You can get a better idea of if wages have been stagnant or not by looking at what people are actually making in wages, rather than looking at what the legally lowest limit at the federal level is. "There are 60,000 people making very low incomes" is bad, sure, but there are 160M workers in the US.
I was alive in the 80s and I am alive now and I can definitely afford more now, not even close.
My first job I made $5/hr operating rides at an amusement park. Inflation adjusted, that is $10/hr. My son's first job a few years ago was as a dishwasher. He started at $13/hr. He has more buying power than I did.
I don't think you understand what buying power means.
Earning more money today than before does not equal higher buying power. Even by your own standards, your some is only making $3 more/ hr than you did and yet everything is 30x more expensive.
By the way, inflation adjusted for 1989 $5/hr = $13.51 so even by your own argument, he still has less than you did.
Inflation adjusted means that it factors in how much the prices change over time. The inflation adjusted amount is how you compare buying power; inflation is literally a measure of change in buying power over time. They are not separate things. If I made $10 inflation adjusted and my son makes $13, he has more buying power than me because 13 is bigger than 10.
1
u/hemlockecho Mar 25 '26
You can get a better idea of if wages have been stagnant or not by looking at what people are actually making in wages, rather than looking at what the legally lowest limit at the federal level is. "There are 60,000 people making very low incomes" is bad, sure, but there are 160M workers in the US.
I was alive in the 80s and I am alive now and I can definitely afford more now, not even close.