I feel like you're mixing inflation-adjusted and non-inflation-adjusted measures. The inflation that the Fed tries to maintain is (as far as I can tell) a legacy artifact based on the financial tools available in our system.
-
I don't disagree with any of that. But my point is that we try very hard to steer the average of the distribution along a course of low positive inflation. Since that's an average, some people win, some people lose. Maybe income inequality means that more people lose over time,
-
-
The income skew could go the other way over time though (closer to equality).
-
The other thing is, what is the meaning of ecomonic progress? It should show up as longer healthier happier lives, after adjusting for inflation (i.e. the real standard of living improves, regardless of prices).
-
If tech and education are working, hopefully that is the result. World population continues to increase, along with life expectancy, so maybe some if that is working in aggregate.
-
This Planet Money episode describes how a bottle of coke retailed for 5 cents for 70 years, no average inflation, until after WW2. They cite the end of gold standard as start of consistent inflation:https://open.spotify.com/episode/4Uxu6nO4AuSgKJqvTrdQdH?si=slCD0wqBTaKL6AgRFKt4UQ …
-
Interestingly, all the graphs of wage stagnation show the stagnation starting in the early 1970s, maybe not coincidentally the date of Bretton Woods II.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.