Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Social Networks IT

Are Employers Using Your Data To Figure Out the Lowest Salary You'll Accept? (marketwatch.com) 96

Posted by EditorDavid from the surveillance-wages dept.
MarketWatch looks at "surveillance wages," pay rates "based not on an employee's performance or seniority, but on formulas that use their personal data, often collected without employees' knowledge." According to Nina DiSalvo, policy director at labor advocacy group Towards Justice, some systems use signals associated with financial vulnerability — including data on whether a prospective employee has taken out a payday loan or has a high credit-card balance — to infer the lowest pay a candidate might accept. Companies can also scrape candidates' public personal social-media pages, she said...

A first-of-its-kind audit of 500 labor-management artificial-intelligence companies by Veena Dubal, a law professor at University of California, Irvine, and Wilneida Negrón, a tech strategist, found that employers in the healthcare, customer service, logistics and retail industries are customers of vendors whose tools are designed to enable this practice. Published by the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, a progressive economic think tank, the August 2025 report... does not claim that all employers using these systems engage in algorithmic wage surveillance. Instead, it warns that the growing use of algorithmic tools to analyze workers' personal data can enable pay practices that prioritize cost-cutting over transparency or fairness...

Surveillance wages don't stop at the hiring stage — they follow workers onto the job, too. The vendors that provide such services also offer tools that are built to set bonus or incentive compensation, according to the report. These tools track their productivity, customer interactions and real-time behavior — including, in some cases, audio and video surveillance on the job. Nearly 70% of companies with more than 500 employees were already using employee-monitoring systems in 2022, such as software that monitors computer activity, according to a survey from the International Data Corporation. "The data that they have about you may allow an algorithmic decision system to make assumptions about how much, how big of an incentive, they need to give to a particular worker to generate the behavioral response they seek," DiSalvo said.
The article notes that Colorado introduced the "Prohibit Surveillance Data to Set Prices and Wages Act" to ban companies from setting pay rates with algorithms that use payday-loan history, location data or Google search behavior for algorithmically set.

Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader sinij for sharing the article.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are Employers Using Your Data To Figure Out the Lowest Salary You'll Accept? More

Are Employers Using Your Data To Figure Out the Lowest Salary You'll Accept?

Comments Filter:

  • Bettridge much?

    My employer countered $25k more than I originally asked for. Then a year later they said we were underpaid by industry standards and gave us all 15k raises in addition to the usual merit increase.

    • Ever heard of a race to the bottom?

      So you have two candidates for a job. But one of them has a family to support and the other one is still living at home. You don't think that's relevant to the salary offer that each candidate will consider acceptable?

      Too bad the future of society depends on people having families and therefore on having incomes high enough to support families. Unintended consequences and all that stuff.

      • Have you learned nothing from the great resignation?

      • some countries have figured out that having families is not purely about income but somewhat correlated with other complicated stuff like: paid leave, affordable childcare, safe spaces and parks etc. I'm sure the US will catch up some day.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shanen ( 462549 )

          I think most of those things are clumsy bandages. The fundamental requirement of a real solution would be to transfer money to people who are doing the really difficult work of raising children. However, it looks less expensive to count on lust for sex and love of your own children to get as much as possible of the work "for free". And CPS is another bandage for the resulting problems...

      • It is illegal* to ask if candidates are married.

        It is illegal* to ask if candidates have children.

        It is illegal* to ask if candidates live with their parents.

        * In America.

        • And it's not that hard to determine that. In these days of pulling credit reports and asking for social media passwords, not much remains hidden.

          If your social media accounts are filled with keg drinking headstands, funny drunken photos, and stupid decisions made on pub crawls, you need to sweep your accounts before job hunting. Or create a bland generic account and let it sleep until you start your next job hunt. Companies look for creation dates, not consistent activity.

          • All the better reason to stay off entirely.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by hwstar ( 35834 )

            At least a few states have it right:

            California law (Labor Code Section 1024.5 and AB 22) generally prohibits employers from using consumer credit reports for employment screening, effective January 1, 2012. Exceptions exist for specific positions, such as managerial roles, law enforcement, or jobs with access to confidential information, cash ($>$$10,000), or legal financial authority.

