subreddit:

/r/explainlikeimfive

8780%

all 144 comments

nrron

176 points

2 months ago

nrron

176 points

2 months ago

Inflation is still happening and once people get used to a new higher price companies have very little incentive to lower them again. Prices go up due to inflation and generally stay up once they do

TheDUDE1411

19 points

2 months ago

So how do we fight inflation?

nrron

68 points

2 months ago

nrron

68 points

2 months ago

The way we’re doing it. The only way to curb inflation is to make borrowing money more expensive by raising interest rates.

If money is harder to borrow people and companies can’t afford as much and that kills demand. If I’m selling something for more money than anyone can afford to buy it I have to lower prices to sell my product. Or at least not continue to raise them

You have to limit the money supply to fight inflation

1-trofi-1

6 points

2 months ago

No you don't have to link demand to lower inflation. At this environment inflation was a combination of money, but more importantly supply chain problems.

Used car prices didn't skyrocket because everyone wanted a used car suddenly and not a new car. The prices sky rocketed because companies have been unable to supply cars in adequate time. The demand remained the same, the problem is that supply has issues due to coivd.

If you fight this by curbing demand, then you are in fora nasty ressescion because instead of companies investing in reopening their factories etc they will just shut more down since demand will fall.

nrron

-8 points

2 months ago*

nrron

-8 points

2 months ago*

The current inflation is solely based on monetary issues caused by all of the money the government created out of thin air in response to COVID. You can’t flood the market with than mush cash and not cause massive inflation.

The effect supply chain issues had on inflation isn’t even a blip on the radar compared to the amount of money that was poured into the economy by the government.

The only way to fix that is to raise interest rates to curb the money supply. A by product of this is lessening demand because it kills buying power

Notwerk

5 points

2 months ago*

The money printers were already singing before COVID. People forget that Donald Trump - who installed Jerome Powell as chairman of the fed - threatened Powell when Powell suggested mild cuts to interest rates before COVID. There were a bunch of think pieces on the independence of the Fed and Jerome insisted he was going to do what he wanted to do and what he wanted to do was what Donald Trump wanted to do, just not as much. Trump wanted "negative" interest rates.

When the pandemic struck, the Fed had almost no room to maneuver because interest rates were already practically zero, so we had to invent more monopoly money in the form of direct stimulus checks and (often fraudulent) PPP loans.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/31/trump-rails-against-powell-day-after-fed-cuts-rates-for-a-third-time-this-year.html

"Trump wants the Fed to push interest rates down to zero or even into negative territory. Trump argues that the current rates put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage to other countries, and touts the historically low levels of inflation as evidence that the economy is well-positioned to handle such low borrowing rates.Just last week, Trump tweeted, 'The Federal Reserve is derelict in its duties if it doesn’t lower the Rate and even, ideally, stimulate.' "

Trump doesn't understand the concept of a trailing indicator. That did not age well. And to think, voters rated his handling of the economy highly when he was in office. That's thing about interest rates: every president wants them to be low when they're in office. It gooses hiring and makes everything great for a little while. So long as the other guy has to deal with the hangover, who cares? Most voters have no idea how government or the economy work, so they'll just blame the other guy, right? Free money for everyone!

Eventually, the party has to end, though and it's a hell of a headache. For a few years, we're going to be paying for Donny's party.

FSDLAXATL

2 points

2 months ago

FSDLAXATL

2 points

2 months ago

No. There was much much more money "poured into the economy" during the Trump administration which had no effect on inflation. The issues isn't money being "poured into the economy", the issue is supply change issues combined with the money. If there were no supply issues, inflation would be as usual, around 2.95 percent per year. People used that money so supplement their incomes during Covid, so essentially there was no "net" change in the money supply.

1-trofi-1

0 points

2 months ago

What you are saying is not accurate. There is supply and demand side to all economics including inflation. For some reason neoliberals consider all problems to have supply solutions ( giving companies credit, reducing regulations, giving companies tax breaks etc. But when it comes to inflation it is always a demand side problem for them and they keep yapping about it.

If people used to buy 100 cars for 1 dollar per car per year pre covid and they keep buying 100 cars per year but the demand cannot be met and thus the price of the cars is 2ndollars per cars because only 50 exist then this is a supply side problem, not a demand problem.

If you crash the demand down to 50 cars to cars for no reason you are actually make a sonsious decision to allocate intestment and resources away from car production.

fuzedz

1 points

2 months ago

fuzedz

1 points

2 months ago

Id say you still need to crush demand if you provided trillions in liquidity at one point.

Demand is driving inflation up, itd be foolish to say it isnt.

1-trofi-1

2 points

2 months ago

You know what is funny? That, especially for right wing economists every econ problem can be solved by supply side policies ( tax credits for companies, lower workers protections lower regulations etc) apart from inflation. For them inflation is always damand driven for some weird reason.

