this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2026
926 points (98.8% liked)
Political Memes
11924 readers
2302 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
$70,000 is a lot more than the median individual income. You can probably afford to spend a bit on lunch if you're single and making that amount.
Yeah if he thinks 70k is poor... Woah buddy
I'm not quite sure how to interpret this. Unless you're single in a low COL area, 70k in 2026 IS poor. Or, more accurately, it does not give someone everything that defined the post war "middle class" leaving you working poor or just old fashioned poor. The decision in the 90s to tell a technical-truth-lie about inflation to underreport it by 1-2% per year did wonders for juicing the economy, but now it's time to pay the piper so to speak. Median personal income in 2024 was $45k, but after 30 years (Rule of 70) of underreported inflation it should be almost twice that.
I’m curious: what do you mean by under reported inflation, and do you have any resources to read further?
TLDR version: In the 90s the owners realized that if you lie about inflation you could keep COLA down and pocket the difference. 1-2% a year seems like they're just skimming the top, but do that over decades and you've stolen HALF of incomes, which we are close to reaching. Poor numeracy skills, specifically not understanding exponential growth and the Rule of 69/70/72, has allowed this long con to be run on workers.
Further reading: The BLS uses a host of 'sounds reasonable' tools to adjust inflation that were introduced or reworked in the 90s. Hedonic adjustments, OER, substitutions, outlet substitutions, and chained CPI all seem reasonable from a certain angle (which of course is the one BLS presents you), but each one breaks down when confronted with the real world, how human being experience the economy, and time. They're tools that measure utility in a vacuum, not lifestyle or ripple effect or material reality. Hedonic adjustments is an extra special lie, because it's a microcosm of the current big economic lie- "yeah, everything is worse now than a few years ago, but look how big your TV/LLM is!"
Also read up on Labor Force Participation Rate, a seemingly reasonable measure which is used to keep unemployment numbers looking better.
"Lies, damn lies, and statistics" - Twain
Also the BLS just isn't even using actual data for something like 1/3 of the components of the CPI.
Budget cuts, DOGE, no staff to do the actual price surveys.
So, those hedonic adjustments?
At least 1/3 of the data points that go into those hedonic adjustments... well they are just generated by models that say 'what they should be'.
Look into 'imputation' in the actual reports if you want.
It just keeps getting worse, the more onion layers you peel back.
The other one that to me is just laughably stupid is how housing prices are estimated for the purposes of the CPI.
They basically just survey homeowners and ask them 'how much do you think your home fetch on the rental market?'
This is completely fucking insane imo.
Why not just actually ask people what the monthly total cost of owning their home is?
Oh its because well housing is an investment.
Except that if the monthly total cost of 'owning' the home exceeds the amount you think you could rent it out for, well, then you're basically underwater on a cost flow basis, because, you know, the cost of homeownership is... higher than its equivalent rent.
And if that condition persists... you will likely not be a homeowner for too much longer.
Yep, totally an 'investment'.
And if you counted actual ongoing homeownership costs, well, then you'd, you know, actually track ongoing homeownership costs, in the price index, that is ostensibly meant to measure ... ongoing costs.
It makes no fucking sense, other than as a way of depressing the housing component of the CPI when a housing market implosion is occuring, it assumes things we know are not historically true about the home and rental markets, when a bubble is popping.
Yes! Someone who gets it. It's worth pointing out that my "1-2% a year" is a highly conservative estimate based on the aspects of CPI that are objectively questioned by respected economists. If we broaden it to more subjective analysis by a wider range of academics it's 3-4% per year. Finally, if we really step back and ask some big questions, 5% is not outside the realm of possible.
I am guessing that the both of us share in common something like a data anaylst or accountant background, degrees relevant to something like that...
You have to actually understand statistics, math, the relevant background concepts and terms.
Almost no 'normal' person bothers with all this, unless they're getting paid to.
But yeah... actual academic economists have been pulling their hair out over this kind of shit for decades, they have actually complex stances on this stuff and do novel research and such.
But the pop culture version of an economist is basically either A) some kind of corpo sell out who just justifies things for the company B) highly connected old money goober type that ends up at the Fed or a major bank C) fucking larry kudlow or jim cramer D) insane political ideologue who somehow happened to get an econ degree and then entirely use that to be a political ideologue.
Anyway, what I remember of game theory with imperfect information strongly suggests to me that we are all compketely fucked for the forseeable medium term, lol.
I am guessing you would be correct in the majority of cases, but in this one I'm just a bored low-grade polymath who spent a weekend researching (real research- primary sources, academic journals, etc... NOT watched two ticktocks) this topic and am infuriated at the situation and the professional reality you laid out.
Yes, the near future looks incredibly grim. Make America Great Depression Again.
Ah, so you are like me, or the category I described, you just haven't the formal education or work experience.
... possibly because you are capable of doing / understanding the math to the extent that you can explain why you can't afford such an education, or get such a job.
Keep that curiosity and analytical skepticism and skill alive, it will be highly useful in that 'medium term' I was describing, lol.
.... you wouldn't happen to have any coding or game dev experience, would you?
I'm retired by way of injury these days... I can't offer any money upfront, but you sound like the kind of person I would want to at least brainstorm ideas with, genuinely.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/boskinrpt.html