millennials can take care of the boomers, eventually we will need to be taken care of, and for that millennials need to have children now as long as we still can.
Economics could as well and the system would still work.
Why is it impossible for Americans to live with 300 sq ft per person like baby boomers did as kids, but now we must live with 600+ sq ft per person?
Because the American suburbia developers want some nice chunky profits. It isn't enough any more to sell glorified matchsticks and cardboard.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2025/demo/p60-28...
The 350 million Americans looking at the top of the US economy and crying need to turn around and take a look at what's behind them.
There are something like 7 billion people behind them, worse off.
https://research.senedd.wales/research-articles/poverty-and-...
Does being poor cause mental health issues, or are mental heath issues a cause of poverty... The answer here clearly better access (read free) to mental heath care, and it wont have the impact one would think (see the UK data).
> Look at other stats like rising infant mortality
You mean the attributions tied directly to maternal complications: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr033.pdf
The thing is we changed how we collect this data, to something that would be considered bad: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/03/13/maternal-mo... - There are tons of criticism on how we collect this data, they are valid, if you dont like this source, find another its a mess of our own creation.
> dropping IQ etc.
The largest root cause is that people spend too much time on their cell phone dumbing themselves down. Think about that one... no one feels the need to elevate themselves, they are happy to spend time on what amounts to leisure. Would you have sympathy for the person who gets fired cause they chose to play 18 holes of golf 5 days a week rather than do their job?
The first article you site contradicts that position.
I would also argue that regardless of the cause, society should provide mechanisms to take care of people. Just like we don’t blame people for crop failures, hurricanes, fires or other catastrophic health issues, and instead have insurance, fire departments, etc. poverty is a consequence of social policies. We should strive to create social policies that have less inequality because they are more stable, safe and consistent with what everyone would want if they didn’t know what role they would occupy.
This is a functionaly unmovable number. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
> you can't afford rent
Because we as a society have drastically changed how we use housing: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/06/more-than-a-q... -- Multi generational housing was a thing. Having roommates was a thing... the premise of "golden girls" would be lost to a modern audience, because cohabitation is dead. The premise of "bosom buddies" would get canceled for its insensitivity, but no one would understand because boarding houses are all but gone.
Building every one in the world an American style house, would cripple the globe. Concrete, Sand, Copper, Wood are going to become massive problems long before we get close to getting the job done.
> Ignore my vacation homes in Aspen, Jackson Hole and Nantucket.
You think that vacation homes are causing the housing crisis? Are eroding wages elsewhere? The industry of these locations is TOURISM, and a fair bit of it is international. (Not Nantucket).
It's not like whaling is going to make a comeback to make Nantucket a viable place to live again.
> Just think about how much better you have it than the people in Haiti and get back to work!"
Plenty of Americans look at musk and say "lets eat the rich" ... the problem is that the rest of the world has those same hungry eyes for us.
> "from people richer than them"
You may want to spend some time reflecting on where that money came from. How much lobbying and market manipulation, employee abuse, bullying, exploitation, wage theft, government (taxpayer-funded) grants and infusions of cash, bribery, corruption, dark patterns, law-breaking were involved, and how much tax avoidance and evasion was involved.
Anyone who believes this has absolutely no concept of what abject poverty looks like.
That is a very common reality.
The range of human experience is longer and broader than being a 20 something single young person
> half of the US is living in poverty
This statement is also false.
> I encourage you to try to live on anywhere from $7 to $15 an hour
That's the bottom quintile, not the bottom half. The Median household income is $83,730, which would be more like $41.50.
Instead they said "abject poverty" as an emotional emphasizer, and people rightly called them out.
The median (not average) household income in the US is 80K USD. p25 is 40K. p10 is 20K. They're struggling, sure.
But I wouldn't call that abject poverty.
But you could. There is no law of the universe that is going to stop you. Words are something randomly made up by humans.
> it's just plain wrong.
Again, words are completely made up, so it can't really be wrong in the traditional mathematical sense. It could be misinterpreted, perhaps. Of course that is dependent on how you've chosen to randomly make up "wrong".