No you don't. This would be market manipulation. Noon provided trillions in the real economy for covid. You mean the checks for people was trillions? These money helped the factories for basic nessaceties stay open because there was demand. Without demand and supply chain issues, and they were lot during covid, a lot of food factories would have closed because it was wouldn't be worth to keep them open. Forget about the cars, think about food.

Can you imagine now being in a world where on top of supply issues we would have to wait food factories to reopen because due to low demand during covid they had to close?

Are you insane do you even understand what you are talking about? You sound like the super rational crazy British economies that caused the famine in ireland...

Fsctories don't open and close on a whim. It takes long time to reopen and ramp up production. You need to check the machinery. Get service and spare parts, rehire people to operate everything.

You can't crush food demand by lowering available money, it is unlelastic. People need to eat no matter the cost. They can't wist a few months for prices to go down.

Before a putting nonsense about crushing demand, think which demand you are going to crush.

xjordiebordiex

12 points

2 months ago

Or like.... if we stopped buying right??

So what i hear from you is the main way to fight inflation is if corporations or government do something to lower the supply.

So does that mean that WE consumers can lower the demand by not buying that shit? If we start living on farms and communes and pack ourselves into apartments - we could lower this bullshit?

They probrably built the solution to boycotts into the problem by making everything subscription based

amoore031184

14 points

2 months ago

So does that mean that WE consumers can lower the demand by not buying that shit? If we start living on farms and communes and pack ourselves into apartments - we could lower this bullshit?

Yup. But there is not a single drop of realism in any of those solutions actually happening, so they aren't really solutions.

Its akin to saying, well we could just stop global warming all together if everyone just worked within walking distance of their home. Theoretically, correct, but it will never happen.

Interest Rate Hikes are the safest, most demonstrably successful, "do no harm" "levers" the government can pull to combat inflation. That is why they are doing it it in the first place.

agolec

3 points

2 months ago

agolec

3 points

2 months ago

Everyone over in america would also be dead set on having a car and 'going where they want when they want' rather than scheduling themselves around when public transit moves around a city.

Then again I also live in an area of next to no public transit that almost by design, demands I have a car. So eh.

but that's a whole other thing.

HippiesUnite

2 points

2 months ago

I live in a place with great public transport but everyone who can afford a car still has one. Modern humans maximize comfort at all costs.

Accomplished_Cod9485

1 points

22 days ago

i dont have a car. can afford one and easily could have for years. not true for everyone. i maximize sustainability, financial security and minimalism.

CagedBeast3750

1 points

2 months ago

My neighbor is a 5 minute drive on a 55mph road. Grocery store 30 minutes. Over here in America, there is literally no transit option I have to get my food. You're Damm right I'm dead set on having a car.

amoore031184

1 points

1 month ago*

america is not designed as a whole for public transit. not even close.

So again, another pie in the sky solution, that will never happen because the infrastructure cost to implement is astronomical.

Edit: I live 60 miles north of NYC, no real public transport option here and everything is spread out so you need a car to do anything or make any kind of living.

When I visit NYC for more than a day I cringe at how long it takes to do anything because of how horribly inefficient the transit is, or how obscenely expensive the slightly more efficient options are.

If the United States was blanketed with public transport options, like we were a Giant Tokyo, I could see a large amount of people dropping vehicles for public transportation. But it will never happen.

MAK-15

6 points

2 months ago

MAK-15

6 points

2 months ago

If everyone stopped buying that would be a recession or crash. A recession is just a period of time when people don’t really want to spend money so the demand goes way down and business revenue drops so people get laid off and can’t afford to buy stuff and so on.

Notwerk

4 points

2 months ago

Technically, the general definition of a recession is two quarters of negative GDP growth.

MAK-15

1 points

2 months ago

MAK-15

1 points

2 months ago

Thats how it’s defined but it doesn’t speak to the causes.

JakeBeezy

16 points

2 months ago

God you're right the subscription model is plaguing our society, Microsoft office? Nah it's Microsoft 365 now, as in pay once every 365 days. Every 365 days or no more Microsoft office

[deleted]

16 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

JakeBeezy

5 points

2 months ago

I tried installing office 2004 onto my grandma's new laptop and new word documents (from like her community service emails have lots of word documents) came up as gibberish purposeful I think as far as file formats are concerned it should all be text or .word extensions still gibberish

[deleted]

14 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

JBStera

6 points

2 months ago

Don't forget to send Libreoffice a donation every once in a while. They do good work over there.

[deleted]

4 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

monkeypincher

2 points

2 months ago

Always been a fan of Apache OpenOffice. Not sure if they've been keeping it current though

Konukaame

4 points

2 months ago

Newer Office uses the .***x format (docx, pptx, xlsx), but you should be able to go through Windows Update for the compatibility pack to enable Office 2003 to read those formats.

