Many people here make more than they spend, and this is simply inaccurate when that's the case.

edit: I've explained how this works in a reply below.

How is it inaccurate? If I only care about buying apples, and apples get 10% more expensive, and my salary only increases by 5%, then I can't buy as many apples as I could have before. How many apples I do actually buy in the end is irrelevant to the calculation.

	▲	sowbug 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The person you're replying to erroneously interpreted "stay even" as "avoid going into debt," instead of your income's purchasing power remaining constant.
	▲	furyofantares 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Consumer price index is about consumer goods. This is why tarrifs and such are considered regressive - they hit people harder the less money they have because a larger percentage of their spending is consumer goods. If I invest half my income and spend half my income, and the prices of goods goes up 4.2% and my income goes up 4.2%, then I've made progress; I'm now investing more than half my income, because the half of my income I was spending has stayed even and the half I was investing has increased.

▲

bauldursdev 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No, it's like, if you could buy 100 things before, but you can only buy 96 things now, then you have accumulated less value :D

▲

ncr100 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I disagree. "Money" has many meanings, absolute and relative.

Receiving "market" compensation trumps real-world expenses, since the market for one's labor is a different market than the real-world expenses.

▲

jayd16 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's still a cut in purchasing power even if you aren't hurting.

But if you don't mind, I'll take 4.2% from your pay.

▲

pishpash 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No. What isn't spent now is future spending. You are still getting less.