• iopq@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    That’s in line with the inflation numbers. Food costs did not outpace inflation in any significant way

    • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      If the food cost follows the inflation and the inflation is 20%, will you say that food prices are ok because they follow inflation?

      It would be fine if the wage followed the same inflation as food and housing, but the reality is that wage lag and stagnate behind inflation.

      So yeah, if your groceries cost you 20% and you haven’t received an equivalent wage increase, then your groceries cost significantly more in absolute term because you still have the same money as before, but your food cost more for the same grocery basket you bought before inflation.

      But again, you are disingenuous, so probably just a troll. I won’t respond anymore.

      • iopq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I would say you can’t use food as an argument for why 20% inflation is a wrong number

        Remember, the inflation-adjusted earnings also have to go up 20% just to stay the same. You don’t have the same money as before, your paycheck must increase by 20% for your real earnings to stay the same.

        If the graph says real earnings are up 1%, your paycheck went up 21%

        If your paycheck didn’t increase, then you can just say that it didn’t track the inflation numbers, food prices or whatever doesn’t matter since it’s the real earnings that are too low