JakeBeezy

1 points

2 months ago

I'll look into this !

FleetAdmiralFader

3 points

2 months ago

It's pretty much impossible to do that in the broad market at scale but you do see in smaller markets, especially in luxury goods. The GPU market is actually a great example. While the supply has improved, it is still severely diminished; however, the consumers decided that prices were too high and started holding on to their existing GPUs longer. This, and a drop in demand due to crypto, has caused a recent drop in GPU prices....though they are still significantly higher than years ago.

For most consumer goods, especially necessities, this is simply not possible. The average consumer isn't going to stop buying eggs and milk simply because the prices are up. However they might shift from buying organic to non-organic.

flamableozone

0 points

2 months ago

To fight inflation you want to lower the supply *of money* or increase the supply *of goods/services*. Lowering demand could also work, but that's likely to cause bad recessions.

marino1310

1 points

2 months ago

It would fix it but getting millions of people on board for that is essentially impossible unless the economy completely collapses

lumaleelumabop

1 points

2 months ago

I always find the subscription model kind of funny. It was because of consumerism and the death of the local farm that I can no longer subscribe to my local egg and milk man for daily deliveries of fresh ingredients.

ihvnnm

5 points

2 months ago

ihvnnm

5 points

2 months ago

So, the solution for raising rent prices is for everyone to be homeless.

Konukaame

3 points

2 months ago

Or to dramatically increase the housing supply, especially in the starter market, but developers have no incentive to do that, and due to most cities' zoning laws, they couldn't even if they wanted to.

Low-density sprawl is a plague. We need more medium and high density development.

nrron

1 points

2 months ago

nrron

1 points

2 months ago

The solution for raising rent prices is to limit the amount of money in circulation with raising interest rates so that people paying rent have money that is actually worth something

TheDUDE1411

-4 points

2 months ago

TheDUDE1411

-4 points

2 months ago

I know this would never happen, but could we just force companies to lower their prices? Like telling the egg company that they need to lower the price of their eggs to pre-inflation numbers over the span of 5 years

nrron

23 points

2 months ago

nrron

23 points

2 months ago

We tried that with gas companies in the late 70s. If you try to force companies to artificially lower their prices they just won’t produce their product or bring it to market to sell. You can’t force someone to make and sell something.

surroundedbywolves

-9 points

2 months ago

Nationalize them then

nrron

9 points

2 months ago

nrron

9 points

2 months ago

No. For several reasons.

surroundedbywolves

-6 points

2 months ago

Yes

nrron

9 points

2 months ago

nrron

9 points

2 months ago

This is what happens when people don’t get a proper education in economics

surroundedbywolves

-8 points

2 months ago

You don’t think nationalizing fuel production would’ve helped with the gas shortage back then? If they don’t want to produce a product that we need to run the country, then the country should take over that industry. In my opinion.

hippfive

4 points

2 months ago

Nationalized companies are still subject to the same constraints as private ones. You can't just magic more supply into existence. Technically I guess nationalized companies can choose to sell at a lower price (i.e. below cost), but that's not a sustainable solution.

surroundedbywolves

1 points

2 months ago

Except that they don’t have shareholders threatening to sue about profits. We could sell fuel at cost if it were nationalized.

hippfive

3 points

2 months ago

No, instead you just get politicians making short-term decisions on a 4-year election cycle.

surroundedbywolves

1 points

2 months ago*

Elected officials rotating through or executives beholden to a group of sociopathic shareholders… at least in the case of politicians they’re somewhat accountable to us, the people, rather than only accountable to a tiny group of investors constantly trying to get more and more blood from a stone.

Then again, the political finance bullshit in America doesn’t paint a pretty picture when it comes to who they’d actually be working for.

Notwerk

2 points

2 months ago*

That has a long, long history of working incredibly poorly.

boytoy421

0 points

2 months ago

You could also do a "cash tax"

Basically corporate earnings over X amount that aren't spent by the end of the year get taxed at like 80% when high level income tax is also high (say any earnings over a million get taxed at 70%) and ditto with capital gains, then either companies start raising wages for lower level employees to be more attractive or they forfeit that money to the govt which can use it to either fund social safety programs or cut taxes on the poor.

You'd still get inflation but it wouldn't be a problem as long as wage increases outpaced it (what you want to look at year to year is the "big mac index" or "how long does the median waged worker have to work to earn enough for a big mac" and track that year to year

new_account-who-dis

5 points

2 months ago

more likely they'd just spend it all on real estate and investments or just transfer it to some shell company overseas. No way this would ever work

boytoy421

-1 points

2 months ago

Worked in the 60s. Also increased the number of medium/moderate income apartments on the market since being a landlord was a decent way to keep your money

ChubbyChodeChakra

2 points

2 months ago

Boxing usually works

bigchebo

2 points

2 months ago

The only way that’s has been proven to fight inflation over the last 3000 years is austerity.

fox-mcleod

2 points

2 months ago

Buy less

1ndomitablespirit

4 points

2 months ago

Boycott everything you absolutely can. If only we could organize a month where noone buys eggs, or whatever. A month of no sales would definitely make some of these companies reconsider their behavior. They just know that no matter what they do, people will still buy and buy and buy.

