The spike in prices under Biden was mitigated by an equal spike in wages. That doesn't appear to be happening now. And anecdotally, the lower working class people I encounter have had enough of Trump. Their lives my not be substantially worse than before, but they sure aren't any better, and the near future prospects appear dim.
I don't know how many times I can keep beating this same drum. Nearly 40% of American adults have zero invested in the market. Nearly 30% have no savings at all, and another 40% on top of that have savings, but less than $1000. One-third of American households don't own their home, and 60% of those who do don't own it free and clear. Fancy metrics don't matter to these people. Economic indicators don't matter to these people. The numbers they see when the fill up their gas tank or buy a loaf of bread, they matter.
I’m not sure there is much Trump can do about Americans being poor savers and managers of money.
As to @unclemark absurd claim. Real wages have grown more under Trump by any metric. I’m not what hell he thinks he’s talking about.
While average is going up, it is because high wage earners are rocketing up. From Google AI:
Real average hourly earnings in early 2026 show a "K-shaped" divergence, with higher-income workers experiencing better wage growth (around 4.0%–4.5% annually) compared to lower-income workers (closer to 1.5%–3.5%). While nominal wages have grown, inflation and high living costs have created a bifurcation, where top earners sustain spending, while middle- and lower-income households face diminishing purchasing power.
Forbes +4
Key Aspects of the K-Shaped Wage Trend
- Diverging Fortunes: Data suggests wage growth for the top income quartile has held up better, declining less than that of the lowest-income quartile.
- Real Wage Decline: While nominal wages for the bottom 10% surged in 2020-2022, recent inflationary pressures have caused real wage growth for lower-income groups to underperform relative to previous pandemic-era gains, with some estimates showing a decline to 1.5% annually.
- Industry Disparity: The "upper stroke" of the K features higher earners in sectors like finance and professional services, while the "lower stroke" affects industries with more part-time or lower-paid workers, often hit hard by rising cost of living.
- Persistent Trends: Despite some periods of catching up by low earners, the K-shape has returned, with expectations that this, according to Bank of America and Business Insider, it will remain through 2026, causing widening inequality.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (.gov) +4
Recent Data (Early 2026)
- Wages vs. Costs: According to a Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland report, real hourly wages for the bottom half of the distribution remain below pre-pandemic trend lines.
- Spending Impact: As reported by NPR, lower-income consumers are cutting back on discretionary spending due to high costs, whereas top earners continue spending, further reinforcing the K-shape in the broader economy.
- Overall Average: According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) as of Feb 2026, total real average hourly earnings increased 1.4 percent over the previous 12 months, but this average masks the significant disparity between income groups.
NPR +4
We've talked ad nauseum about how much blame or credit a President should get as it relates to economics. But, for all of the flaws of Trump, the one you cannot in good faith argue is that real wages have grown under his tenure (to this point). That is a fact and real wage growth was markedly better than Obama in that specific category.
We can debate what proportion of credit he deserves or how his policies aided or detracted from the real wage growth, but that was a clear black eye under the previous Democratic administrations. Again, that doesn't neccesarily mean it was entirely the President's fault, but I think we need to at least acknowledge facts when they are there.
Would you agree that average real wage growth is susceptible to manipulation by using, for example, PCE versus CPI? Would you also agree that using average wages, median wages, hourly v weekly v annual, and including or excluding bonuses or benefits (which are measured), can all tell a different story? I think real wage growth is reliable for a broad, high level comparison, but much less reliable for finer claims such as "workers are 1.2% better off this year?"
Shoving carrramrod into a locker since 2024.
Even if you get lucky and time the top, you still have to time the bottom. Over the long haul it's a losing a bet, because most of the annual gains is in a very small percentage of the days.
That is true.... I think it's interesting when professionals put out a chart and should what your return would be if you out of the market the 10 best days of the market but never give you the return if you were out the 10 worse days.
I don't think you even try to sell at the top and buy at the bottom because that's a losing game but I do think there are things that happen (like the Iran war) where you can be about 90% sure that the market is gonna go down at least some and miss part of the downturn. I would never do that in a taxable account because it would really screw up my taxes but in 401Ks and IRAs there is no tax to deal with.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who know binary and those who don't.
The issue with income inequality is NOT that it exists -- it has always existed-- but that since about 1980, income inequality has increased dramatically.
~snip~
Focusing on post-1980 and breaking it down further, the one percenters are benefitting by far the most:
I don't claim to know the best way to return to the "rising tide floats all boats" trend from 1946-1980, but it seems like a desirable aim.
All boats have continued to be lifted, some are just being lifted relatively more than others, and currently, the bottom 20% appear to be outpacing everyone except the 1%. What exactly are you trying to say about income inequality?
