So you admit, contrary to what you said before, that wages aren’t stagnant. I see that in your opinion this is meaningless (I see no reliable sources included other than your personal opinion), however, the article, with data, directly refutes this notion that there is no meaningful movement in wages. Again, this is a motte and bailey argument.
Motte: vague assertions about the economy
Bailey: data in the article is “padded”
I don’t see anything informative or constructive about this conversation, especially considering you have abandoned defending your assertion that the numbers in the article are somehow “padded.”
I’m a different poster, trying to bring in light to argument, about how people feel right now. Over the last 4 years housing has risen dramatically over wages. Small changes in wages to inflation are meaningless to people that remember housing costs of 4 years ago.
Nowhere in the article is meaningfulness to worker mentioned, just statistics. Statistics by themselves have little meaning, until they are interpreted and put into context. For example .5% change in employment over the course of a year for a specific segment of the population is not meaningful without greater context. If employment for women changed by .5% over a year, but now housing is completely unaffordable, that doesn’t mean that people have increased happiness by .5% . Interpretation is needed.
The article in fact does elaborate on the wage increases, as I’ve quoted. The choice you make to decide that “meaningfulness” only involves narrow comparisons to housing prices is personal, as well to call the wage increases the article talks about as meaningless. That is a trite and uninformed view that wholly ignores those who benefit from increased wages (maybe to pay for increases in housing and other things?). Should wages be stagnant (as the other user tried to say) then I feel that would also be meaningful.
These are not statistics in a vacuum. That is grossly misinterpreting the article, that is very clear on it’s assertions. I would hope that you could find a reliable source that argues that wage increases are meaningless to drive that point home as hard as you two are attempting to do.
to call the wage increases the article talks about as meaningless. That is a trite
Since the start of the pandemic wages have grown a few percentage points, housing costs have almost doubled. An order of magnitude difference…so yes the term trite is reasonable.
In reference to your unsourced personal opinion, yes, trite is accurate when compared with actual data. And as long as we’re dealing with unsourced personal opinions with no real data to back up the “meaninglessness” of wage increases (never mind the rest of the article), I don’t see much value coming from this conversation.
Let’s say you’re 30 and looking to buy a house;
If your wage was $50,000, and went up by 5% you now make $52,500
If a house cost $500,000 and went up by 3.1% it now costs %515,500
So over the last few months, there has been little difference in a person’s situation, not something that they’ll feel.
Now go back 4 years.
If your wage was $50,000 in 2020, and over 4 years increased by 15%
If a house was $300,000 in 2020, and over 4 years rose to $500,000
The minor rise in wages vs. inflation, over the last year is meaningless.
So you admit, contrary to what you said before, that wages aren’t stagnant. I see that in your opinion this is meaningless (I see no reliable sources included other than your personal opinion), however, the article, with data, directly refutes this notion that there is no meaningful movement in wages. Again, this is a motte and bailey argument.
Motte: vague assertions about the economy
Bailey: data in the article is “padded”
I don’t see anything informative or constructive about this conversation, especially considering you have abandoned defending your assertion that the numbers in the article are somehow “padded.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pad
I won’t be continuing this discussion with you.
I’m a different poster, trying to bring in light to argument, about how people feel right now. Over the last 4 years housing has risen dramatically over wages. Small changes in wages to inflation are meaningless to people that remember housing costs of 4 years ago.
This is an (unsourced) opinion to say this is meaningless, and the article describes the meaningfulness of worker wage increases.
Nowhere in the article is meaningfulness to worker mentioned, just statistics. Statistics by themselves have little meaning, until they are interpreted and put into context. For example .5% change in employment over the course of a year for a specific segment of the population is not meaningful without greater context. If employment for women changed by .5% over a year, but now housing is completely unaffordable, that doesn’t mean that people have increased happiness by .5% . Interpretation is needed.
The article in fact does elaborate on the wage increases, as I’ve quoted. The choice you make to decide that “meaningfulness” only involves narrow comparisons to housing prices is personal, as well to call the wage increases the article talks about as meaningless. That is a trite and uninformed view that wholly ignores those who benefit from increased wages (maybe to pay for increases in housing and other things?). Should wages be stagnant (as the other user tried to say) then I feel that would also be meaningful.
These are not statistics in a vacuum. That is grossly misinterpreting the article, that is very clear on it’s assertions. I would hope that you could find a reliable source that argues that wage increases are meaningless to drive that point home as hard as you two are attempting to do.
Since the start of the pandemic wages have grown a few percentage points, housing costs have almost doubled. An order of magnitude difference…so yes the term trite is reasonable.
In reference to your unsourced personal opinion, yes, trite is accurate when compared with actual data. And as long as we’re dealing with unsourced personal opinions with no real data to back up the “meaninglessness” of wage increases (never mind the rest of the article), I don’t see much value coming from this conversation.
Once more you show your golden tower and how out of touch you are with the reality of the world rn