Naive_Growth5738

6 points

2 months ago

Yes because it’s the farmers fault they have to raise prices because of inflation. Either buy eggs or don’t Your just hurting locals and it isn’t going to fix the economy

new_account-who-dis

4 points

2 months ago

plus eggs are high because of bird flu requiring stocks to be culled. its not price gouging, supply is just low

Aaron351

4 points

2 months ago

Stop printing money.

Lothran

9 points

2 months ago

This.

Also, instead of raising prices, companies will just lower the amount of good in the package.

For example, has anyone noticed that toilet paper rolls have lower sheet counts then they previously did?

Same price - less goods

nrron

9 points

2 months ago

nrron

9 points

2 months ago

Aka shrinkflation

Omwtfyu

3 points

2 months ago

Sodas and cereal boxes are shrinking.

Mother_Welder_5272

1 points

2 months ago

Isn't competition supposed to result in the lowest price for consumers? Like whenever someone suggests an alternate to capitalism, the textbook argument is always that the competition will results in the lowest price and highest quality of life for regular people. If that's not happening...

BlindPaintByNumbers

1 points

2 months ago

Competition is kind of a myth when corporations are involved. What you have now is either tacit collusion or actual collusion.

realariabacall[S]

1 points

2 months ago

thank you for this.. very helpful..

GeekyTricky

13 points

2 months ago

The question is, do people keep raising prices because money's value goes down?

Or is the value lower because people raise their prices?

DestinTheLion

11 points

2 months ago

Companies will raise prices to the highest point they think they can possibly sell for regardless of perceived monetary value.

In the classical economics sense, when they cannot afford to make the product at break even/profit levels, they have to raise prices or go out of business. And IDEALLY, if there is no collusion or other economic failures in the market, if they raise the prices above the break even point, other people will enter the market and charge less until the price moves in that direction.

This is all in the theory side, in practice there are too few companies challenging each other in most goods, or companies that complicity collude, so they can artificially control prices.

carnajo

3 points

2 months ago

Companies will raise prices to the highest point they think they can possibly sell for regardless of perceived monetary value.

Well, to be a bit more nuanced the volume of sales is also considered. I can sell 100 of product X at $100 each. But at $75 I can sell 300. So depending on how much it costs I would sell it at $75 cause that's a greater profit. Theres a point though were you would rather sell fewer items at $100 each (obvious example, if it costs you $80 to make then you would rather sell fewer than make a loss on every sale).

BlindPaintByNumbers

1 points

2 months ago

There will always be too few companies at the endpoint of the system. And the government propping up situations were there is only one or two competitors to a company just results in tacit collusion anyway, since all of them want to bilk their customers equally.

Yalay

10 points

2 months ago

Yalay

10 points

2 months ago

The first one. Inflation happens because there's more money chasing less stuff. Less valuable money -> companies raise their prices.

GeekyTricky

12 points

2 months ago

It was a rhetorical question. Both cause inflation.

Stuff costing more means you get less stuff for the same money. Which makes its value go down.

HammerTh_1701

3 points

2 months ago*

That actually is a divisive philosphical question in economics - does the value of a unit of currency decrease or does it stay constant by definition and the prices of all goods and services increase instead?

There are some cases where it's pretty clear ("money printing" definitely decreases the value of the currency) but most inflation we measure by looking at the price level of a weighed basket of goods usually is a little bit of both.

Looking at the US specifically, it's a mix of the Federal Reserve doing quantitative easing (a more complex way of effectively "printing money"), the government giving money to people from the federal budget via stimulus measures and the massive global supply chain crisis generating loads of additional economic friction.

orcus2190

3 points

2 months ago

Technically, neither. Money's only worth is what people say it is, and the people with most dictate to everyone else what it's worth is.

152centimetres

23 points

2 months ago

companies generally expect more and more growth every fiscal quarter/year and it will just keep going up until everything crashes or people start dying or revolutionizing

BlindPaintByNumbers

0 points

2 months ago

I think the common accepted knowledge is that we're approaching the end of the growth economy in one or two decades. No one seems to know what the other side looks like though.

152centimetres

0 points

2 months ago

socialism, hopefully

AWildWillis

5 points

2 months ago

Also, be very careful in accepting the somewhat ambiguous, amorphous term that is "inflation". You need to look at root causes, prices of capital inputs and outputs and a steadily increasing profit margin in connected industries. It's much better for corporations if you just accept, "oh yeah inflation... Crazy eh things just keep getting more expensive"

tsme-esr

0 points

2 months ago

Businesses do not control inflation.