What you really need to look at is AFTER transfers and taxes. When you do that, the inequality has remained mostly constant in the timeframe you're talking about.
The specific Gini coefficient number for income after transfers and taxes in 2022 is 0.434. While this level of inequality is toward the higher end of the range, it’s quite comparable to the level of after-taxes-and-transfers inequality in, say, 2018 (0.438), 2012 (0.444), 2007 (0.455), 2000 (0.440), or even 1986 (0.425). At least over the last quarter-century or so, government taxes and transfers have more-or-less offset any rise in market-income inequality. Source
Your initial assertion (Bolded) appears to be wrong when you take transfers and taxes into account instead of excluding it.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
Where on this chart is inflation (CPI) 1.6%? Or anything close to it?
https://www.bls.gov/charts/consumer-price-index/consumer-price-index-by-category-line-chart.htm
I'll hang up and wait until you apologize for posting fake shit.
Now, you made me go and look it up. You owe me. They weren't using fake data. They just used all the available data they had 🤷🏻♂️ It's not their fault the government was closed down. 2.1% would have been a less dishonest number. It still doesn't change the point they were making. Does this mean no Bundt cakes?
All boats have continued to be lifted, some are just being lifted relatively more than others, and currently, the bottom 20% appear to be outpacing everyone except the 1%. What exactly are you trying to say about income inequality?
What you really need to look at is AFTER transfers and taxes. When you do that, the inequality has remained mostly constant in the timeframe you're talking about.
The specific Gini coefficient number for income after transfers and taxes in 2022 is 0.434. While this level of inequality is toward the higher end of the range, it’s quite comparable to the level of after-taxes-and-transfers inequality in, say, 2018 (0.438), 2012 (0.444), 2007 (0.455), 2000 (0.440), or even 1986 (0.425). At least over the last quarter-century or so, government taxes and transfers have more-or-less offset any rise in market-income inequality. Source
Your initial assertion (Bolded) appears to be wrong when you take transfers and taxes into account instead of excluding it.
Yeah, but excluding it sure makes it easier for him to tuck the issue into the old oppressor/oppressed dichotomy and blame the "haves" for the plight of the "have nots"
A good friend will bail you out of jail, but your best friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying "that was f***ing awesome"
All boats have continued to be lifted, some are just being lifted relatively more than others, and currently, the bottom 20% appear to be outpacing everyone except the 1%. What exactly are you trying to say about income inequality?
What you really need to look at is AFTER transfers and taxes. When you do that, the inequality has remained mostly constant in the timeframe you're talking about.
The specific Gini coefficient number for income after transfers and taxes in 2022 is 0.434. While this level of inequality is toward the higher end of the range, it’s quite comparable to the level of after-taxes-and-transfers inequality in, say, 2018 (0.438), 2012 (0.444), 2007 (0.455), 2000 (0.440), or even 1986 (0.425). At least over the last quarter-century or so, government taxes and transfers have more-or-less offset any rise in market-income inequality. Source
Your initial assertion (Bolded) appears to be wrong when you take transfers and taxes into account instead of excluding it.
Yeah, but excluding it sure makes it easier for him to tuck the issue into the old oppressor/oppressed dichotomy and blame the "haves" for the plight of the "have nots"
He's a Dick Lugar Republican, doncha know?
Place the emphasis wherever you think it is most appropriate.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
He's a Dick Lugar Republican, doncha know?
Well, depending on the year, I was working on the campaigns of Otis Bowen, Reagan, Lugar, and (later) Quayle and GHW Bush, so you did find the right neighborhood. None of those guys would be MAGA, I sure.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
Why do you think the numbers you posted diverge beginning in 1980? Do you understand why that graph was made and didn't take into account the factors hooky mentioned?He's a Dick Lugar Republican, doncha know?
Well, depending on the year, I was working on the campaigns of Otis Bowen, Reagan, Lugar, and (later) Quayle and GHW Bush, so you did find the right neighborhood. None of those guys would be MAGA, I sure.
He's a Dick Lugar Republican, doncha know?
Well, depending on the year, I was working on the campaigns of Otis Bowen, Reagan, Lugar, and (later) Quayle and GHW Bush, so you did find the right neighborhood. None of those guys would be MAGA, I sure.
There ya go. TRUMP!! MAGA!!! Like a trained seal that claps for fish.
How about addressing my question about the point you were trying to make about income equality?
Edited to remove a second question that you'll fixate on instead of answering the one above.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
I've been broke. I'd rather be dead.
I know you are joking but as somebody who decided it'd be great to be married for 3 years with 3 kids by the time I was 21 instead of a happy go lucky college kid, I am very familiar with what it's like to be broke...flat broke...dead broke...broke like channel 4 broke so I feel ya.
