Prices go up and salary doesn't: where goes delta?
"Where goes the Delta? To the sea, of course.  Your question is very valid and for once, I think most of the answers are too involved into mechanical details and are badly missing the big picture.  At the risk of over simplifying things, let me try to describe the situation in broad strokes: Inflation: the volume of money grows faster than production (including services).  Deflation: production increase faster than the volume of money.  Imagine an economy with 10 products and $10. 1 product = $1. In an inflationary scenario, money available increase: $20 for 10 products. 1 product = $2.  In a deflationary scenario, money available decrease: $5 for 10 products. 1 product = $0.5.  So far, it's pretty textbook. Now onto the stuff that you don't usually read in textbooks: Time.  Say 10 people are attending an auction, each with $10 bucks. 10 items are for sale. $100 and 10 items. Item price is $10. Now, if just before opening the bidding, you go around and give each person $40, every one has $50. Each product sells for $50. That's the picture people have of inflation. Prices have increased, but everybody has more money, so it comes down to the same thing.  Now, let's bring this example closer to reality: You have to distribute $400, so the total amount of money is $500, which means that the normal price of each item should be $50. Now, imagine that instead of giving money to everyone at the same time, you started by giving $40 to 1 guy who was hanging out in front. The auction starts. While you go around distributing the money, the first guy manages to buy 2 items at $10 each. Now, there is $480 in the market, and only 8 items, making each item $60 on average. The next guy to get money manages to snap 2 items at $15. 6 items left and $450 in play. Each item now costs $75....and keep increasing in price as things move along. People who get the money early buy items under their real value, and people who get paid at the end pick up the tab, because by then, there are only a few items left. Back to reality, while inflation means that wages eventually increase (and they do), actual purchasing decrease for most people due to this simple trick. Employees are pretty much at the end of the chain. Income tax Another major source of ""signal loss"" is income tax. It works by brackets, as you certainly know. Simplifying again because I am lazy: Take a guy who earns $100. Pays no taxes. Can buy 100 products at $1 each. Now, put in some inflation... He earns $500. He pays $50 in taxes and can buy 90 products at $5 each. By the time he earns $10,000, he can only buy 50 products on account of income tax. So this is another area where you are bleeding purchasing power, and why income tax, which was originally presented as a tax for the ultra-rich is now a fact of life for most people (except the ultra-rich, of course).  Money as debt Next stop: Money itself. Money is created as debt in our society. At the risk of over-simplifying things again, let's say Bank A has $1000 in assets. In the fractional reserve system (our current system), Bank A can lend out many times over that amount. Let's say $9,000, for a total of $10,000 (much more in reality). And of course, it lends that money at interest. When bank A has made $10,000 available through 10% interest loans, the total amount of money has increased by $10,000, but when the loans are paid back, $11,000 must be paid to the bank, so the net result of the operation is that $1,000 get taken out of the market.  This system explains why almost all companies and governments have huge debts, and why most of the world's large companies belong to financial institutions of some kind, and why most of the world's wealth rest in very very few hands.  To fully answer your question and provide details and references and names, one would have to write a book or 5. There is a lot more than can be said on the subject, and of course, all the examples given here are extremely simplified, but I think they illustrate the key issues pretty well.  Bottom-line is that our system is designed that way. Our economic system is rigged and the delta bleeds out on automatic." Purchasing commodities (whose prices are increasing rapidly), improving corporate profitability, buying imports (the US dollar is weaker than it was, so the price of everything imported has gone up), paying down corporate debt, etc. One of the byproducts of free trade is that there is now a global labor market. So companies routinely review their operations and think strategically about where the company is going. Standard options are: Because the disincentives that once existed in the past are gone (the need for humans to do work, tariffs, regulation, poor infrastructure in the developing world), the available supply of labor is greater and demand lower -- thus wages are falling in real terms. Think in the simplest terms in an office environment.  