After adjusting for inflation, wages are higher than at any point in U.S. history, and after adjusting for age and sex, the percentage of the population that is employed is around its peak in U.S. history.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yes, but it’s included in the proportion to which you buy those things. So if you’re spending a lot less on other things, but more on housing, it’s a wash for your overall expenses. The point is that compared with overall expenses, wages went up more.

      • rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        OK, so this is how my smooth brain thinks about it:

        Housing is double when adjusted for inflation. Milk is obviously not. I think milk has stayed flat since they started tracking it in the '90s.

        If I paid the same (adjusted for inflation) for my house and paid double (again, adjusted) for milk I would have a lot more money left over at the end of the month. I don’t think CPI takes into account how much milk I drink compared to the one house I need.

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          The market basket approach they use looks at the mix of goods and services people buy. So yes, it captures the fact that housing is more of a typical person’s budget than milk.

          • yes_this_time@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            I did a quick search and couldn’t find an answer.

            I wonder if part of the disconnect is that they are using just a general “dwelling” in CPI. As opposed to price per square foot. That is, is dwelling size shrinking, while costs are growing, this could cause housing costs to be understated in CPI