I swear I had Econ in college, but I don’t remember anyone saying this so succinctly. It’s from a weird place too, but this quote hits home. It’s like population decline, but for money.

It was a truly baffling thing for an American president to say. And University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers explained on MSNBC that things could get very bad as Trump’s scheme becomes reality. Wolfers ntoed that the idea of how much you can afford to buy with your income is called “real income.” And if real income falls, that’s called a recession. Wolfers went on to explain that if things decline as badly as Trump’s example, where someone who bought 30 dolls could only afford to buy two dolls, that’s called a depression.

Video from MSNBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAZxLm6M_V0

  • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    “Instead of 30 dolls they’ll have 2. Instead of 2 jobs they’ll have 3. Instead of eating 7 days a week they’ll eat 5. Instead of having roommates in their 20s they’ll have them through their 40s. Instead of inheriting their parents’ house they’ll inherit their parents’ debt.”

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    For decades, ‘middle class’ in America was one income supporting a family of four. In those days, $1 million was considered a vast fortune. Then Reagan got elected. By 1993, when Bush Sr. left office, ‘middle class’ was two incomes to run the home, and $1 million was what a rich guy spent on a party.

  • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    And if real income falls, that’s called a recession.

    But by that metric, rich people would never experience a recession. If that’s the case, why do we allow them to cause a recession for the rest of us? Madness.

    • entwine413@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      It’s a huge example of the bystander effect. It would only take a handful of people to change the situation.

          • Tattorack@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 days ago

            So… You’re saying you see something wrong in the world… And you shouldn’t do something about it? Just keep everything as it is?

            • wanderingmagus@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 hours ago

              I never said that. I said stop encouraging comrades to violate OPSEC. As in, stop posting openly about the activities that will get you arrested and keep that on encrypted channels.

  • Hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    TIL every year with a rent increase is a recession. Whenever housing prices increase faster than income that’s a recession. When college tuition goes up faster than incomes that’s a recession.

  • ultranaut@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    That isn’t really the definition though. Real income can fall in a recession but it’s not necessarily a recession just because incomes fell. Real income can increase or decrease both during a recession and not during a recession. It’s a lot more complicated than “when your income declines there is a recession”.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      The U.S. has been in a recession since Reagan according to the wording right? Housing and such vs wages shows its been in downfall since.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        I was a kid in the Reagan years and I can certainly buy shitloads more now than as a young adult. As you say, housing and wages are shit, but I can afford things that were unthinkable back then. For comparison, I was making minimum wage as a 1990 college kid, basically am now at $15/hr.

        I’m probably not making sense, but the goods available to me now are stunning compared to previous decades. And I’m not only talking about compute power, but while we’re there… Dad got me a VIC-20 in the 80s, $1,700 in today’s money. For that much I can outfit a family of four with decent phones and likely pay less monthly than our AT&T bill in the day. And what’s “long distance”?

        My water bill was around $20 in the 90s, still is today. I had all the tools to cut my water, gas and power back on, I was that poor. Even at $15/hr. I can easily pay all that along with my wife’s $17hr. (Always had roommates or live-in girlfriends, same difference.)

        Education and housing prices have exploded, but not so much other stuff. My first ever real shopping trip was $75 (1990), that’s $175 in 2025. $220 is our usual Aldi bill and I’m buying shrimp, chicken, beef, good stuff. Guess I’m saying that consumer goods and services are shitloads cheaper, or were. Give us a few months.

        And as ever, I’m fucked once again on health care. Guess where I live.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          So from 1960-1990 (30 years) prices went from about 60 cents to 1.66 per pound for beef. That’s that’s a 270% increase. The median salary went from 5,600 to 29,900. That’s a 533% increase.

          From 1990-2020 (30 years, lucky we are skipping covids inflation) prices went from 1.66 to 3.18. that’s 191% increase. Wages went from 29,000 in 1990 to 68,000 in 2020. That’s 234% increase.

          So what we see is a wage to consumer goods ratio decrease from 263% to 43%.

          So our economic wealth as a country is managing to increase faster and faster, yet the consumer wealth fell off awhile ago. If you follow the stock market youd see the Dow Jones increased from 2,700 to 30,000 from 1990-2020. So comparably we should see a 1,100% increase, not a 43%.

          Granted none of this matters at the end of the day. The fact is, we are producing a fuck ton of products, and fewer and fewer are reaping the rewards of such day after day.

          If you evaluate accessibility of things after subtracting the baseline requirements to stay alive it gets real sketchy how close many Americans are getting by.

          https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/wholesale-and-retail-prices-for-chicken-beef-and-pork/

          https://www.multpl.com/us-median-income/table/by-year

          https://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-036.pdf

          • booly@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Beef is a bad example. It used to be cheaper than chicken and similar to pork, but the real cost of that land use policy that would allow such grazing in the west, and then the subsidies that make factory farm feedlots possible, wasn’t properly borne by the ranchers themselves. Today’s cost of beef is a better reflection of the true cost of raising that meat, that inefficiently.

            If you do the same analysis with chicken or pork, you’ll find that we can and do afford to eat a lot more of those particular meats than we used to.

            I fully expect beef to go like tuna, and slowly become a luxury item only for the rich within my lifetime. That is more of a trend with beef itself than broader trends in inflation generally.