<story><title>Up to 70% of people in developed countries &apos;have seen incomes stagnate&apos;</title><url>https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/14/up-to-70-per-cent-people-developed-countries-seen-income-stagnate</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>woodpanel</author><text>I think if we want to understand the recent surge of populist movements in western countries, this study gives one good reason for it. Regardless of wether statements&amp;#x2F;positions of those groups are correct or outrageous.&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;“In Sweden, for example, where the government intervened to preserve jobs, market incomes fell or were flat for only 20%, while disposable income advanced for almost everyone. In the United States, government taxes and transfers turned a decline in market incomes for 81% of income segments into an increase in disposable income for nearly all households.”&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;So, protectionism works? At least it seems consequential to me, that for western workers came with globalization an increase in wage-competition from workers in emerging markets.&lt;p&gt;That most western workers can afford much more from their flattened or fallen income than they could 10 years ago is the other part of the story that neither this data-point tells nor the populist movements.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Jacqued</author><text>Or maybe they _could_ afford much more if basic necessities such as housing did not swallow up any gain otherwise expected. (Not to mention children, education, healthcare depending on countries).&lt;p&gt;When 35-50% of your income is taken up by rent, you don&amp;#x27;t care that much that home appliances cost less than they used to.</text></comment>
<story><title>Up to 70% of people in developed countries &apos;have seen incomes stagnate&apos;</title><url>https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/14/up-to-70-per-cent-people-developed-countries-seen-income-stagnate</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>woodpanel</author><text>I think if we want to understand the recent surge of populist movements in western countries, this study gives one good reason for it. Regardless of wether statements&amp;#x2F;positions of those groups are correct or outrageous.&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;“In Sweden, for example, where the government intervened to preserve jobs, market incomes fell or were flat for only 20%, while disposable income advanced for almost everyone. In the United States, government taxes and transfers turned a decline in market incomes for 81% of income segments into an increase in disposable income for nearly all households.”&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;So, protectionism works? At least it seems consequential to me, that for western workers came with globalization an increase in wage-competition from workers in emerging markets.&lt;p&gt;That most western workers can afford much more from their flattened or fallen income than they could 10 years ago is the other part of the story that neither this data-point tells nor the populist movements.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>HillaryBriss</author><text>&amp;gt; ... most western workers can afford much more from their flattened or fallen income than they could 10 years ago ...&lt;p&gt;Afford much more of what?&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s probably easy to find evidence that computing power in a smartphone is more affordable.&lt;p&gt;But, can people now afford more quality in their children&amp;#x27;s education or their family&amp;#x27;s health care?&lt;p&gt;And what about food? Maybe the price per calorie has actually decreased in real terms, but what about the quality of those calories? Is a calorie of corn equivalent to a calorie of fresh fruits and vegetables?&lt;p&gt;And housing? Is a condominium equivalent to a house with a yard? etc.&lt;p&gt;It seems like a mixed picture. Some things are more affordable, but some other important things appear to be more expensive.</text></comment>