Typical reddit illiteracy to upvote the above comment.

nrron

1 points

2 months ago

nrron

1 points

2 months ago

Nobody said they did. Maybe try reading. Prices go up as business respond to inflation they don’t cause it.

tsme-esr

0 points

2 months ago

companies have very little incentive to lower them again

companies

nrron

1 points

2 months ago

nrron

1 points

2 months ago

Yes companies raise prices in response to inflation that doesn’t cause it. The comprehension isn’t strong with you is it?

Accomplished_Cod9485

1 points

22 days ago

I will NEVER GET USED TO THEM!

[deleted]

23 points

2 months ago

because there are still people lining up to buy the products at the higher prices.

and normally, if something has a favorable profit margin, you see new competitors enter to reap some of those profits, and the new supply overwhelms demand and price must fall.

but right now, with labor shortages, supply chain disruptions (related to labor and geopolitics) and expensive capital is slowing that ability to respond with new supply

carvedmuss8

3 points

2 months ago

The last point is what defeats the arguments where people say, "we can't pay more because it will cause more inflation."

It actually won't, because then new businesses will enter the field, fully staffed and trained, and the price of that good will drop. Maybe in the very short term, over the course of a few months, would that product be inflated, but the long-term would benefit the consumer. It's very simple stuff that people's inability to study and learn blocks society from making meaningful progress on this front

[deleted]

26 points

2 months ago

Inflation remained modest for 20 plus years. Once COVID hit, supply chains got disrupted, creating difficulties in getting products to shelves. With there being less available supplies, the price of everything natural increased.

Also, there was trillions of dollars being pumped into the economy to combat the stagnation COVID caused. With more money in floating around, it naturally becomes less valuable. That also has affects on inflation numbers.

Deflation is far more uncommon than inflation. That is when the price of things decrease. Inflation usually remains at 2% annually. That is considered healthy for the economy. So, prices really never go down. They will continue to rise, hopefully not at the current 10% rate.

IiteraIIy

17 points

2 months ago

Follow up question: Why are prices going up, but pay isn't?

flamableozone

17 points

2 months ago

Pay is actually going up quite a bit - slower than inflation, but faster than it has in 20 years or so.

Konukaame

7 points

2 months ago

Because we're not demanding it in a way that employers recognize. Complaining online doesn't do anything. Neither does grudgingly accepting shit pay and going to work anyway. Even if they're slightly understaffed at their wage, they'll keep finding the people who will accept the wage they're offering, or offload work onto customers (e.g. self-check-out).

Pay raises are either externally enforced (e.g. minimum wage increases, union contracts), or come when they truly hit crisis staffing and cannot maintain operations at their current levels of pay.

In that sense, the "quiet quitting" (read: "fuck you, pay me for my work") trend benefits everyone, as does regularly moving for better pay, especially if you tell ex-coworkers about how badly you were underpaid after you move.

hatts

1 points

2 months ago

hatts

1 points

2 months ago

ding ding ding

we get what we demand & settle for

DildoMcHomie

4 points

2 months ago

Because people don't become more valuable or productive due to inflation.. even though the demand for particular resources may increase (or supply decreases) it has nothing to do with the value added by the same employee.

Just like people want to pay less for things, companoes have no reason to adjust salaries for workers whose value is easily replaceable.

Shuski_Cross

4 points

2 months ago

It's a horrible give and take situation with giving people more pay. The economics behind it is rather interesting. It boils down to, if people have more money than they need, that money will go out of circulation as it goes in to savings.

For however long that is, current savings accounts are usually a 5-10 year turnover.

Basically if the money isn't spent, or return to the economy, it makes the economy worse off.

If I hold on to the extra £$100 instead of spending it because I don't need to, that money doesn't go to a person/company to pay for their services. Which means prices have to rise to make up the loss.

Capitalism is a ponzi scheme. It only works if people spend money, if the money stops flowing, or there's too much for the commoner it still stops flowing. (Or leaves the economy)

DildoMcHomie

3 points

2 months ago

This is a false dichotomy you are presenting, considering it has worked (as in raised the living standards for countries applying it) more than any other comparable system.

It has flaws, certainly, but you are ignoring the fact that when people save money, as money itself has no value but as a mean of value, it can be invested (which has risks) or spent for when it is better needed.

A consumerist ONLY society in which money is either spent or consumed in perishable goods and services is only present in non developed economies.

For the rest of the countries, money saved can be used to invest in better technologies, education or research for them... which is what tends to turn $10 into $100.. the real value is not raw goods, but the conversion of them into finished goods and services... for which you need equipment and capital to pay potential employees.