            In California, it is illegal for employers to ask for an applicant's salary history, including compensation and benefits,

        • It is illegal* to ask if candidates are married.

          It is illegal* to ask if candidates have children.

          It is illegal* to ask if candidates live with their parents.

          * In America.

          Yup, I was not allowed to ask female candidates anything about family or children. I could get fired if I did.

          There were a number of women I interviewed who were aware of this issue, and at some point, they would say something like "I know you aren't allowed to ask, or even react, but I am not having any more children, and will not have my family interfere with my work."

          And for a lot of positions, like Team Lead, it is really important to have some idea about family matters, like are we going to have

          • It's important to never be the only one who can do something. If you need someone on call, have a rotation, and trade if you can't do yours. No one should be on call 24/7.

            If no else can do what you can do, then you haven't done a good job of training or documenting.

            • It's important to never be the only one who can do something. If you need someone on call, have a rotation, and trade if you can't do yours. No one should be on call 24/7. If no else can do what you can do, then you haven't done a good job of training or documenting.

              I agree in principle, but there are other issues at play, at least in my personal approach. Some are a personal issue, some are an organizational. issue.

              I attempted to mentor people, Accounting said it didn't have the overhead. My supervisor didn't fight that. Even after I was called back as an emergency hire - seems the idea was just for me to carry on and magic would happen.

              I'm considered a perfectionist - being considered perfectionist has become a negative trait in the mid 2020's. Frankly, I find th

              • The problem isn't being a perfectionist. The problem is being a hero. Hiding the existence of systemic problems by being so good at handling them that management doesn't realize they exist. Granted, that's really more the company's problem than yours.
                • I have that argument with my boss. He wants me to do things to assure that flaky systems donâ(TM)t flake out when the upper managers have eyes on them. I ask what better time to point out the struggles that CAN be fixed with money than when the uppers are feeling the same pain points everyone else does. I donâ(TM)t want to be a hero. Iâ(TM)ll do it if I have to. But really I want stuff to work the way it was intended so I donâ(TM)t have to save the day.
                  • No one benefits from giving senior management an inaccurate view of the situation. There are two possibilities. Either your manager is a CYA type, and will eventually throw you under a bus, or the people above him are the CYA types and he doesn't want to be thrown under the bus. Either way, your career has probably topped out unless you move laterally away from that mess.

          • I'm sure people in here will chime in calling me a psychopath, maybe a people pleaser.

            No, I wouldn't argue for either of those points. But I would argue that you work for a terribly-managed, poorly-led company that I want to know the name of so I can pull my investments out. And I would argue you aren't a very good team lead or manager if you can't be away for a few days without an emergency arising that requires your Immediate Attention to Fix.

            Sorry. If you worked for a good company and were a good leader, you could step away and take leave and not have to worry about things going well wh

            • I'm sure people in here will chime in calling me a psychopath, maybe a people pleaser.

              No, I wouldn't argue for either of those points. But I would argue that you work for a terribly-managed, poorly-led company that I want to know the name of so I can pull my investments out. And I would argue you aren't a very good team lead or manager if you can't be away for a few days without an emergency arising that requires your Immediate Attention to Fix.

              It was a University environment, and well, let's just say that there were gender politics involved. The "appropriate" hires knew they could pick and choose what job tasks they would do or not. At least until a downturn. So it is perhaps ironic that I had some job security over them. Sorry. If you worked for a good company and were a good leader, you could step away and take leave and not have to worry about things going well while you were away.

              • let's just say that there were gender politics involved

                Why would 'gender politics' mean you have to answer your phone and address urgent work problems while on a 2-day vacation?

                • let's just say that there were gender politics involved

                  Why would 'gender politics' mean you have to answer your phone and address urgent work problems while on a 2-day vacation?

                  Because I would fix the problems. Because I was capable of fixing the problems. There was no question that women were given preferential treatment in hiring. The goal was at least 50/50 mix. At one point in my department, I was the only male.

