[hellgas00]

"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.

[JKCalhoun]

"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 do talk about inflation in the article.

[hellgas00]

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.

The FT is being disingenuous.

[mnhnthrow34]

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.

[lumost]

This is probably cold comfort to a population looking at housing prices rising at 3.7% in 2025 per realtor.com.

[refurb]

It’s how journalism works today.

Do actual research to make sure you understand a topic? Nah!

Come up with a conclusion, then go looking for evidence to support it, cherry picking if needed? Absolutely.

Gotta get those clicks

[Marazan]

> now growing for the first time in years

This is a lie. Low earners had strong real term wage growth under the previous administration.

[JumpCrisscross]

> real wages for these low earners are now growing for the first time in years

This is total crap [1][2].

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXU900000LB0102M

[2] https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2023/

[soganess]

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