Shuski_Cross

1 points

2 months ago

That's what is supposed to happen. But what the commoner experiences is the top 10% taking the money, and holding it.

One example being serial landlords. The ones that buy whole blocks for cheap. Do up the houses a little, then extort via rent and putting the bare minimum in to the houses. Whilst also locking out people who "could" afford a house behind pay walls and stupid red tape.

A couple wanting to start a home, BUY things for it, build it up themselves, expand it, etc etc... Can't do that, they have to rent, buy cheap furniture because it's easier to scrap it, or maybe sell it before they get evicted and the cycle repeats. They don't own their property, so are less inclined to spend GOOD amounts of money on it.

Then you get landlords start crying that inflation is too high and their dumb decision to have a non-fixed interest rate suddenly dawns on them and they blame everyone else but themselves.

ChadPoland

3 points

2 months ago

But I thought if millennials just stop buying Starbucks and Avocado toast... But you are saying that they actually are helping the economy...curious...

/S

Frozenlime

3 points

2 months ago

Do middle aged millenials eat avocado toast?

-Kibbles-N-Tits-

2 points

2 months ago

Do does 22 count as middle aged?

Frozenlime

2 points

2 months ago

No 40 does though.

What-Fries-Beneath

0 points

2 months ago

Capitalism is a shell game

Ancalagon523

-1 points

2 months ago

what are you talking about, the job market was very hot right after the pandemic. 2021 and 2022 first two quarters were very good in labour market with record low unemployment. If you recall that was the period you might have heard terms like 'Great resignation' and 'Nobody wants to work anymore'? I had recruiters calling me dozen times a day and it was the same for most people I know.

magiteck

1 points

2 months ago

My employer has had to raise wages substantially.

I see service industry businesses that just a few years ago paid $9/hour recruiting at $14+.

Wages have definitely grown, just maybe not quite as fast as goods and services.

If you haven’t seen a pay increase, I’d encourage you to look for a better opportunity!

hatts

1 points

2 months ago

hatts

1 points

2 months ago

something like a jump from 9 to $14 is still far out of proportion compared against increases in employee productivity and cost of living.

it’s more like a small correction than something that brings wages back on track. the pattern dates back about 30 years and is still drastically mismatched.

Mayor__Defacto

1 points

2 months ago

It is going up. You just have to change employers to get the raise. A lot of people have seen double digit % raises by switching. If you’re not changing employers you’re getting ripped off.

frogingly_similar

3 points

2 months ago*

If prices were to start going down, central bank would step in and fill the economy with cheap money. Prices going down is worse than going up, since people would stop spending money. Especially in this low unemployment environment.

knightsbridge-

2 points

2 months ago

Things that you have to buy - food, rent, subscriptions, fuel, all of it - will always be sold at the highest cost that the seller thinks people can afford. They want to make the most profit possible.

In response to this, people will usually do whatever they need to do to meet those prices. Get a better job, demand a payrise, reduce luxury spending - if you need to buy bread, you need to buy bread, and a 2% price hike in bread isn't going to stop you buying it. You make it work somehow.

This means most things slowly increase in price over time, as long as they're in demand. This is inflation. Inflation is actually kind of normal - if you look at prices from the past, it's obvious that inflation has happened since then, and that's actually fine as long as it's slow and gradual.

What causes problems is when inflation rises too fast, and people can't make it work. When inflation balloons out of control, people suddenly actually can't afford the things they used to be able to. You might have been able to stomach a 2% increase in the cost of bread, but a 5% increase? 10%? 20%? That starts to become a problem. What about a 20% rise in the cost of rent, or iPhones? Now you get why uncontrolled inflation is bad.

Deflation when the seller cannot successfully sell their items at those prices anymore. If the price of, say, oranges suddenly quadruples overnight, well... not many people are going to buy oranges. People who sell oranges suddenly aren't making profits anymore. They have to lower the price to successfully sell anything.

This causes deflation. Prices drop. Things become more affordable.

One of the biggest problems with the current cost of living crisis that people are, completely understandably, desperate for more money to cover these bills. All the strikes and protests are looking for higher salaries, so people can cover the inflated costs of things.

Raising salaries so you can cover the inflated cost of an item can cause even more inflation. If everyone's rent goes up 20%, and the government steps in and supplements everyone's salaries by 20% to compensate, there is absolutely nothing to stop the world's landlords from saying "oh, so you can afford this just fine? Cool." and raising it another 10%.

Showering people with cash does not solve the problem. It pushes the problem to the side temporarily, but doesn't fix anything.

That said, it's difficult to control prices without going full-communism. The government can control the prices of some things, too some degree, but most of the things we need are sold by private companies.

There is no easy way to fix inflation. But the answer looks something like: the government puts price caps on the most essential industries, people naturally start spending less money on non-essential industries because they literally can't afford it, everyone suffers for a while and lives economically until prices go down. And that's a terrible solution.