                  Problem was that sex/gender was now the most important qualification. Meritocracy was considered bad. And yes, I'm damn good at what I do. Technical problems are solved by ability, not sex. And they do need solved.

                  So we had a bifurcated system with a bifurcated pr

                  • So your argument is that the department specifically hired non-qualified women to work in your department, because they were women. And that there were qualified men who were turned down for the position specifically because they were men.

                    I call BS. Do you have any evidence for this claim beyond misogyny? A bad hire is a bad hire, and frankly in the past couple of years it has been hard to find any qualified people to fill positions. Gender has nothing to do with it.

                    And secondly, there should be a system

                    • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

                      by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 )

                      So your argument is that the department specifically hired non-qualified women to work in your department, because they were women. And that there were qualified men who were turned down for the position specifically because they were men. I call BS. Do you have any evidence for this claim beyond misogyny?

                      There ya go! Right to the misogyny claim. Most very respectfully, you need to stop using that as your initial attack.

                      A bad hire is a bad hire, and frankly in the past couple of years it has been hard to find any qualified people to fill positions. Gender has nothing to do with it.

                      This was on a college campus - do you work on a college campus? There are quotas and preferences, and one way to think, Sorry that you believe that any discussion of the viability of those things means that the questioner hates women. Shame on you.

                      Before going further, your response is illustrative of a huge part of the problem. Because it is emblematic of a system where utter compliance

                    • There ya go! Right to the misogyny claim. Most very respectfully, you need to stop using that as your initial attack.

                      It's not an attack - I'm just asking for evidence, specifically, that, to quote my earlier question, the "department specifically hired non-qualified women to work in your department, because they were women" and that there were better-qualified men who were not hired because they were men. That's the basis of your complaint, and without any evidence, it comes across as misogynistic.

                      I've worked in some very progressive and liberal places, but none of them had a quota for hires. Your office did? What was t

                    • There ya go! Right to the misogyny claim. Most very respectfully, you need to stop using that as your initial attack.

                      It's not an attack - I'm just asking for evidence, specifically, that, to quote my earlier question, the "department specifically hired non-qualified women to work in your department, because they were women" and that there were better-qualified men who were not hired because they were men. That's the basis of your complaint, and without any evidence, it comes across as misogynistic. 1. It is definitely an attack - words have meaning, and your claiming that I hate women is not only untrue, it is ipso-facto an attack on my integrity.

                      I've worked in some very progressive and liberal places, but none of them had a quota for hires. Your office did? What was the quota?

                      Allow me to ask where I ever typed quota. If you need reminded of what I actually typed, it was "The goal was at least 50/50 mix" Goals are not quotas.

                      I don't have any idea how I can prove what the equity policy, was from that time, only it was a university environment, and there was a strong push to have a 50/50 mix. You can either believe or not believe, in which case you can just call me a liar who hates women as well. Who enforced it? And you know that there were well-qualified men who were tur

                    • You specifically said there were quotas:

                      This was on a college campus - do you work on a college campus? There are quotas and preferences,

                      And

                      Those hired under the quota/checkbox were allowed to pick and choose what they would do, and what they would not.

                      So you said, specifically, that there was a quota and that some people were "hired under the quota." And now you are saying, oh, I didn't mean quota, I meant goal...?

                      In terms of evidence, I don't know, something like: 'I was on the search committee and we recommended person X as the most qualified, but we were told we were below the quota and to instead recommend the next person in line who was a woman, and so Y was hired instead.' That would be evidence...I'll wa

                    • You specifically said there were quotas:

                      You specifically said I hate women when you wrote

                      " I call BS. Do you have any evidence for this claim beyond misogyny?"

