• KillingTimeItself
    link
    fedilink
    English
    82 hours ago

    “inflation has slowed, but prices are still high? Why is that?”

    literally the title of this thread/article

    Man i sure wonder why my rate of increase % lowering hasn’t done much to change the value that it’s cumulatively adding on top of…

  • @IamSparticles@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2013 hours ago

    Yeah. Because wages have remained stagnant, or even decreased relative to prices. Inflation is supposed to be a response to people making more money, but that never happened. So now we’re all just effectively poorer.

    • @BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      10
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      If you really want to compare that to inflation slowing, then you haven’t turned off the oven, you just slowed down the rate that you are making it hotter.

    • @thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      -71 day ago

      That’s deflation, and is actually really bad for society and the economy overall.

      Honestly, more workers need to unionise and restore wages to where they should be (pegging back to rates in the 80s - 90s), minimum wage should be closer $25/hr.

      If real wages continue to rise higher than CPI for blue/white collar workers, rather than the capital class - things would be a lot better overall.

        • @Wahots@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          12 hours ago

          China recently deflated and is still having problems. It’s incredibly dangerous because it causes a negative feedback loop. Prices go down -> people wait to get a better price on something -> prices sink further -> people wait longer -> your economy starts stalling out and going into a nosedive.

          Nobody wants to be the chump holding the bag if they buy an apartment for $50k and it drops to $20k in the next five months. :/

          If deflation worked, everyone would be doing it, and we’d still be using half-cent coins just like the family in Little House on the Prairie did. (Which would kinda be awesome, I’d love to pay a half-cent for an orange.)

        • KillingTimeItself
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 hours ago

          one of the really big problems with deflation in a system like the one we currently have is that there is no way to set a “negative” interest rate, at least trivially. So if something spicy happens, and you spiral down to a really aggressive negative interest rate, everything explodes instantly.

          This is actually why we target a 2-3% interest rate, and in the times of financial struggle (globally) use it to create new money in order to stimulate an economy, which in turn raises inflation significantly, but beats another literal depression.

          The primary difference between the great depression is that covid was significantly worse, and that modern monetary policy is incredibly resilient compared to back then.

          you could theoretically have a system with deflation, but then the problem is that you have very little money moving through the market, and arguably you will move away from a currency based market, to a goods based market instead, which is quite literally a bad thing.

        • @Asetru@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          0
          edit-2
          23 hours ago

          Deflation is actually bad because it would be an incentive to keep rather than spend money as its value would just increase by itself.

          • @BallsandBayonets
            link
            1720 hours ago

            Money that is kept and never spent is worthless. Currency has to be used to have value, otherwise it’s just paper (or bits). The working class won’t hold on to their money, they have bills to pay, groceries to buy, etc. Only the wealthy would hold on to their money, which they’re already doing.

            • KillingTimeItself
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 hours ago

              Only the wealthy would hold on to their money, which they’re already doing.

              to be clear, “holding” on to money is innately going to be investing. Not only is holding onto significant piles of cash incredibly sketchy, it’s also really bad financial strategy, because you lose money over time, so you’re highly incentivized to invest the money you don’t actively need, into something that can do productive work for the market economy instead.

              If we’re talking corporate money, which is different, and not the type of money you mentioned, things work a bit differently, but generally the mechanism is roughly the same, with some tax benefits, and mechanisms to create productivity rather than provide it instead. There are some funny things you can do like stock buybacks, but those do have some market utility though.

            • @Asetru@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              19 hours ago

              That was my point, pretty much. The issue is that money that’s kept is useless for society, but if its value increases it gains potential usefulness for its owner. I’m not saying that ordinary people will stop buying food and I’m not saying that corporations are doing community work right now, but the world in which the rich get even richer without even spending their money on something will be problematic at best. The economy will crash while everybody will hold on to whatever moves they have.

            • @atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -419 hours ago

              Only the wealthy would hold on to their money, which they’re already doing.

              No, they invest it otherwise it loses value over time. Invested money is put to work.

  • @RangerJosie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    23
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    They’ll keep waiting too. Because without some shock therapy like raising min wage to like $25 an hour overnight and taking that economic hit it’s never going to get any better. This is the new normal until that happens.

  • @PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
    link
    fedilink
    301 day ago

    “Inflation” to economists is how much the price is going up this month.

    “Inflation” to most people is how much stuff costs.

    It feels like there needs to be some acknowledgement of that when this is all talked about, after the superinflation of 2022. The goal should be that prices go back down, not that they go back to going up by 3% per year now that they’re way up high.

    • KillingTimeItself
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      to most people is how much stuff costs.

      inflation to most people is an increase in the cost of stuff* FTFY

      also to be clear, the goal is that wages rise to meet the increased inflation, that’s the historical trend.

    • @atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      419 hours ago

      You really don’t want deflation. The correct thing now is for wages to go up to match the new costs and this has been happening.

    • @Windex007@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      81 day ago

      The levers which incentives wages closing the gap on the “super inflation” are probably more realistic than the levers that would cause the prices of everything to deflate.

  • Nougat
    link
    fedilink
    151 day ago

    “Many Americans” have always and will always live paycheck to paycheck. Seize the means of production.