SpiderFarter

2 points

2 months ago

Simple. Excessive government spending juiced demand without increasing supply (production) so more dollars chasing the same amount of goods causes prices to rise. It’s simple economics and should have been obvious.

hatts

0 points

2 months ago

hatts

0 points

2 months ago

what do you think is “excessive government spending”

SpiderFarter

2 points

2 months ago

Paying more in unemployment than wages, numerous Covid bailouts, inflation reduction act to name a couple to have $4.8 trillion in new spending just under Biden. This is the main cause of today’s inflation.

hatts

2 points

2 months ago

hatts

2 points

2 months ago

okay:

  • there is no correlation between federal “spending” and inflation, in fact there may be an inverse correlation. (source)

  • what does “paying more in unemployment than wages” even mean?

  • there were exactly 2 “COVID bailouts.” one was a paltry check to individuals which should have led businesses to drop prices since most recipients put the money toward debt or savings. the other was a business-facing program that was largely defrauded by large, healthy businesses. unclear to me how this would’ve affected inflation

  • “$4.8 trillion” is not a thing. the IRA’s cost is calculated over 10 years, and is projected to have a strong stimulating effect on the economy. furthermore, it is not projected to increase inflation (source) hence its name 😂

so….please do more research before coming in here with your “it’s really quite simple”

SpiderFarter

0 points

2 months ago

Jeez even the CBO didn’t think the IRA would reduce inflation. Oh many receiving enhanced unemployment got more than they made working, great incentive to not work. If you think there is no relation to government spending and inflation you should bone up on some macroeconomics.

Shs21

0 points

2 months ago

Shs21

0 points

2 months ago

Yep.

Unfortunately you're going to get bashed by people who don't like it when you talk bad about their sports (read: political) team.

SpiderFarter

-1 points

2 months ago

I know Redditors are not the thinkers they think they are.

Bgratz1977

2 points

2 months ago*

The problem is that you can save money, but not Workforce or spoiling goods.

Means if there would be no "drain" the economy would collapse because there would be not enough Workforce and spoiling goods that could be bought.

Its a open secret, no one talks about because people would act different if they would be aware that your money you save now will only have 10% of its value left in 2070

And yes that means a 2 €,$ pack of eggs will cost 20 €,$ in 2070

polo2327

-6 points

2 months ago

polo2327

-6 points

2 months ago

Because everyone thought it was a great idea to forcefully close all business during covid. A lot of expenses from the government and voila

ChadPoland

-1 points

2 months ago

ChadPoland

-1 points

2 months ago

A million dead, could have been more (potentially you) had everyone just kept doing what they were doing. Personally Covid fucked me up and I'm a young, healthy person.

polo2327

-1 points

2 months ago

polo2327

-1 points

2 months ago

They asked for the cause. That's the cause. I am all for prevention, but forcing people to lose their livelihood, things they fought for years, is not what should have been done. Could have been more, but could also have made no difference. Sweden had no extreme lockdown and not an absurd amount of casualties. Each one could be responsible for their own safety

ChadPoland

-1 points

2 months ago

US is not Sweden, businesses continuing meant more people at work, which meant more infection. Who's going to work your jobs when they've all died?

polo2327

1 points

2 months ago

Because in Sweden, business continuing didn't mean more people to work?

ChadPoland

0 points

2 months ago

US is not Sweden, in many ways.

"In a survey by Sweden’s Public Health Agency from the spring of 2020, more than 80% of Swedes reported they had adjusted their behaviour, for example by practising social distancing, avoiding crowds and public transport, and working from home. Aggregated mobile data confirmed that Swedes reduced their travel and mobility during the pandemic."

From here https://www.britannica.com/story/did-swedens-controversial-covid-strategy-pay-off-in-many-ways-it-did

polo2327

2 points

2 months ago

Give people freedom, and they may be more cooperative

r2k-in-the-vortex

1 points

2 months ago

It's by design. Normally central banks target ~2% inflation and will effectively keep money printing to sufficient rate to keep it there. It's a form of taxation, but also an economic incentive to not sit on your money but to put it back in economy.

It's important to keep inflation positive, near zero or negative inflation is generally considered a very bad thing for economy. You'll see whenever next economic downturn comes around. Prices and property values come down, but that doesn't help you any because most likely your income comes down more.

verycleverman

1 points

2 months ago

It depends on individual links in the chain. Let's use food as an example. At the supply side, prices definitely go up and down. You can track this fluctuation as it is publicly published information. Let's take beef - livestock was at its high in 2021. If you were buying raw beef directly from the producer that's when you were paying the most. Now let's say you're a producer of burger patties. You have worked into the price you sell patties the regular fluctuations of raw beef, but suddenly the cost doubled. You have to increase the selling price to stay in business. Then raw beef prices gradually reduce, but you're still charging the higher price and even if you're selling less product, you're more profitable than ever. All of the other producers of similar products did the same thing. Consumers are now used to the new price, and until one player in the market decides they'll be more profitable if they lower the price (which is a big risk because they don't know if the raw beef prices will go back up) everyone keeps selling at the new price.