                      This will be important

                      Yes, I used the word quota, and that was incorrect. The supreme court has made a ruling that specific quotas for race would be unconstitutional Gratz vs Bollinger https://supreme.justia.com/cas... [justia.com] Gender was also noted, but in manner of gender "was but one of numerous factors [taken] into account in arriving at [a] decision" because "[n]o persons are automaticall

                    • I don't know you at all so how can I know enough about you to say that you are a misogynist? That's not what I said. I said the idea that the two women who worked in your area that you believed were unqualified and were hired because they were women, over better-qualified men, with no evidence, was a misogynist idea. People who love women, treat women kindly, and care for the women in their lives can still have misogynist ideas and thoughts. I don't love labeling or name calling a person 'a misogynist' or '
        • Took an introductory HR course once. Apparently you are allowed to lie if you are asked illegal questions during an interview. So if they ask if you want children? You can say no, even if you are on iousky carrying a child. Union took care of that. Greetings from the EU.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shanen ( 462549 )

          Nice theory. But why would they need to ask? They just offer a salary that is insufficient if the candidate has a family and the candidate with the family quickly answers "No".

          If none of the candidates accepts, then they can look for more candidates or call around with slightly better offers until they find a fish.

    • Are they hiring?

    • Re:No (Score:4, Funny)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Saturday April 04, 2026 @05:09PM (#66077548)

      Then you woke up.

    • Your company is a unicorn. Most do not do such things.

    • Bettridge much?

      My employer countered $25k more than I originally asked for. Then a year later they said we were underpaid by industry standards and gave us all 15k raises in addition to the usual merit increase.

      And I got a 50 percent raise after 1 year in my present position, and on occasion, 100 percent more on the new rate. (I'm paid per project)

      This whole looking at your social media to somehow find out how little money you will accept is just weird.

      Employers do check on social media to see if you are disparaging them, like the woman who was fired from GameStop for posting a video ridiculing GameStop, their customers, and their products, finally showing the location of the store safe.

      Or the Chili's empl

  • Granted I last worked in the Stone Age but employers never paid more than absolutely necessary.

  • No (Score:2)

    by gweihir ( 88907 )

    1. That would be illegal (Europe) and 2. I am paid from a table since as a lecturer, I am technically a public servant. (No complaints about the salary.)

    • If this is true, it doesn't appear to be doing Europe any favors.

      https://worldpopulationreview.... [worldpopul...review.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        If you do a dumb comparison, sure. If you look at the benefits I have, it looks a bit different.

      • This graph doesn't take into account that Americans largely think basics like healthcare are optional/disposable expenses.

        • Disposable income already considers this, it's an apples to apples comparison.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Whibla ( 210729 )

            Disposable income already considers this, it's an apples to apples comparison.

            Are you sure? I mean, really sure?

            After all, the link you provided states "Disposable income is the amount of money a household has available for spending and saving after income taxes have been deducted" then goes on to qualify this with "This figure will be the most significant dollar amount because government taxes at the federal and state level are not included in the figure."

            You'll note that missing from either of these quotes (or any other rider on that page) is any reference to: adjustments for state

    • What subject, out of curiosity?

  • Of course they are (Score:5, Insightful)

    by devslash0 ( 4203435 ) on Saturday April 04, 2026 @04:50PM (#66077526)

    But the biggest problem is that they are allowed to ask you how much you earned in your previous job and use it as a baseline.

    The only answer to that question should be:
    "No, you don't need to know. I had been underpaid in my previous job for years before finally reaching the limits of my loyalty and leaving. So no - you tell me what I am worth to you right now".

    • Re: Of course they are (Score:5, Informative)

      by ClarkEvans ( 102211 ) on Saturday April 04, 2026 @05:07PM (#66077542) Homepage

      No need to be antagonistic. Respond with inflation adjusted BLS salary average and percentile for the job and region.

      https://www.bls.gov/oes/curren... [bls.gov]

      • They could still contact your old employer's HR to verify your story as a part of getting references. If they discovered a discrepancy, you'd be on the back foot and probably not hired.

        Just like emoloyers are not allowed to ask about your race, religion or sexuality anymore (at least in Europe), emoloyers should be barred from asking the question in the first place.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Is there any risk of being caught in the lie? Here it's possible that your employer will get at least a sense of your previous salary because they need to handle income taxes for that year.

