“According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (9), $100 in 2026 had the same purchasing power as just $11.74 did in 1970.”
Now I’m no economist, but it seems like there’s a way to fix this problem.
“We’ve tried bleeding them dry for more and more and it isn’t working we’re just completely out of ideas!”
Also gotta love how the article says these companies are “lowering prices” and then in the same sentence talks about them selling smaller package sizes for less money.
THAT IS NOT LOWERING PRICES THAT IS GIVING YOU LESS AT A TIME FOR LESS MONEY AT A TIME TO LOWER PRICES THE PRICE PER OUNCE HAS TO DECREASE
Note: CPI was changed in the 90s with the not so subtle goal of changing the metrics to level out and reduce annually reported inflation, in part to reduce COLA (https://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/boskinrpt.html). It sure made politicians look smart and all the charts to go up! This sounds somewhat reasonable until someone who knows about exponential growth enters the chat, points to the Rule of 69/70/72, and notes that the ~2% under reporting of inflation for the past ~30 years means we’ve silently lost almost half our wealth. This will get exponentially worse yet few are talking about it.
Point being, $100 in 2026 is closer to $6 in 1970.
Median family income in 1970 was $9,870. Median family income in 2026 is NOT $164,500. Not even close.
Eh the federal (in the us) min wage in 76 was $2 so by that logic yeah. But if we look at the average wage (less income disparity then, still there but not crazy yet) in 1970 being $8,510 then doing the math (assuming a 40 hour work week) that is more like $4 an hour so the average person would need to make $47 an hour in 2026.
And the average wage earned in the us of a in 2024 is… $63,293. Doing the same math gets us $30.43 an hour. And that is with massive shifts in the gap between wages that are now prevalent.
Everyone focuses on the min wage part (as they think that is the easiest way to address this issue) but not the over all issues of labor not being valued at an amount that makes an economy work long term. The underlying issue is that companies see cutting costs as the best way to increase profits and payroll is the largest line item on almost every balance sheet. So upping the min wage helps but ultimately these places will still cut where they can (less staff, more work per staff, replacing staff with LLMs, etc.) and the issue will continue. In times past the min wage was there as a safety net, but most could expect more for their work, now min wage is more commonly what people expect to earn. Mix in under employment, unemployment that lasts long enough people don’t count as unemployed anymore, and people having multiple part time jobs vs full time and you have a massive long term issue.
The question the companies that rely in any way on selling things to people should be asking is; “Who can buy their products?” not “we expect to sell more every quarter then last quarter at ever increasing prices, why are you all looking at us like that?”
And tax the shit out of assets to decrease the relative value of investments to actually generating value through work. Rebalance the economic incentives away from maximizing margins towards maximizing volume.
“According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (9), $100 in 2026 had the same purchasing power as just $11.74 did in 1970.”
Now I’m no economist, but it seems like there’s a way to fix this problem.
“We’ve tried bleeding them dry for more and more and it isn’t working we’re just completely out of ideas!”
Also gotta love how the article says these companies are “lowering prices” and then in the same sentence talks about them selling smaller package sizes for less money.
THAT IS NOT LOWERING PRICES THAT IS GIVING YOU LESS AT A TIME FOR LESS MONEY AT A TIME TO LOWER PRICES THE PRICE PER OUNCE HAS TO DECREASE
Note: CPI was changed in the 90s with the not so subtle goal of changing the metrics to level out and reduce annually reported inflation, in part to reduce COLA (https://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/boskinrpt.html). It sure made politicians look smart and all the charts to go up! This sounds somewhat reasonable until someone who knows about exponential growth enters the chat, points to the Rule of 69/70/72, and notes that the ~2% under reporting of inflation for the past ~30 years means we’ve silently lost almost half our wealth. This will get exponentially worse yet few are talking about it.
Point being, $100 in 2026 is closer to $6 in 1970.
Median family income in 1970 was $9,870. Median family income in 2026 is NOT $164,500. Not even close.
If minimum wage kept up with those figures we would have $23.50 minimum wage today.
Eh the federal (in the us) min wage in 76 was $2 so by that logic yeah. But if we look at the average wage (less income disparity then, still there but not crazy yet) in 1970 being $8,510 then doing the math (assuming a 40 hour work week) that is more like $4 an hour so the average person would need to make $47 an hour in 2026.
And the average wage earned in the us of a in 2024 is… $63,293. Doing the same math gets us $30.43 an hour. And that is with massive shifts in the gap between wages that are now prevalent.
Everyone focuses on the min wage part (as they think that is the easiest way to address this issue) but not the over all issues of labor not being valued at an amount that makes an economy work long term. The underlying issue is that companies see cutting costs as the best way to increase profits and payroll is the largest line item on almost every balance sheet. So upping the min wage helps but ultimately these places will still cut where they can (less staff, more work per staff, replacing staff with LLMs, etc.) and the issue will continue. In times past the min wage was there as a safety net, but most could expect more for their work, now min wage is more commonly what people expect to earn. Mix in under employment, unemployment that lasts long enough people don’t count as unemployed anymore, and people having multiple part time jobs vs full time and you have a massive long term issue.
The question the companies that rely in any way on selling things to people should be asking is; “Who can buy their products?” not “we expect to sell more every quarter then last quarter at ever increasing prices, why are you all looking at us like that?”
This is the important part to anchor the statement.
Its meaningless to say $11.74 then and $100 now without some reference to what it takes to earn that same $11.74 and $100.
edit: unless you’ve just been hoarding all your wealth as cash since 1970, in which case you got fucked.
Hmm, better cut their taxes some more.
Yeah, we need the government to step in and hold companies accountable
And tax the shit out of assets to decrease the relative value of investments to actually generating value through work. Rebalance the economic incentives away from maximizing margins towards maximizing volume.
I agree! We need to bring back the new deal
What exactly is the boundary between the United States Government and the companies?
They’re the same entity.
And as long as this government exists, those companies will exist and those companies will continue what they are doing.
Then we need a new government that doesn’t work for mega corporations
Yes. Just like they did in 2008 to the big banks… oh wait.