People responding reject that, because if you're not being specific, you're not making an argument, you're just here to be an asshole.
Since you've made this point, I've gone ahead and reported that comment.
Suppose their definition for abject poverty is: having an income equal to or below the median income. Yes, they would be right. Is it a problem that they are right?
However, you would also be right in agreeing that having an income equal to or below the median income equates to half the population, so you are wrong to think that only they can be right. Of course, that assumes you have used my definitions for these terms and not your own. It is likely that, once we are updated with your definitions, that you were right all along. What are your definitions for the terms you have used?
That's the beauty of discussion. You don't need to guess. You can ask!
This is absolute nonsense. We use common language to refer to common things in understandable ways in order to communicate with each other. You don't get to just handwave baldly incorrect statements as "well maybe he just has a different personal definition" without basically rendering literally all conversation moot and pointless.
"Yeah, I know he said 2+2 is 5, but you don't know he defines 5" is just as patently silly.
Common doesn't mean ever-present. In practice, it is impossible for everyone to converge on a shared understanding for all terms. There are provably many people in the world who have never even heard the term "abject poverty" before. They cannot possibly understand what the term means to you. Fundamentally, "abject poverty" can only mean in that comment what the author believes it means. That may overlap with your understanding, but it also may not. We can also prove that he is not a mind reader and thus cannot tune it to your understanding. He is limited to his understanding and his understanding alone.
A good faith actor who believes there may be a discrepancy in understanding will seek clarification. That is what a discussion forum is all about. If one does not want to participate in discussion, why be here?
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...
>link for "Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989"
income =/= wealth
And the counter argument is wealth is different than income the implication is that wealth inequality is 1) lower than income inequality and 2) more important for some unspecified reason.
But if wealth inequality is more extreme then that means 1% control GREATER than 80% of wealth. So point 1 is false. And point 2 is most likely irrelevant because greater concentration likely means whatever harm from one category would track the other category
That's still measuring wealth, not income. The correct statement to draw from the chart is that top 1% by income have nearly as much wealth as the bottom 80%.
I don't see where the article made that claim. Are you making it yourself and can you support it? That sounds like something that would happen when technology improves. What the article does do, is pose a question that it never answers: "When the labor share falls, it means that productivity, prices, or both [which?] are growing faster than wages."
Unit cost on labor has increased at a more or less steady pace this whole time. Ergo, it's not so much that labor is decreasing as other things are increasing faster.
It's hard to argue that technology is increasing labor productivity an order of magnitude faster than it was in the 50s. It's more likely something else in the dataset (returns on capital/rent) is exploding in value.
"It's pretty simple: If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory South of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, ... have no health care, that's the most expensive single element in making a car, have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south."
While Perot was warning about NAFTA, the jobs did go elsewhere: China and other countries with cheaper labor. Globalization led to labor competition, which increased the supply of workers.
Meanwhile, companies captured the value of the increased supply of workers. More cheap labor = more production, for a world that had latent demand for cheaper output. It ended up a net benefit for businesses (capital owners), and overseas workers. This is at least partially if not significantly where the growing gap between wage growth % and GDP growth % comes from.
The macro economists were right that globalization would be more efficient overall for the world, economically. But that came at the expense of the US labor that saw its wage growth eroded as a consequence.
im not really understanding what you mean. i dont get how labor is generated, in particular. do you mean to say the amount of total hours dedicated to labor per person or something else?
however, unit labor costs has also been increasing (although they remain variable): https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2026/productivity-up-0-3-percen...
Rent for the homes we live in (including "rent" as mortgage payments to the bank)
Rent passed through as costs to the consumer for the businesses we patronize.
We're stuck at home more affording to be able to do less so the people who own don't have to work.
But the underlying problem that people aren't paid enough is still true. Outside a few fields, most people are underpaid. It's even more stark when measured against productivity increases during the same time periods. That wealth went somewhere. It wasn't to most people.