        I do it anyway and it's never backfired, but I suppose in theory...

    • But the biggest problem is that they are allowed to ask you how much you earned in your previous job and use it as a baseline.

      The only answer to that question should be: "No, you don't need to know. I had been underpaid in my previous job for years before finally reaching the limits of my loyalty and leaving. So no - you tell me what I am worth to you right now".

      I was never asked about how much I used to make. It was always pretty simple. I'd ask them to make an offer, if interested in me, then respond as needed. If someone mad an insulting offer, I'd just say no thank you. If it was in the ballpark I'd then ask for what I believe would be acceptable. Places would usually accommodate to what I wanted.

      Know your worth, people. And if someone tries to lowball you, just thank them for their time, and scoot.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by BranMan ( 29917 )

        But if the whole concept of a confrontational negotiation over pay makes you feel queasy, you can do what I have done in the past.

        Hand them your current pay-stub. Do NOT let them keep it, or copy it - I hope that goes without saying.

        Then just say "Here's what I make now. Make me want to come here."

        Worked pretty well.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      But the biggest problem is that they are allowed to ask you how much you earned in your previous job and use it as a baseline.

      The only answer to that question should be:
      "No, you don't need to know. I had been underpaid in my previous job for years before finally reaching the limits of my loyalty and leaving. So no - you tell me what I am worth to you right now".

      The correct answer is to lie.

      Give them the figure you want, not the figure you have.

      It's not like they can check (legally, at least in most countries).

      Also, "my current role is WFH, so if this role requires any travel I'll need at least a £10,000 increase".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hwstar ( 35834 )

      Not in some states:

      In California, it is illegal for employers to ask for an applicant's salary history, including compensation and benefits, under Labor Code 432.3. This law, effective since January 1, 2018, prohibits employers from using past salary to determine employment or salary for new hires

  • LinkedIn issue (Score:3)

    by Morpeth ( 577066 ) on Saturday April 04, 2026 @05:54PM (#66077602)

    I deleted all my data and closed my LinkedIn account years ago (their security was [is?] atroious).

    I was surprised to see that people sometimes put salary history in LinkedIn, seems like a bad idea to me for various reasons. Thinking about this situation, you are tipping your hand to prospective employers.

    Though, I guess people could lie and pad their salary to say they made $X + 15000k for example. I don't know if a prospective employer can ask your current employer what you make? I'm guessing this varies from state to state, and even country to country?

    • Not having a LinkedIn profile, really limits your job prospects these days. I've landed at least three jobs specifically because recruiters found my profile there. And by the way, I *want* my profile to be completely public, so people can find it!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Morpeth ( 577066 )

        I'm late in my career, only a few years left -- and almost all of my jobs have been through connections with people I actually know or have worked for; so I'm not worried.

        I think LinkedIn was 'ok' when it started, then it turned into spammers, bots, clueless headhunters, obnoxious self-promoters with made up titles/terms, people trying to be 'influencers' (hate that term, more like hucksters), etc. To use Doctorow's term, it got totally 'enshitified', I don't miss it at all.

        • Yep, I agree with all that. I've got another 10 years in my career, so I'll put up with it for a while longer, because it still works for finding jobs. My particular role is hard enough to find, that I can't rely on my own personal connections to find that next opportunity.

    • I deleted all my data and closed my LinkedIn account years ago (their security was [is?] atroious).

      When I was invited to sign up, They actually asked for my email password. That was some years ago, but that only violated every ToS I ever heard of.

  • Then you'll accept it. And it is very much in their interest to determine that.

    Just like it is very much in your interest to decide what that amount is. Which they have no say in whatsoever.

    In other words, You're a grown up. Act like it.

    • Being a grownup doesn't mean being anti-labor. It means having a backbone enough to refuse a lowball.

    • Fair, but there is also the asymmetry of forbidding employees from discussing their salaries or delving into the business' financials.

      If it is labor for hire, then an efficient market demands every player access to data to determine price.

      If not, the market must account for this asymmetry through regulation and law, and watch business whine like babies when the shoe is on the other foot.

