And 5% is standard for the asshole Goldman Sachs analyst who wrote this.
what's going to be eye-popping is when I stick a fondue fork in this guy's eye and pop it out
:data-laughing: idk why but fondue fork made this sentence much funnier than it otherwise would have been.
Oh boy I went from making $13/hr. To making $13.65/hr! Oh crap my rent just went up by $300 (this post does not suggest causality between higher wages and higher rents. Real estate is a whole nother scam.)
I am once again reminding hexers that a 2% raise isn't a raise at all. That's just paying you the same as last year, considering inflation.
That reminds me of an interesting study in my country on how different municipalities were gutting public welfare without saying that that's what they're doing. One thing is of course raising pay less than inflation. Another is demanding effectivization, in other words they're expected to do the same work with x% fewer resources.
If you want a serious rebuttal, point to this chart whenever people say that even after inflation people are making more. "Necessities for life are significantly more expensive, but TVs are cheaper so it cancels out..." https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-or-century-5/
eh. I appreciate the article. And it's interesting. But it's also meant to be an anti-regulation argument, which I absolutely will not make. Primarily because I think that's the wrong takeaway from the data.
All that data tells me is that the CPI is a flawed tool for measuring inflation because it ignores the difference between luxury commodity and necessary commodity.
I feel that. When I worked as an EMT in Orange County CA, we were paid a starting wage of $10.50 and we were eligible for an up to 25 cent raise once a year based on our annual performance review, and it capped after 5 years.
Now you can make an extra $4 each time you clock in and ensure hours of being screamed at and showered with Covid spit and probably threatened too.