In 1980 to make photocopies, you needed a Xerox machine that required a technician on site every couple of weeks to make adjustments, change toner, etc. There was probably a local rep you called to schedule break/fix serivce. Now technology has replaced that copy machine with a cheap multi-function device that requires no maintenance and any technical support is delivered by a person sitting in a Indian call center. So to answer your question, the incremental money from rising prices goes to a number a places. Alot of it goes to oil producers and other commodity producers. Much of it consists of indirect costs that fulfill other mandated services -- when you buy something, buried in that cost are things like health insurance, prescription drugs and school taxes. "Salaries normally shouldn't fluctuate with inflation and deflation... Inflation prevents consumers from spending (prices get too high), ultimately taking money out of circulation. This causes the market to go in to deflation (or at least deflate back to normal). That's when people begin to spend again, and start the cycle all over again. Now... Imagine if salaries increased with inflation... Inflation would never end. Everyone could keep affording the high prices. A Starbucks coffee would eventually cost $150, but the ""middle-class"" would all be millionaires. Your ""small-change"" would consist of a wad of useless bills, and the government would have to continually print out more money just to keep up. NOTE: This is not a direct answer to ""where goes delta?"", but would more be directed to the part ""Prices go up and salary doesn't""." I expected a word or two on the price elasticity of demand here :) Andrey, Your question needs slight revision in its current form. Rising prices actually do not mean increased profitability for a company. The quantity they sell also pays a huge part and actually is correlated to the price at which they sell the goods (and other factors such as the price at which their competitor sells the goods etc., but we will ignore it for simplicity).  The net profit of sales for any firm is equal to  (Qty x Sale Price) - COGS - SG&A - taxes - other expenses where, COGS means cost of goods sold SG&A means sales, general and admin costs (e.g., cleaning the inventory storage area daily so that the goods stay fresh etc.) other expenses include any miscellaneous other costs that the firm incurs to make the sale. Now, if everything in that equation remains same (COGS, SG&A, taxes, and other expenditures), rising prices will only translate into a higher profit if the quantity does not fall by the same margin. Prices may also rise simply as a response to risking COGS, SG&A or other expenditures --the latter may be observed in inflationary environments. In such a case, the supplying firm can end up losing its profit margin if the quantity falls by more than the price rise.
&gt; the gov'ts take care of that  Which makes it free, of course.  Oh, no, it doesn't.  &gt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensions_in_Germany  &gt; 1st pillar: mandatory State Pension Insurance (gesetzliche Rentenversicherung). This part of the basic social security system. All employees and employers pay a percentage of salaries into this system.  So, basically, company has to spend $X on employee's compensation, but employee gets $X-$Y in hands, where $Y goes into taxes, pension funding and so on.  It DOES NOT MATTER for a corporation whether that $Y goes into a private pension fund or is paid to government, it only cares about amount $X. If a stock that makes up a big part of the Dow Jones Industrial   Average decided to issue a huge number of additional shares, that will   make the index go up. At least this is what should happen, since an   index is basically a sum of the market cap of the contributing   companies. No, indices can have various weightings. The DJIA is a price-weighted index not market-cap weighted. An alternative weighting besides market-cap and price is equal weighting. From Dow Jones: Dow Jones Industrial Average™. Introduced in May 1896, the index, also   referred to as The Dow®, is a price-weighted measure of 30 U.S.   blue-chip companies. Thus, I can wonder what in the new shares makes the index go up? If a stock is split, the Dow divisor is adjusted as one could easily see how the current Dow value isn't equal to the sum or the share prices of the members of the index. In other cases, there may be a dilution of earnings but that doesn't necessarily affect the stock price directly as there may be options exercised or secondary offerings made. SO if the index, goes up, will the ETF DIA also go up automatically   although no additional buying has happened in the ETF itself? If the index rises and the ETF doesn't proportionally, then there is an arbitrage opportunity for someone to buy the DIA shares that can be redeemed for the underlying stocks that are worth more in this case. Look at the Creation and Redemption Unit process that exists for ETFs. The value of an option has 2 components, the extrinsic or time value element and the intrinsic value from the difference in the strike price and the underlying asset price. With either an American or European option the intrinsic value of a call option can be 'locked in' any time by selling the same amount of the underlying asset (whether that be a stock, a future etc).  