People have a tendency to get upset when they realize these kinds of things.
Rents in general are part of this. Both for housing and commercial property. Somehow getting profit from both rent and appreciation is the goal of the system.
Well that is what population voted for and choose not to overthrow system for so maybe they deserve it.
While we must be mindful of greed and abuse, we need to include all underlying costs before just assuming people are cranking up rents. I'm not a landlord but I own property and the costs are gotten vicious lately. Labor is expensive, materials are insane, energy costs, and now insurance are suffocating. And in states with high property taxes, watch out.
But my thesis really is that these things are not underlying the rents. But rents are actually underlying these costs. And well in general the rent seeking economic process build on ever growing valuations of everything.
I don't know what 'efficiency gains' means here. Maybe you're thinking of car production or software development. Insurance goes up due to climate change, due to insurance companies taking advantage of a poorly regulated environment, whatever other reasons. Energy goes up due to world events, due to more people, due to extreme weather. Labor costs go up due to inflation.
It feels as thought the 'rent is too damn high' crowd needs an enemy, and the enemy is landlord. And again, not a landlord, but I'm getting bitten by high costs of keeping property. I didn't even talk about the property taxes.
If I WERE a landlord, I'd either pass it along to the tenant as higher rent, or I'd sell the damn thing.
And again, the headline is the labor share of income is at an 80-ish year low. The landlord class grew too big. We want many of them to be forced out of the business either by law or by economic loss forcing sale.
A home is a fundamental human right. Maintaining rental profits in the face of economic hardship is not.
You can say restaurant workers need to be paid more, and ok sure, but where is that money coming from? You pay labor, food suppliers, rent, utilities, taxes, and... where exactly is the money to pay workers more coming from?
With the number of empty storefronts in my city (not to mention restaurant closures) it's clear owners aren't making money hand over fist or there would be many more restaurants.
Restaurant workers in my experience are more likely to go to more restaurants and they can't because... their rent is too high and the price of food at restaurants is too high.
The common denominator with all of it is money being sucked away from people doing work and people hiring work by... rent seekers.
The "labor share of income" is exactly this. How much money is getting sucked out of the rest of the economy to prop up the do-nothing class. Retired people whose retirement investment was selling a house for much more labor than they bought it for and real estate owners doing as little as they can to maximize income they aren't earning.
https://sdhc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/107_Workshop_RAN...
This sets a price cap, makes these high density spaces affordable for people who want to live their whole lives there and not just their single 20's, brings diversity into communities and drops the floor out of the prices on these single occupancy closets going for $2000 per month.
Office buildings sit mostly empty for the same reason.
Tax the owners to punish the bad bets and eternal growth expectations of banks to force them to use the space to the benefit of the community or be forced to sell when they run out of money. Use zoning laws to prevent the destruction of units to avoid taxes.
Percentage return on investment has nothing to do with the basis. Investors will have to serve a lot more people to get the same absolute return. The percentage return won't change all that much for actually building and operating. The year over year growth in valuation and rent is what needs to go (buildings go through several sets of hands over the first decade or so anyway).
The US Federal Housing and Urban Development Department was intimately involved in the Savings and Loan collapse of the late 1980s. It was punted around and repeated in the 1990s, but the stock market gains of the late 1990s diluted the news in public. That phase culminated with a dot-com bubble collapse and ultimately, the 2007 dollar credit crisis. Leveraged purchases of real estate were part of that financial soup. Many of the players from that time were "boomers" and their seniors, so living memory of those circumstances are now fading. There are many, many non-fiction books about these topics.
AI is going to further exacerbate this inequality.
Time to re-read Capital In the 21st Century.
In the video he describes how when people like Elon Musk get to the level of wealth that they are at, it becomes far more beneficial for them to take from (or stunt) the spending power of lower classes than it is to add to their own net worth dollar figure - simply put, the former moves the needle far more in their favor than the latter.
Definitely explained the idea of our slice remaining the same while the overall pie around us is getting larger.
*Edit: Benn not Ben