You think I was kidding? Not really, I wasn't. My wife and I were barely able to keep the lights on and food in the fridge for some time, even though we were doing everything "right." If the shit hit the fan and we lost what cushion we've been fortunate enough to develop, I'd rather take a dive and let the battleax make it back home to finish out her days with her family.
The spike in prices under Biden was mitigated by an equal spike in wages. That doesn't appear to be happening now. And anecdotally, the lower working class people I encounter have had enough of Trump. Their lives my not be substantially worse than before, but they sure aren't any better, and the near future prospects appear dim.
I don't know how many times I can keep beating this same drum. Nearly 40% of American adults have zero invested in the market. Nearly 30% have no savings at all, and another 40% on top of that have savings, but less than $1000. One-third of American households don't own their home, and 60% of those who do don't own it free and clear. Fancy metrics don't matter to these people. Economic indicators don't matter to these people. The numbers they see when the fill up their gas tank or buy a loaf of bread, they matter.
I’m not sure there is much Trump can do about Americans being poor savers and managers of money.
As to @unclemark absurd claim. Real wages have grown more under Trump by any metric. I’m not what hell he thinks he’s talking about.
While average is going up, it is because high wage earners are rocketing up. From Google AI:
Real average hourly earnings in early 2026 show a "K-shaped" divergence, with higher-income workers experiencing better wage growth (around 4.0%–4.5% annually) compared to lower-income workers (closer to 1.5%–3.5%). While nominal wages have grown, inflation and high living costs have created a bifurcation, where top earners sustain spending, while middle- and lower-income households face diminishing purchasing power.
Key Aspects of the K-Shaped Wage Trend
- Diverging Fortunes: Data suggests wage growth for the top income quartile has held up better, declining less than that of the lowest-income quartile.
- Real Wage Decline: While nominal wages for the bottom 10% surged in 2020-2022, recent inflationary pressures have caused real wage growth for lower-income groups to underperform relative to previous pandemic-era gains, with some estimates showing a decline to 1.5% annually.
- Industry Disparity: The "upper stroke" of the K features higher earners in sectors like finance and professional services, while the "lower stroke" affects industries with more part-time or lower-paid workers, often hit hard by rising cost of living.
- Persistent Trends: Despite some periods of catching up by low earners, the K-shape has returned, with expectations that this, according to Bank of America and Business Insider, it will remain through 2026, causing widening inequality.
Recent Data (Early 2026)
- Wages vs. Costs: According to a Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland report, real hourly wages for the bottom half of the distribution remain below pre-pandemic trend lines.
- Spending Impact: As reported by NPR, lower-income consumers are cutting back on discretionary spending due to high costs, whereas top earners continue spending, further reinforcing the K-shape in the broader economy.
- Overall Average: According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) as of Feb 2026, total real average hourly earnings increased 1.4 percent over the previous 12 months, but this average masks the significant disparity between income groups.
We've talked ad nauseum about how much blame or credit a President should get as it relates to economics. But, for all of the flaws of Trump, the one you cannot in good faith argue is that real wages have grown under his tenure (to this point). That is a fact and real wage growth was markedly better than Obama in that specific category.
We can debate what proportion of credit he deserves or how his policies aided or detracted from the real wage growth, but that was a clear black eye under the previous Democratic administrations. Again, that doesn't neccesarily mean it was entirely the President's fault, but I think we need to at least acknowledge facts when they are there.
Would you agree that average real wage growth is susceptible to manipulation by using, for example, PCE versus CPI? Would you also agree that using average wages, median wages, hourly v weekly v annual, and including or excluding bonuses or benefits (which are measured), can all tell a different story? I think real wage growth is reliable for a broad, high level comparison, but much less reliable for finer claims such as "workers are 1.2% better off this year?"
Would you agree that average real wage growth is susceptible to manipulation by using, for example, PCE versus CPI?
Anything can be manipulated or interpreted, but I'm using a data set from FRED (Federal Reserve), demonstrating real median wages over time, chained to a specific time period. Median is always better than using averages, which would be distorted by the impact of faster growth at the top, right?
Would you also agree that using average wages, median wages, hourly v weekly v annual, and including or excluding bonuses or benefits (which are measured), can all tell a different story?
Sure, I'd be open to reviewing if there's anything you are planning to throw out. To your point, it would be interesting to explore the benefit implications since the impact of net take-home pay is different than it was, but one could also make the case that employers are paying more b/c of the cost of private health insurance post-ACA. For example, everyone assumed the ACA was some great, impactful change, but it has only accelerated the costs for employer-sponsored plans.