Further, the time value of any option can be monitised by delta hedging the option, i.e. buying or selling an amount of the underlying asset weighted by the measure of certainty (delta) of the option being in the money at expiry. Instead, the extra value of the American option comes from the financial benefit of being able to realise the value of the underlying asset early. For a dividend paying stock this will predominantly be the dividend. But for non-dividend paying stocks or futures, the buyer of an in-the-money option can realise their intrinsic gains on the option early and earn interest on the profits today. But what they sacrifice is the timevalue of the option.  However when an option becomes very in the money and the delta approaches 1 or -1, the discounting of the intrinsic value (i.e. the extra amount a future cash flow is worth each day as we draw closer to payment) becomes larger than the 'theta' or time value decay of the option. Then it becomes optimal to early exercise, abandon the optionality and realise the monetary gains upfront. For a non-dividend paying stock, the value of the American call option is actually the same as the European. The spot price of the stock will be lower than the forward price at expiry discounted by the risk free rate (or your cost of funding). This will exactly offset the monetary gain by exercising early and banking the proceeds. However for an option on a future, the value today of the underlying asset (the future) is the same as at expiry and its possible to fully realise the interest earned on the money received today. Hence the American call option is worth more. For both examples the American put option is worth more, slightly more so for the stock. As the stock's spot price is lower than the forward price, the owner of the put option realises a higher (undiscounted) intrinsic profit from selling the stock at the higher strike price today than waiting till expiry, as well as realising the interest earned. Liquidity may influence the perceived value of being able to exercise early but its not a tangible factor that is added to the commonly used maths of the option valuation, and isn't really a consideration for most of the assets that have tradeable option markets. It's also important to remember at any point in the life of the option, you don't know the future price path. You're only modelling the distribution of probable outcomes. What subsequently happens after you early exercise an American option no longer has any bearing on its value; this is now zero! Whether the stock subsequently crashes in price is irrelevent. What is relevant is that when you early exercise a call you 'give up' all potential upside protected by the limit to your downside from the strike price. There are several ways to protect against (or even profit from) a market correction. Hedge funds do this by hedging, that is, buying a stock that they think is strong and selling short a paired stock that is weak. If you hold, say, a strong retail company in your portfolio, you might sell short an equal weight of a weak retail company.  These are like buying insurance on your portfolio. If you own 300 shares of XYZ, currently trading at $68, you buy puts at a level at a strike price that lets you sleep at night. For example, you might buy 3 XYZ 6-month puts with a strike price of $60. A disadvantage is that the puts are wasting assets, that is, their time premium (which you paid for at the outset) becomes zero at expiration. (This is why it is like insurance. You wouldn't complain that your insurance premium was lost when you purchase insurance on your house and the house doesn't burn down, would you? Of course not. The purpose of the insurance is to protect your investment.) Note that as these puts are married, they only protect your portfolio. Instead of profiting from a correction, you would merely protect your portfolio during a correction. (No small feat!) If your portfolio is similar to the market, you can buy S&P index puts. If your market reflects a lot of technology, you can buy technology sector puts.  Say you have a portfolio of $80K that reflects the market. You could buy out-of-the-market puts (again reflecting your tolerance for loss). Any losses in your portfolio after the puts go in-the-money would be (more or less) offset by gains in the puts.  An advantage is that the bid/ask spread is smaller for the S&P. You would pay less for the protection. Also, the S&P puts are cash settled (meaning you get money put in your account on the business day after expiration day). A disadvantage is that the puts do not linearly go up as the market drops. (Delta hedging is a big deal in and of itself.) Another disadvantage is that they are wasting assets (see the Married puts section, previous). While the S&P puts can be used to maintain your market portfolio in the midst of a correction, you could purchase more puts than needed. If you had correctly timed the market, then your portfolio with puts would increase. (Your mileage may vary; some have predicted an imminent market crash way too often.) Collars involve selling out-of-the-money calls and using the premiums to buy out-of-the-money puts. There are many varieties of collars, but the most straightforward is to sell 1 call and buy 1 put for every 100 shares. (This can also be done for index puts and calls.) This has the effect of simultaneously: You get your insurance for almost free. But again, it is protecting your portfolio.  As the name implies, you make money when the market goes bearish.  