Finding Shelter in Inflation

And this is, for example, why CPI-W is used to index social security increases. I could understand wanting to use CPI-E instead. I’m not sure why they don’t use it.

Since CPI-U covers the largest majority, it is used for things like I-bonds, TIPS, etc.

That is pretty easy to explain. They want the rate of increase of income (to Social Security) to correspond to the (general) payouts by Social Security.

Unfortunately, the total earned income subject to Social Security taxation has decreased from 90% of all earned income to roughly 80%-85% of all earned income (due to the income cap). The cap needs to be increased to the level where it includes 90% of all earned income.

Or the Social Security tax needs to be expanded to also tax other income.

3 Likes

Better yet the bottom 50% of income earners need to be paid more.

1 Like

That does not increase the amount of housing available. Higher pay (if not paid to everyone) increases the group’s ability to pay more. But the availability of whatever they want to buy has to be increased or they will simply pay more for their current range of purchases as landlords recognize the workers have money to spend–and they want their cut.

More pay more homes to meet demand at higher prices.

Then more homes and more supply to keep prices down over time.

Right now tight supply prices won’t stop rising.

Many years ago, right here on the Motley Fool discussion boards, there was a somewhat long thread about minimum wage and poverty. Somewhere near the end of that thread, I noted what the current median income was, and that about 50% of the people in the country lived on less than that. And the other person posted “Nobody should earn less than that, it’s even impossible to live normally with an income ten thousand dollars higher than that!” So I replied “Are you saying that nobody should earn less than median income?” And they replied “yes”.

4 Likes

You are missing it. The comparison must have been to the current median income. Balancing things better would raise the median income beyond paltry. It is around $33k in California currently. Imagine living on the outskirts of LA or in East LA for $33k or less.

It is not like the country can not raise the median state incomes considerably.

It is like comfortably off people are very unsure what happens to them.

Of course, I come from CT. We currently are not hesitating to raise everyone’s standard of living in this state.

Other states can not figure out how to raise the standard of living.

Red states begrudge raising the standard of living.

Not quite. It depends on WHOSE STANDARD OF LIVING is to be raised. Increasing the wealthiest groups’ standard of living is desired and targeted. Everyone else’s standard of living is not worth the time and effort.

In the current narrative, improving everyone’s standard of living is “Communism”.

Steve

2 Likes

Everyone who actually works thinks that is pure stupidity.

1 Like

Then, by definition, raising the incomes of the JCs is “Communism” because the alleged purpose of the JCs is to “create jobs”–as JCs means Job Creators–which are supposed to create more/better jobs and thus raise the standard of living of the general public.

Thus, by definition, JCs ARE “Communists”, and so are their supporters.

As we know, that doesn’t happen, so making the rich richer, isn’t “Communism”.

Steve

Ah, but that is the rationale behind using the JC title. So they ARE “Communists”–by the title(s) they use.

Or maybe they are simply liars?

Steve

JC is doublespeak. One way to create jobs is to make it necessary to have 2 jobs. Less pay leads to more jobs. Poverty is job creation. People want higher income, but Prosperity hasn’t been a winning campaign slogan since Eisenhower.

“May he live, be prosperous, be healthy” - ancient Egyptian blessing
“Live and be prosperous” - Romeo and Juliet 1594
“Patriotism, Protection, and Prosperity” – William McKinley 1896
“To Assure Continued Prosperity” – Theodore Roosevelt 1904
“National Unity. Prosperity. Advancement.” – Theodore Roosevelt 1904
“Peace. Progress. Prosperity.” – James M. Cox 1904
“Peace and Prosperity” – Dwight D. Eisenhower 1956
“Peace, Experience, Prosperity” – Richard Nixon 1960
“Live Long and Prosper” - S’chn T’Gai Spock 1967
“Prosperity and Progress” - Al Gore 2000
“Reform, prosperity and peace” – John McCain 2008

2 Likes

Try adding used car prices into the exclusion and see how inflation looks like…

Bet you didn’t know Peter Lorre was a Vulcan?

Screenshot 2023-12-16 at 16-52-13 The Raven (6_11) Movie CLIP - Bedlo vs. Scarabus (1963) HD

1 Like

No “JC” is going to hire one person more that absolutely necessary to do the work, because employees “are a cost to be minimized”, regardless how low pay is.

We still hear that “prosperity” sales pitch today. It is part of the “supply side” narrative. The components of the narrative are tax cuts for the “JCs”, and deregulation for the “JCs”, spun as “pro-growth” policies, ideally paid for by taking away from everyone else, to drive them into competing for “jobs”, and bidding wages down, while giving them lectures on “personal responsibility” and “the dignity of work”. We know this societal order. It’s called a “plantation”.

Steve

1 Like

Unless, of course, there is some regulation such that if they hire multiple part time workers, they don’t have to offer health insurance or something.

That is not true in demand side economics. Because the GDP growth is often much explosive and employees to hire are fewer and further between companies are hiring preemptively.

Imagine how ignorant the boomers were. We worried no one wanted to employ us. We never voted for economic growth. In reality, we voted against economic growth and any blatant supply-side liar could tell us our taxes would be less.