Even if it did increase, most of that increase is just inflation anyway. And it's usually the wealthy that benefit from inflation (at least more than regular people do).
Compare the "regular" person of today to the "regular" person of 50 years ago.
Is it easier or harder to afford basic foodstuffs?
Do they eat out (luxury) more or less?
If they own a home, is it larger or the same size?
Who travels more?
Who has better healthcare?
Who spends more on entertainment?
How much do they spend on the family pet?
Who spent more time furthering their education?
All of these are measures of wealth, and the modern "regular" person would be wealthier in every one of these categories. And that's not even factoring in advances in technology that make the quality of life of a person better even if there share of societal wealth goes down.
This is very shortsighted-claiming that all of these trends have to do with being richer, is simply absurd. Also, "regular" person? What age? Male? Female? What does that even mean? This is just utter nonsense. But I will humor you:
> Is it easier or harder to afford basic foodstuffs?
Processed foods are far easier to afford, but they are extremely unhealthy. As for other basics, many have gone up over the last 50 years.
> Do they eat out (luxury) more or less?
Women now work. 50 years ago they did not. Less time/people to cook at home. Not like everyone is eating at steakhouses. They just don't have the time so they go to Chipotle or McDonalds or Panera.
> If they own a home, is it larger or the same size?
Most people own legacy homes-they are the same size because they are the same homes. New builds are building bigger houses but what "regular" person builds new homes?
> Who has better healthcare?
This has more to do with advancements in medicine and technology than people becoming richer.
> Who spends more on entertainment? How much do they spend on the family pet? Who spent more time furthering their education?
Furthering education is largely on credit, so this is a bad measure.
> and the modern "regular" person would be wealthier in every one of these categories.
> This has more to do with advancements in medicine and technology than people becoming richer.
It's impossible to separate people becoming richer from advancements in technology. We didn't grow GDP by 77 times, because we work 77 times harder.
Improvements in underlying technology are what help us create more wealth. The problem is that the new wealth being created and benefits of that new technology is being shared so proportionally.
Fifty years ago, my grandparents built a 3 bedroom, 2 bath house on 4 acres of land with cash saved up from my grandfather's manual labor job (he stopped going to school in 8th grade) working for a sugar cane plant. They never, in the entirety of their lives, took out a loan. The simple fact of the matter is that they saved and invested back when it was easy to save and invest and thus never needed to rely on a bank for anything other than a place to store money. Oh, and they sent their 5 kids to college.
Try to do that today in the same area. The foremen at the same sugar house could never afford a regular residential lot, much less the a house to put on it. It would take them 20+ years to save the money.
> it's usually the wealthy that benefit from inflation
Inflation is a regressive feature of modern currencies. It transfers wealth from lenders to borrowers and away from investors. The degree to which it does so is a function of the amount of wealth one has.
The wealthy absolutely do not benefit from inflation, and lose the most money due to it in reality. Inflation depreciates the value of your liquidity, which is why every major company (except apple, it seems) dumps as much currency as possible into appreciable and tax deductible assets. However, that's more difficult for persons, and most of the super wealthy end up holding a plurality of their money on their person. Part of the reason for this is that they have enough money that they can't easily enter the market with a sizable amount of their total funds without moving the market against themselves.
> Inflation depreciates the value of your liquidity, which is why every major company (except apple, it seems) dumps as much currency as possible into appreciable and tax deductible assets.
When you read stories that Apple (or whoever) has $X billion "in cash" it's not actual cash. They keep some around in money markets and the like for near term expenses, but the majority is in bonds that pay more than inflation. In fact, if Apple were classified as a bond fund they would be the largest in the world:
That makes sense. Morningstar groups all near term liquidity together, and so I figured Apple had to be constantly expanding aggressively or something and needed a warchest 7x the size of microsoft's to do it. Sitting on bonds as amid-near term solution makes more sense.
Yes, they absolutely do. Without inflation, it would be almost impossible to borrow money from a bank. No borrowing = no new investment. Most super-wealthy people are constantly borrowing money because the rates they borrow at are lower than their return on investing that money.
