> Yes, some sub indices have gone up, others have gone down. That doesn't change the fact that _overall_ the CPI has gone up over time. Wages have been having an inverse relationship with prices overall. This is not a case of "prices are cheaper so the wages are less too".
First of all, wages have not universally been in an inverse relationship with price. For example, the median wage has gone up, in real terms, no matter which inflation index you use -> https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1307793622369103872
Second of all, the minimum wage has absolutely increased in most of the US, via state and local minimum wage laws -> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24733559. This is reflected in the urban price of food (CPI-U), which is comparatively more sensitive to labor prices, as an input. In other words the argument isn't "prices are cheaper so the wages are less too", it's "wages are higher, so are the prices". While you may be correct that the minimum wage increases are not always sufficient to outpace overall CPI, they more than outpace CPI for food (less labor), which is why the CPI for food has moderately increased once you include labor.
The goods & services for which CPI has dramatically increased have very little to do with low-wage labor (for now), and the root causes are more sector-specific (zoning, guaranteed loans, lack of price transparency, lack of supply etc)
> I'm not sure why you're putting in quotes something I didn't say.
I apologize, I was paraphrasing. That said, that was essentially your assertion: that if markets do actually bring down prices, then the CPI should have fallen. But that presupposes that all goods & services are delivered purely through unfettered markets, which is not the case.
> No it's true for all employers that would have had to pay a living wage and now don't because the middle class will subsidize their labor costs.
No matter what, the employer never pays that living wage. It's either passed on to the consumer in the form of price increases, or it's paid for by society through subsidy.
I've found it helpful to visualize what this looks like with a concrete example:
Imagine a pizza maker's market value is (say) $5/hour. They are able to produce (for simplicity's sake) 5 pizza's per hour, or $1/pizza. Including other operating costs + 3-5% profit margin (that's the average for most restaurants), let's say that the pizza sells for $5. Thus the pizza maker can expect to earn $40/day, on the market. Suppose, due to rising rents and healthcare costs, the "livable minimum wage" should be $15/hour, or $120/day. There are 2 ways to guarantee this:
A) The government deposits an extra $80 to the worker, allowing them to make $120 that day. They can buy a pizza for $5, which is about 4% of their daily wage.
B) The government mandates a minimum wage of $15/hour, which means that the labor portion of the pizza cost goes up from $1 to $3 per pizza (at the same rate of 5 pizzas per hour). The pizza now sells for $7 so that the shop doesn't go out of business. The worker makes $120/day, and can buy a pizza for $7, which is about 6% of their daily wage.
Notice that in (B), the worker is actually worse off, even though they have the same amount of money in their pocket. The worker has to pay a higher percentage of their pay to afford to eat, but this $2 extra means absolutely nothing to a millionaire, it's pennies to a rich person. In scenario (A), the worker is better off, and the welfare system that sustains it can be funded through progressive taxes, which targets rich people.