      • Good luck "forbidding" employees from discussing their pay.

        Even if they don't talk about salaries with each other, they do go to sites like GlassDoor and post their salaries there. It's not hard to find out what your job is worth.

        • And here comes the pedants.

          Since there was an executive order issued in 2014 to the NLRB forbidding retaliation for discussing your salary, kinda implies that maybe there was some forbidding going on, no (I distinctly remember the whining)?

          And why would employers demand that?

          It's market manipulation that distinctly changes what your job is worth.

    • It's a lot easier to decide what you're "willing to accept" than it is to actually get that amount of money. To get it, you have to find and get hired by a company that will pay you that amount. This process can be tremendously disruptive to one's life, especially if it means relocating. Sometimes, the benefits of that desired salary are outweighed by the risks or disruption. But that doesn't make it somehow "childish" to be unhappy that companies use tactics like this to keep your salary low.

      • It's a lot easier to decide what you're "willing to accept" than it is to actually get that amount of money. To get it, you have to find and get hired by a company that will pay you that amount. This process can be tremendously disruptive to one's life, especially if it means relocating. Sometimes, the benefits of that desired salary are outweighed by the risks or disruption. But that doesn't make it somehow "childish" to be unhappy that companies use tactics like this to keep your salary low.

        Sure. I was offered a position around DC, as a "Beltway Bandit". Would have made a significant increase in pay. But doing the research showed CoL was way higher, and fighting with traffic, horrifying, less access to the natural world, and in the end, I would be making less money after all expenses. Plus my wife was a VP at her place of work. So it really wasn't all that hard a decision to say "No thanks" - turned out to be the right decision in the end as well.

  • That's a great question. What typically happens, I think, is that most people answer something along what they made for their last contract. (Yeah, I'm talking 1099s here.) That means that they work themselves out of a raise and lose due to cost of living and inflation. On the other hand, prop yourself too far up and you'll never get an offer regardless of how qualified you are.

    So a question to the Slashdot community to make this thread useful: How do you go about that in negotiation? How do you determin

    • I take what I made at my previous position and add twice the rate of inflation to it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hwstar ( 35834 )

      That is a quick way to get in trouble in California:

      In California, it is illegal for employers to ask for an applicant's salary history, including compensation and benefits, under Labor Code 432.3. This law, effective since January 1, 2018, prohibits employers from using past salary to determine employment or salary for new hires

      What most employers have to do instead is state that the position offers up to $X in salary, so they are forced to break the golden rule of negotiation by being first to state the

  • An employer trying to figure out how little they can offer an individual seems like a lot of work, which will blow-up in their face if/when the employees compare compensation packages.

    I can't imagine an employer doing this on any sort of large group of employees. Unless you have a mono-sexual, mono-racial workforce, different individual compensation for the same job is just a shit-storm waiting to happen. What if Women are, generally, paid less then men in the same position? Or if minorities are paid less t

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Iamthecheese ( 1264298 )
      > It isn't anyone's fault but your own if you accept a too-low offer.

      If the alternative is starvation and the offer is too low because of a manipulated economy it absolutely is someone else's fault.

  • If they did, they wouldn't be losing people right and left, who are leaving because the company refuses to pay them enough to stay.

    • Except for the stagnation of wages with respect to living expenses over the last fifty years. This has put massive downward pressure equally on what all companies are offering across the board, and in my experience no company is willing to start a wage war to attract more talent.

      • You keep bringing up this so-called stagnation of wages as if it were a real thing. It is not. Wages, adjusted for inflation have risen consistently over the past 50 years, in every income category: low, middle, and high. We older folks have a tendency to look back at the "good old days" with rose-colored glasses.

        • Inflation only reflects the increase of a standard basket of goods. In reality, shelter and transportation costs have risen several times inflation yet they are the two things most important to people. A regular clerk at a store in the 50s had a much fuller life than one today.

          • The CPI "basket of goods" does include Housing (40%) and transportation (16-18%).

