Take note of how often you hear/read something like "incomes haven't risen in 30 years, but prices have gone up over 50% over that period". [Almost?] Inevitably, the income will be real income [inflation adjusted] and the prices nominal prices.
On a per square foot basis, you don't really see an increase.
http://www.aei.org/publication/new-us-homes-today-are-1000-s...
One of the commenters on the article you linked makes a good point:
"new single family homes are a very small part of the real estate market.
most of the big price moves have been in urban areas where single family dwellings uncommon and new homes extremely rare."
I worry that the public / workers / voters / policy makers are being misled/confused/misdirected.
The public is being misled, by whenever someone complains about stagnant wages the response is "you have smartphones now", but we can't afford houses or healthcare how is this okay? So your argument seems to be that all economists are in on this together to do what?
And your thankful your favorite youtube news personality has cracked the case (without publishing any research and has an opportunity to make money from getting views). Good thing he /she is looking out for you.
The bottom line is you sound incredibly foolish to me if you can't supply any sources of people trying to do this trick. Even if you do find one or two examples, there are plenty of sound statistics that say people have it harder now finicailly then 50 years ago.
[0] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/101314/what-does-cu...
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...
Even things that are true are often reported in a way that obscures causal factors. For example, wages are stagnating, but total compensation (wages plus benefits) is not. Now, from an employee’s perspective, they might not care that their total compensation is growing because health insurance premiums are increasing but paychecks are staying the same size. But the employer has the exact opposite perspective: the employee is costing more money whether that money is going to to paychecks or benefits. Failure to articulate that distinction moreover leads you to the wrong conclusions. When you’re told about wage stagnation but growing corporate profits, you’re supposed to think employees are getting a smaller piece of the pie. That’s not true: https://www.nber.org/digest/oct08/w13953.html
> Total employee compensation was 66 percent of national income in 1970 and 64 percent in 2006. This measure of the labor compensation share has been remarkably stable since the 1970s. It rose from an average of 62 percent in the 1960s to 66 percent in the 1970s and 1980s, and then declined to 65 percent in the 1990s where it has remained from 2000 until the end of 2007.
Here is the conspiracy theory presented with no examples: >Inevitably, the income will be real income [inflation adjusted] and the prices nominal prices.
This is what I take issue with and I don't think that a comparison between real nominal prices happens in order to trick people. This seems like something high school student wouldn't get away with.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/business/economy/wage-gro...
Then look at the article: nominal wages rose every year (as indicated in the chart), but the breathless headline suggests the opposite to the average American. Do you believe that the omission of the word "real" in the headline was purely accidental or intended to drive outrage clicks?
They don't specify which in the title, but they do in the article. The biggest thing is there is no comparison between nominal and real prices. Acting like the nominal cost of things is not keeping up with real wages.
If you don't want to get tricked maybe read the whole article instead of just the title. It is a somewhat complex topic and takes some thought to put into it if you want to know what is going on.
I'll reply on thread next time I see one, which is likely to not happen in the next 24 hours. Hopefully, you'll take an open minded read to see where social and mainstream media accounts are biased for outrage and clicks over information content and will notice these on your own as well.
Initially John's chances of getting a job: 1/N
Now, with the arrival of new immigrant, John's chances: 1/(N+1) i.e. he's worse off.
Sure it turned out better for the new immigrant and he can earn way more than his original country and thus this is better for humanity and the globe but it is of little relief to John who is worse off now.
My assumptions in this:
- John is a low skilled worker who will not be easily able to switch to another line of work like a software developer
- John does not have significant savings to fall back on.
Another fun fact:
- The will to let the low skilled immigrant in, in today's environment does not stem necessarily from a position of goodwill, rather it is a calculated position to keep the numbers of a voting bloc which consistently votes for a given party, constant. This can be easily explained by seeing where the opposition to limiting immigration comes from.
So keeping in mind the above 2 points, it becomes readily apparent that what politics has gotten good at is winning elections and not betterment of people. One of the parties has discovered that one of the easiest "hacks" or "optimizations" is to keep importing poor people and that way you will have a steady stream of voters, otherwise you might actually have to start improving the stock of existing population.
This is somewhat analogous to how simply being good at a written test for a position does not necessarily mean you're a good fit for that position but you've simply optimized for the selection process.
All of this to say that as far as a hypothetical John is concerned, it is of no merit to him that the world is a bit more efficient because a person from Bangladesh is able to work with a little more efficiency, indeed whatever small gains from that are outright eclipse by an increased competition in the local pool of jobs and resources.
Economists used to believe that many things were zero sum, (ie if England allows French cheese imports it will be at the expense of British cheese producers. Yet often allowing imports and increased trade leaves both France and England richer as consumers in both places value the additional selection and the competition lowers prices or foreign items can charge a premium for their novelty). Immigration is similar; it’s not zero sum.
Blaming this on a cynical political motive to create a voting block is contrary to the history of commerce and global trade and also contrary to your own analysis. It seems to me that the party most opposed to immigration is also the party that had been driving inequality by 1. Promoting globalization while also decimating the social safety net that would ease the transition, 2. Shifting to regressive taxation on sales while drastically lowering taxes on capital and its accumulation i.e. inheritance taxes. 3. Destroying any bargaining power for workers and employees and resisting minimum wage increases. I could go on and on.