"people earning roughly less than $806 a week — slowed to an annual rate of 3.7 per cent in June, down from a peak of 7.5 per cent in late 2022"
With inflation dropping from 9.1% in June 2022 to 2.7% in June 2025, real wages for these low earners are now growing for the first time in years. The Financial Times failure to mention this context makes me question their motives.
"The wage growth trend means the lowest paid are now more likely to find themselves among the 40 per cent of US workers whose salaries are not keeping pace with inflation…"
They are not more likely to find themselves among the 40% of workers who's salaries are lagging inflation, they are more likely to be among the 60% who's salaries are outpacing inflation.
It doesn't change the "Poorest US workers hit hardest by slowing wage growth" premise of the article, I don't see any hidden motive needed to explain this.
Wage 'growth' after 2+ years of real wage decline (vs stagnation) is the coldest comfort to folks categorized as 'low earner'. Anyone ignoring that make me question their motives
This is a very accurate take, to consider Canada a country when their own prime minister refers to it as a post nation state (ie. Internal economic zone) and nothing more says it all. I would suggest the reason for the high suicide rates seen in the west is connected to this transition.
[Reposting a comment from ChocolateGod that was flagged and made dead despite being a legitimate good faith question]
> Syria who finally overthrew their sadistic monster.
Not saying Assad wasn't a sadistic monster, but do you really think an ISIS-related group running the state is going to be any better?
You last point is the most pertinent. Labour didn't win a majority because they offered compelling platform ideas, they won because the Cons failed to deliver on their platform and Reform UK exploited that failure to split the conservative vote.
Opinion polls already have Labour and Cons at an even tie with Reform UK doubling their overall popularity in just 6 months.
All this to say I wouldn't want to suggest that the trend towards nationalist politics ended with a Labour majority but rather that the Conservative Party wasn't sufficiently nationalist enough to entice public sentiments away from Reform UK
The CNN article references the Bengal famine of 1943, specifically prioritizing food delivery to military personnel during WW2. The Food for Peace Act of came into effect in 1954.
The EU-27 and China are currenty ballpark; the EU has made a solid effort to come down overthe decades, China has risen by virtue of being the worlds largest trading source .. the argument can be made that western countries have outsourced the CO2 of much of their production to China.
There were a couple byelections within the last few months in historically stronghold ridings for the Liberal party that have not flipped in decades. One in Toronto which went to the Conservatives and one in Montreal which went to the Bloc Québécois. It's almost a certainty that the Liberals will not form a government next election, and polling suggests that they are trending below the seat count needed to be the official opposition.
Is the US also a dictatorship since nine (or rather, five) unelected people were able to abolish the right to abortion, the Chevron deference and what else at their whim?
Your making the claim that all of the secret censorship decrees issues by Alexandre de Moraes are related to the protests after the election in 2023, they are not.
With inflation dropping from 9.1% in June 2022 to 2.7% in June 2025, real wages for these low earners are now growing for the first time in years. The Financial Times failure to mention this context makes me question their motives.