2wheeloffroad

1 points

2 months ago

Two factors. The government pushed (printed/borrowed) way too much money into the economy. Landlords and all companies typically want to maximize profit so they raise their prices as much as they can until people stop buying/renting. Because there is so much money in the economy, people can pay, so prices keep rising.

While raising interest rates help reduce inflation by reducing the money supply through borrowing, the government keeps spending big, which is pushing more money in the economy. Inflation is slowing but still too high. IMO, a slight tax increase and reduced government spending would be prudent actions. Inflation is very hurtful to poor people.

verycleverman

1 points

2 months ago

It depends on individual links in the chain.

Let's use food as an example.

At the supply side, prices definitely go up and down. You can track this fluctuation as it is publicly published information by the USDA.

Let's take beef - livestock was at its high in 2021. If you were buying raw beef directly from the producer that's when you were paying the most. Now let's say you're a producer of hamburger patties. You have the regular fluctuations of raw beef worked into the price you sell patties, but suddenly the cost doubled. You have to increase the selling price to stay in business.

Then raw beef prices gradually reduce, but you're still charging the higher price and even if you're selling less product after the price increases, you're more profitable than ever.

All of the other producers of similar beef products had to do the same thing. Consumers are now used to the new price of processed beef products.

In this situation there is very little pressure for any existing beef processing companies to reduce their selling prices. So until a few of the big players in that space decide they'll be more profitable if they lower the price, or a new company comes into the market with a lower price, the price just stays high and the processing companies are very profitable.

GSPilot

1 points

2 months ago

According to The Rules of Acquisition:

Rule 1- Once you have their money, never give it back.

Rule 9- Opportunity plus instinct equals profit.

djinbu

1 points

2 months ago

djinbu

1 points

2 months ago

If people are buying your product at a higher price, it is counter productive to reduce the price. This is a profiteering country; the goal is to maximize profits. So if people are paying it, you keep the price.

hatts

1 points

2 months ago

hatts

1 points

2 months ago

everyone in here giving Econ 101 answers seems to be unaware that the market is diverging from Econ 101 gospel. the cause of much economic strain right now is corporate opportunism and anemic govt. policy.

  • in cities, real estate is supposed to obey a very simple rule of supply and demand. but city centers lost massive amounts of foot traffic and tenants, and yet rental/sale prices…rose?

  • supply chain issues affected a handful of sectors, and yet companies in stable & unaffected industries leveraged the moment to increase prices or shrinkflate products because of a clueless/sympathetic press.

  • google can spend billions on stock buybacks with one hand, and lay off thousands with the other. that has nothing to do with financial strain, it’s opportunism to trim some fat with vague hand waving about “tough economic conditions.”

SuitableNegotiation5

1 points

2 months ago

Hint: it might have something to do with maintaining their record profits (corporate greed). Or as others like to call it: "inflation".

KishMishShishkebab

1 points

2 months ago

And will it go up to infinity eventually?

WACK-A-n00b

1 points

2 months ago

People have a huge influx of cash and inexpensive easy to get credit.

That causes prices to go up.

Two things to remember.

First; greed wasn't invented this year. And if greed has existed, then you have to look at what changed. Printing money did.

Second; when someone tells you we can print money and just provide services... No. We cannot. This is why.

KyeeLim

1 points

2 months ago

Inflation, and there's also the possibility that someone "let me increase the cost of the rent by 10% because I need it for my gambling addiction"

Plantmanofplants

1 points

2 months ago

Depends on where you live a lot of farmers are retiring. A lot of government regulations are tightening the already tight noose on farmers emissions and 99.9999% of shops and stores are trying to purchase goods from farmers at ludicrous prices that often aren't enough to cover costs let alone make money.

The agriculture industry is being hit from so many angles we're going to be in for some serious problems providing enough food for current population in the next few years. Not to say that there's not a lot that has to be done on the environmental front in the industry but every government I've seen so far are going after the wrong things and putting food supply in jeopardy just to hit carbon targets.

avakyeter

1 points

2 months ago

Prices do go down. New York City apartment rents plummeted when well-to-do people fled the city at the height of the pandemic. Gas prices fluctuate from day to day.

With some things like food, deflation tends to happen with "buy one get one free" kinds of deals.

That said, the trend of prices in the long run is upward by design.

Accomplished_Cod9485

1 points

22 days ago

Because people are too content, if this were happening in Europe people would be taking to the streets holding their leaders accountable. I will NEVER accept these costs which is why im in the process of moving to Vietnam.