We always reach a point where they admit that "the bad thing you claimed was happening" is, in fact, happening, but it's actually good! As if they can invert reality before our very eyes and then gaslight us into thinking we saw nothing.
I hate it. I'm in a discord infested with smooth brains and somebody posted one of those memes comparing today to the fall of Rome and the retards started talking about how it was the Christians fault Rome fell.
Wage Raises almost always lag behind inflation because inflation is market-leading, whereas wage earnings are negotiated and usually in response to said inflation rise.
This is exactly why they tell you to get a promotion or find a new job to earn a higher wage to beat inflation. Anyone who stayed at their current position without promotions or without changing jobs for years will never beat inflation.
Yup, I actually used the inflation argument in my salary negotiation.
It didn't work.
Then an executive and 3 other people quit because of low pay.
I'm gonna try it again later ; )
I literally said, "Hey, entry level for this job at another company is $20/hr by the end of the year." Next it's going to be, "Hey, not only is what I said previously still true, Amazon is paying $22 /hr entry level."
I'm not terribly interesting in quitting at the moment because of the amount of upward mobility I have in the company now is far superior to anywhere else and I have good management (which is a fucking blessing on it's own). I'm using that opportunity to basically lateral move into a different part of the industry while working. So, I'll take the hit in pay for now.
I’ve generally found that even a great company environment couldn’t prevent me from switching jobs when inflation rose up. I got a 20% salary increase by just quitting in February of this year, and got another 5.7% salary increase in June again. Yeah, my resume doesn’t look great right now, but my skill set is in enough demand that my tenure is a non-issue.
My only concern is the speed of my upward mobility (which other companies couldn't have provided, even with pay increases), and I'm a bit concerned about the potential consequences of mass layoffs if an economic downturn takes place.
I don't want to be the first one out because I have the shortest time in the company. My higher pay won't mean shit if the labor shortage, which I doubt is even a real shortage and is just wages rising too slowly, turn around and becomes a labor surplus because entire industries are closing.
Not surprising. I always thought it'd be an easy sell for banks to charge someone money to secure their money. "It's safer than keeping it in your mattress; why wouldn't we charge you money for that?"
The banks lend depositor's money out for interest. The small amount of interest you get on your savings or money market account is "your share" of the profit they made lending your money to others.
If a bank wanted to charge me a fee, I wouldn't be willing to let them lend my money to others for a profit. I would just pay for a safety deposit box if I was worried about securing money and the bank was going to charge me to have a regular account.
Yes of course; in a world where you can make money from lending out money that's all perfectly reasonable. In a world where you can't, then the sales pitch must change. Or banks switch to more complex/risky financial instruments that may not be insured against loss.
Safety deposit boxes usually aren't insured (or if they are aren't insured for very much or against very much), so if it came to that I would recommend researching that before doing such a thing as storing your money in one.
There used to be banks that only charged a fee and did not invest the money. But those banks have either merged with bigger banks that care about their shareholders more, or have gone out of business to banks that are fractional reserve banking in nature.
The problem is, bank solvency is extremely volatile with fractional banking, and if it wasn’t for FDIC “guarantees” and “too big to fail” status, there would be more failures in the system every 5-8 years every time we have a 20%+ correction in stock market prices.
Without getting too into fractional reserve banking, their reserve rates are currently at zero (set by the Fed Reserve). Meaning, when you deposit a check to your bank, they can turn around and loan out 100% of the value of your deposit. And when you come back for your money, they make it hard with limits. If they charged money to store your funds, and then invested all that cash into the stock market. Any run on the bank of more than 1% of total deposits will collapse the entire banks liquidity. In other words, if you have more than 100k in your bank account, you better be emotionally and psychologically ready to part with it if the bank becomes insolvent or the stock market crashes.
Exactly, which is the part economists are conveniently forgetting. People will start to wake up and demand more, and economists are hoping they demand too little too late to matter.
Remember the “Fight for 15”? It’s stupid, but the establishment didn’t care about it because they knew it wasn’t high enough to affect their bottom line. It tells anyone that 15 dollars/hr is throwaway money to these guys, and if you want to beat inflation you better be earning at least double that.
They're either utterly moronic or quite carefully not mentioning that this will price the middle classes out of existence and help them install their little World Economic Forum-style ecological feudalism.
I'm wondering if my elderly grandfather is going to live through an economic crisis worse than the one he lived through at the beginning of his life. I'm also wondering how we're going to come up with a name more dire than "The Great Depression."
Fucking idiot. They just described hyperinflation like it’s a good thing. What we need is either a normal inflation cycle OR to print money at the same rate it’s destroyed so that no one loses value over time just for having money.
It's good because people will be paying the same per month for their homes, but more will go to banks as interest and less to principal (because the previous owner had to charge less). YAY BANKS!
We always reach a point where they admit that "the bad thing you claimed was happening" is, in fact, happening, but it's actually good! As if they can invert reality before our very eyes and then gaslight us into thinking we saw nothing.
Sadly it works for a non-negligible amount of our population.
But Bloomberg said it was a good thing! They're a hIgHLy rEesPEcTeD pUbLIcAtIoN!
I hate it. I'm in a discord infested with smooth brains and somebody posted one of those memes comparing today to the fall of Rome and the retards started talking about how it was the Christians fault Rome fell.
Yeah but then it's followed by "bad thing happening is actually bad but here's why it's all your fault!"
law of salutary contraddiction
Are you going to increase wages to compensate? Otherwise, fuck off with this shit.
He basically just assumes that raises will rise faster than inflation for the next several decades.
Despite literally every shred of evidence that has pointed that the opposite has happened in the past 70 years.
Wage Raises almost always lag behind inflation because inflation is market-leading, whereas wage earnings are negotiated and usually in response to said inflation rise.