Bear put spreads involve buying puts at a close strike price and selling an equal number of puts at a lower strike price than the first. You have a defined maximum loss (the premium you paid for the higher put minus the premium you received for the lower put). You have a defined maximum gain (the difference between strikes minus the defined maximum loss).  Buy S&P 500 index puts. If you buy deep out-of-the-money puts, it won't cost much, but you have little probability of it paying off. But if they go in-the-money, there could be a sizable payoff. This is similar to putting one chip on red 18 on the roulette wheel. But rather than paying off 35:1, it is a variable payoff. If you're $1 in the money, you just get $100. If you're $12 in the money, you have a $1200 payoff.  If you buy at-the-money puts, it will cost a lot, and your probability will be about 1 in 2 that you will pay off. In our roulette analogy, this is like putting 30 chips on the Even bet of the roulette wheel. The variable payoff is as in the previous paragraph. But you're more likely to get a payoff. And you will lose it all of the roulette ball lands on an Odd number, 0, or 00. (That is, the underlying of your put goes up or stays the same.) If your research shows you what good stocks to buy, it may also tell you which stocks are ripe for a fall. You could short-sell these stocks or buy puts on them.  Similar to short-selling stocks or buying puts, you could sell short overpriced sectors or buy puts on them. There are ETFs that will allow you benefit from falling prices without needing to have a margin agreement or options agreement in place.  Sorry to have a lengthy answer. Many other answers emphasize that one shouldn't try to time the market. But that is not the OP's question. Provided here are both: The cheapest currently available Delta flight from JFK to Dulles tomorrow is $164.  What you've shown is that their markup is greater than 100%.  Regardless of what the cost is, I don't see anything untenable about requiring all flights departing an evacuation area be run at cost. "You don't think rent, gas, and utilities would go up? Seems like you're trying to suggest that this person is ignoring factors while completely ignoring the interconnectedness of our society.   If minimum wage jumps to $15/hr, suddenly minimum wage workers can afford to live in places that only people who could make $15/hr could live in. Now those areas are overflowing with potential tennants and the people that own the buildings realize that they can charge more. Suddenly, rent goes up. People living at those places go, ""hey, if a burger flipper makes $15/hr, there's no reason for me to keep busting my ass at this rate! I'm gonna ask for a raise too!"", so now anyone working for the gas company also wants a proportional raise, driving up the price of gas, etc. etc. etc.  ""Oh, well, we'll just do it incrementally over time and that will fix it""  Sure..." Really, you should only use words you understand - particularly if you're going to throw _one single word_ into an argument and act as if that's all you need to say.  If the price were perfectly elastic, then for every increase in cost in airline flights, people would spend exactly enough less on flights to counteract that.    What you mean is that price _inelasticity_ will mitigate this.  But in fact, since the elasticity of the market is almost certainly negative like almost all markets, the airlines will in fact lose some money for every such tax put on them;  less money than the cost of the tax, yes, because of the inelasticity of the market, but some.  [Source.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand) Do you work with low-skilled employees? Specifically, do you ever have to manage them? I am going to make the assumption that you do not based on the comments you are making. It is impossible to say ALL of anything is a certain way. I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm going to specifically talk about averages. It seems like you've never been around the average.  The average minimum wage employee doesn't have a high school education. It is fairly safe to say that they continuously are not developing skills that provide value both to themselves and others. If a person refuses to provide more for society, should society fill the gap?  You suggest that people who are poor didn't get there because of their own right. Are people who are self-made millionaires (on average) good with finances? Why would that be? If yes, why do you assume those that are successful are so because of their own merit but cannot be blamed for failure?  Seattle is a nice place. My exterior painter is doing a job there right now. It's a 3 month job. He is painting 1,000 apartments. He took 7 guys with him that he pays around $1,750 a week plus room and board. He had to take 7 guys with him because he can't find workers up in Washington. Can you imagine that? People in Seattle have not developed the skill of exterior painting. That's the reality of your job market. Even further, companies do have massive incentives to move to cheaper locations. The starting salary of large corporations varies wildly based on cost of living. Goldman Sachs will offer nearly $100k a year starting to work in the NYC branch compared to $65-70k in Houston.