My sarcasm implies the point. Your "arguments" are just stating something is good enough because "positive means more better", while ignoring the complexities of the issue at large. How much is enough? And averaging out inflation over time indefinitely without specifying time intervals is disingenuous. Defining useful time intervals for that which aren't inherently biased to sway the overall argument is in itself a debate to have. This is all without challenging the assumption that the worker's value stays the same or increases very slowly over time, so they must be happy with an effective raise.
Seeing as how you don't care to address the obvious major points that come up in conversations about inflation vs wages in your argument to begin with, and are happy just making hammy assertions, I'm happy to just mock them without putting in too much effort. Why would I let myself fall prey to the bullshit symmetry principle to someone already signaling bad faith with hammy statements?
I’m back on lemmy. Hello, dumbfuck. Feel stupid yet? As inflation increased, job markets weakened, the housing market continued to be open sewage, industries had massive layoffs, the middle class is smaller and has less power than ever, and the public began to be more amenable to fascism because of economic strife, you still think the economy was doing a-ok? Still think the economists who use different definitions in order to try to capture the spirit of the meaning after the fact precisely because the same metrics don’t always tell the same story might just maybe consider using that word now? No? Ok, we’ll just pretend the gatekeeping of that word had no ulterior political motive that bit us all in the ass. Head back in the sand.