Year Premium ($)
-------------------------
2010 ~13,770
2012 ~15,745
2014 ~16,834 ← ACA major provisions begin
2016 ~18,142
2018 ~19,616
2020 ~21,342
2022 ~22,463
2023 ~23,968
2024 ~25,572
2025 ~26,993
Source: KFF Employer Health Benefits Survey, family premiums, total cost
I think real wage growth is reliable for a broad, high level comparison, but much less reliable for finer claims such as "workers are 1.2% better off this year?"
Isn't that what I was attempting to do though? I was comparing prior administrations (Obama, Trump I, Biden). Far too early to declare Trump II victorious on real wage growth.
All boats have continued to be lifted, some are just being lifted relatively more than others, and currently, the bottom 20% appear to be outpacing everyone except the 1%. What exactly are you trying to say about income inequality?
What you really need to look at is AFTER transfers and taxes. When you do that, the inequality has remained mostly constant in the timeframe you're talking about.
The specific Gini coefficient number for income after transfers and taxes in 2022 is 0.434. While this level of inequality is toward the higher end of the range, it’s quite comparable to the level of after-taxes-and-transfers inequality in, say, 2018 (0.438), 2012 (0.444), 2007 (0.455), 2000 (0.440), or even 1986 (0.425). At least over the last quarter-century or so, government taxes and transfers have more-or-less offset any rise in market-income inequality. Source
Your initial assertion (Bolded) appears to be wrong when you take transfers and taxes into account instead of excluding it.
Yeah, but excluding it sure makes it easier for him to tuck the issue into the old oppressor/oppressed dichotomy and blame the "haves" for the plight of the "have nots"
He's a Dick Lugar Republican, doncha know?
Place the emphasis wherever you think it is most appropriate.
Me after reading this...
Why do you think the numbers you posted diverge beginning in 1980? Do you understand why that graph was made and didn't take into account the factors hooky mentioned?He's a Dick Lugar Republican, doncha know?
Well, depending on the year, I was working on the campaigns of Otis Bowen, Reagan, Lugar, and (later) Quayle and GHW Bush, so you did find the right neighborhood. None of those guys would be MAGA, I sure.
All I took from this is that Jimmy Carter really sucked.
The issue with income inequality is NOT that it exists -- it has always existed-- but that since about 1980, income inequality has increased dramatically.
~snip~
Focusing on post-1980 and breaking it down further, the one percenters are benefitting by far the most:
I don't claim to know the best way to return to the "rising tide floats all boats" trend from 1946-1980, but it seems like a desirable aim.
All boats have continued to be lifted, some are just being lifted relatively more than others, and currently, the bottom 20% appear to be outpacing everyone except the 1%. What exactly are you trying to say about income inequality?
What you really need to look at is AFTER transfers and taxes. When you do that, the inequality has remained mostly constant in the timeframe you're talking about.
The specific Gini coefficient number for income after transfers and taxes in 2022 is 0.434. While this level of inequality is toward the higher end of the range, it’s quite comparable to the level of after-taxes-and-transfers inequality in, say, 2018 (0.438), 2012 (0.444), 2007 (0.455), 2000 (0.440), or even 1986 (0.425). At least over the last quarter-century or so, government taxes and transfers have more-or-less offset any rise in market-income inequality. Source
Your initial assertion (Bolded) appears to be wrong when you take transfers and taxes into account instead of excluding it.
Not to mention the 40-hour per week worker continues to work the same amount of time for that pay. CEOs are literally always on the clock. And thus, us peons who serve them are similarly expected to be available as such.
The work-life benefit of not being near the top is underappreciated.
I've been broke. I'd rather be dead.
I know you are joking but as somebody who decided it'd be great to be married for 3 years with 3 kids by the time I was 21 instead of a happy go lucky college kid, I am very familiar with what it's like to be broke...flat broke...dead broke...broke like channel 4 broke so I feel ya.
You think I was kidding? Not really, I wasn't. My wife and I were barely able to keep the lights on and food in the fridge for some time, even though we were doing everything "right." If the shit hit the fan and we lost what cushion we've been fortunate enough to develop, I'd rather take a dive and let the battleax make it back home to finish out her days with her family.
Okay then, you're not kidding. And I understand I think. Along the way these past 40 years for us there has been nowhere near as many rainbows and puppy dogs as there has been kicks in the ass...life is funny that way. And I reckon if the SHTF you talk about was bad enough to take your cushion out, it probably gets mine too. The thing is though, the old lady and I would face it together. The only caveat I would make is me coming down with some nest egg draining terminal illness, then I could see taking a header so she didn't suffer financially in the aftermath. She is too good of a person, good in every way I suck, to saddle with that.
A good friend will bail you out of jail, but your best friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying "that was f***ing awesome"