This is exactly why they tell you to get a promotion or find a new job to earn a higher wage to beat inflation. Anyone who stayed at their current position without promotions or without changing jobs for years will never beat inflation.
Yup, I actually used the inflation argument in my salary negotiation.
It didn't work.
Then an executive and 3 other people quit because of low pay.
I'm gonna try it again later ; )
I literally said, "Hey, entry level for this job at another company is $20/hr by the end of the year." Next it's going to be, "Hey, not only is what I said previously still true, Amazon is paying $22 /hr entry level."
I'm not terribly interesting in quitting at the moment because of the amount of upward mobility I have in the company now is far superior to anywhere else and I have good management (which is a fucking blessing on it's own). I'm using that opportunity to basically lateral move into a different part of the industry while working. So, I'll take the hit in pay for now.
I’ve generally found that even a great company environment couldn’t prevent me from switching jobs when inflation rose up. I got a 20% salary increase by just quitting in February of this year, and got another 5.7% salary increase in June again. Yeah, my resume doesn’t look great right now, but my skill set is in enough demand that my tenure is a non-issue.
My only concern is the speed of my upward mobility (which other companies couldn't have provided, even with pay increases), and I'm a bit concerned about the potential consequences of mass layoffs if an economic downturn takes place.
I don't want to be the first one out because I have the shortest time in the company. My higher pay won't mean shit if the labor shortage, which I doubt is even a real shortage and is just wages rising too slowly, turn around and becomes a labor surplus because entire industries are closing.
Evidence? In my socialist propaganda?
We'll be lucky if the US maintains its 0% interest rate floor. Lot of countries abandoned that long ago.
Europe has negative interest and more and more banks are passing that on to the people.
Not surprising. I always thought it'd be an easy sell for banks to charge someone money to secure their money. "It's safer than keeping it in your mattress; why wouldn't we charge you money for that?"
The banks lend depositor's money out for interest. The small amount of interest you get on your savings or money market account is "your share" of the profit they made lending your money to others.
If a bank wanted to charge me a fee, I wouldn't be willing to let them lend my money to others for a profit. I would just pay for a safety deposit box if I was worried about securing money and the bank was going to charge me to have a regular account.
Yes of course; in a world where you can make money from lending out money that's all perfectly reasonable. In a world where you can't, then the sales pitch must change. Or banks switch to more complex/risky financial instruments that may not be insured against loss.
Safety deposit boxes usually aren't insured (or if they are aren't insured for very much or against very much), so if it came to that I would recommend researching that before doing such a thing as storing your money in one.
There used to be banks that only charged a fee and did not invest the money. But those banks have either merged with bigger banks that care about their shareholders more, or have gone out of business to banks that are fractional reserve banking in nature.
The problem is, bank solvency is extremely volatile with fractional banking, and if it wasn’t for FDIC “guarantees” and “too big to fail” status, there would be more failures in the system every 5-8 years every time we have a 20%+ correction in stock market prices.
Without getting too into fractional reserve banking, their reserve rates are currently at zero (set by the Fed Reserve). Meaning, when you deposit a check to your bank, they can turn around and loan out 100% of the value of your deposit. And when you come back for your money, they make it hard with limits. If they charged money to store your funds, and then invested all that cash into the stock market. Any run on the bank of more than 1% of total deposits will collapse the entire banks liquidity. In other words, if you have more than 100k in your bank account, you better be emotionally and psychologically ready to part with it if the bank becomes insolvent or the stock market crashes.
Lol.
The big problem is, if wages are actually going to increase you'll get a vicious cycle of runaway inflation.
Companies pass cost of higher wages on to consumers > prices rise > more inflation > demands for even higher wages.
Exactly, which is the part economists are conveniently forgetting. People will start to wake up and demand more, and economists are hoping they demand too little too late to matter.
Remember the “Fight for 15”? It’s stupid, but the establishment didn’t care about it because they knew it wasn’t high enough to affect their bottom line. It tells anyone that 15 dollars/hr is throwaway money to these guys, and if you want to beat inflation you better be earning at least double that.
you know things are fucked when mcdonalds is offering over 20 bux an hour to start
I watched George Gammon read this, and it seemed like he wanted to just die by about half-way through; and said the writer was on LSD by the end of it.
This whole article is literally Carl Benjamin's point about bureaucrats saying "Line goes up! Look at my spreadsheets!"
They're either utterly moronic or quite carefully not mentioning that this will price the middle classes out of existence and help them install their little World Economic Forum-style ecological feudalism.
It's kind of both.
These are the quite literal landless "Villeins" who have pledged their lives and children to their Lords, looking down on the peasants.
They are the literal definition of where the term "Villain" originates, because when feudalism died, they went with it.
"America needs to become Zimbabwe"
Hell no I'm poor as shit
the moneychangers need to be reminded of their place
translation: there are too many uppity plebians with enough savings to whether the storm we are facilitating. Time to zero out their savings again.
I'm wondering if my elderly grandfather is going to live through an economic crisis worse than the one he lived through at the beginning of his life. I'm also wondering how we're going to come up with a name more dire than "The Great Depression."
Fucking idiot. They just described hyperinflation like it’s a good thing. What we need is either a normal inflation cycle OR to print money at the same rate it’s destroyed so that no one loses value over time just for having money.
Inflation will help the government. The people get fucked by tax increases and the "hidden tax".
It's good because people will be paying the same per month for their homes, but more will go to banks as interest and less to principal (because the previous owner had to charge less). YAY BANKS!
Karl W. Smith is an idiot.
We need higher inflation like this man needs a round the clock sulfuric acid enema. Which is to say, fuck this guy.
That is a headline written by the economically illiterate.
America is too much inflated already wtf, America needs less inflation not more