            So no, you can't just dismiss real wage gains so easily. That clerk at a store in the 1950s made $25-50 per week. After adjusting for inflation, that would be $339-678 per week. Based on home prices in the 1950s, that clerk could have afforded a mortgage on an 800-1,000 square foot house with 1 bathroom and no air conditioning.

            Now tell me again how good those clerks had it in the 1950s!

            • Today's grocery clerks earn higher wages in both nominal and inflation-adjusted terms, but those gains are overshadowed by by the rapid rise in housing costs. Rent and home prices have grown far faster than wages and also food prices. Also, I found out that the CPI measures consumption not investments. So housing costs are not reflected the same way that you would think. Overall, house prices and rents have increased 4x the accepted rate of inflation. Thus life was far more affordable in the 50s. You

              • I don't think you understand what it means that the CPI is composed 40% of housing costs. This means that if housing costs increased 4x the rate of overall inflation, the rate of overall inflation was skewed *higher* due to the large percentage of the CPI that comes from housing costs. The CPI looks at everything a typical person buys, including housing. (For homeowners, the CPI uses a measure called "owner's equivalent rent" that determines how much rent the person would pay for the equivalent house.)

                Your

                • Ok but again, that is a normal living space in 1950 and they were fine with it. You can't look back on it now and claim you are happier than they are because you have a bigger house now. All enjoyment of life is relative to others living at that time. I don't know how to make you understand the cpi thing with regards to housing. But you admit that I am even underestimating how much more expensive things have gotten and that's good enough for me. Let me just leave with one more thought: in 1950 most peo

                  • "Back then they were fine with it. (not having much)"
                    "A regular clerk at a store in the 50s had a much fuller life than one today."

                    Those two quotes from you say everything. Today we all want more. I fully agree with that. That doesn't mean that we are worse off today.

                    I don't know how to make you understand the cpi thing with regards to housing.

                    That's easy. Show me the numbers and cite a source. You are literally making up things that don't match history, so of course it's hard to "make me understand."

                    You are greatly overestimating the quality of life people had in the 1950s compared

                    • You say you understand the point that a person in 1950's expected only things from the 1950's but then you end off by reiterating the same statement. Do you lament your life in 2026 because there are no fully realistic sex-bots? No because we don't even know if that will ever be possible. So you go without sex at all.

                      Maybe Copilot can explain it to you:

                      Here’s a plainlanguage explanation, focused on the United States, of how housing costs have changed compared with inflation since the

                    • Hey, you can use AI! Good for you!

                      I don't disagree with what it said. Housing has inflated faster than overall inflation. Yes, this is true! It's also true that our standard of living has increased since the 1950s. Your premise was that people in the 1950s could afford to "live better" than we do now. This is simply false. They had a lower standard of living, and therefore required less of a job to maintain it; i.e., a clerk could afford rent in a typical home. Today, the standard of living is much higher,

                    • The data provided are *equivalent houses*.

                    • No, not equivalent. That's not what your AI said. It said "Today, the average U.S. home price is well over $400,000." That average home is not equivalent to the average 1950's home. Today's average home (2400 sf) is 2.5x larger than the average home in 1950 (980 sf).

                    • It's saying the average house after being adjusted to 1950s standard. It's referring to the average in the study not the average in America.

                    • Houses in every developed nation have gotten bigger, not just in America.

                      Want to include undeveloped nations where houses haven't grown so much? Go ahead! Tell me how well off *they* are compared to Western civilization.

                    • Want to keep your head in the sand? Keep on doing what you are doing!

                    • Translated: "You made a valid point that I can't answer, so I'll attack you instead."

  • Research has found that lots of different things can be inferred from your data, like the hundreds of categories used for advertising, whether you are pregnant, whether you have a drug problem, whether you are a security risk, your susceptibility to blackmail, and many more. Imagine corporations have all this data (they do!) and then imagine what bad purposes they could use it for. Not all will, but some probably are. How would you know?

  • can we get an union now?

Slashdot Top Deals

I have a very small mind and must live with it. -- E. Dijkstra

Close