The American Enterprise Institute is a neoconservative organization. Of course they’re going to claim wages haven’t stagnated, just like their corporate masters want them to.
Real means it has, considering $40 in 1960 would be worth $400 today if it hasn’t been adjusted for inflation we’d be making four times less money so that doesn’t make sense
Great. Now explain how a single income working a low-wage job in 1960 could afford an entire house and now someone like that can’t even afford to rent without multiple roommates. Because wages haven’t stagnated, right?
I don’t think housing prices are justified, which is why not everyone can afford to own. I’d rather build so much housing it crashes the market in all of the cities so that everyone can afford a house on their current salary. It doesn’t make sense to suggest to increase everyone’s wages so more money is chasing the same amount of housing, that would only increase housing prices
You do know things other than houses cost money, right? And that if you don’t raise wages since the 1970s, but inflation has gone way up since then, all those things cost too much money, right?
…does not reflect inflation. I have no idea why you think wages that have been stagnant for decades are sustainable or why housing prices are justified.
https://www.aei.org/articles/have-wages-stagnated-for-decades-in-the-us/
There was a peak in 1973-1979 where you can make that argument, but in our lifetimes the real wages have grown consistently and have beaten that peak
The American Enterprise Institute is a neoconservative organization. Of course they’re going to claim wages haven’t stagnated, just like their corporate masters want them to.
Wages have stagnated since the 1970s, but have steadily gone up since the 1980s
There’s also an argument to be made that since insurance premiums have gone up, and companies pay bigger benefits
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB
That doesn’t appear to be adjusted for inflation.
Real means it has, considering $40 in 1960 would be worth $400 today if it hasn’t been adjusted for inflation we’d be making four times less money so that doesn’t make sense
Great. Now explain how a single income working a low-wage job in 1960 could afford an entire house and now someone like that can’t even afford to rent without multiple roommates. Because wages haven’t stagnated, right?
Oh, and here’s a shit ton of evidence that you’re wrong. Note that organization isn’t a bank or a right-wing think tank like the ones you’ve provided, i.e. they have no skin in the game.
If they could, why didn’t they? Home ownership was just the same back then as now
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2023/03/when-comparing-wages-and-worker-productivity-the-price-measure-matters/
Uh… they did. Are you really not aware of who was able to buy a home then compared to now?
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/housing-market-home-prices-ownership-costs-unaffordable-mortgage-payments-wages-2023-9?op=1
I don’t think housing prices are justified, which is why not everyone can afford to own. I’d rather build so much housing it crashes the market in all of the cities so that everyone can afford a house on their current salary. It doesn’t make sense to suggest to increase everyone’s wages so more money is chasing the same amount of housing, that would only increase housing prices
You do know things other than houses cost money, right? And that if you don’t raise wages since the 1970s, but inflation has gone way up since then, all those things cost too much money, right?
Do you even know a single non-rich person?