3 ms·

Yes, if you cherry pick all time highs (2001) then you can claim they've lost since then. Picking a second case (1979) and oddly comparing it to 2014 instead of

Yes, if you cherry pick all time highs (2001) then you can claim they've lost since then. Picking a second case (1979) and oddly comparing it to 2014 instead of 2016 is equally misleading. Instead of cherry-picking dates to suit a narrative, looking at all data, the 2016 income was higher than any year back to 1966 except the 3 years 1999,2000,2001. So of the 50ish years in the data, 2016 ranks in the top 4, and is 96% of the all time high. The trend since the recession is increasing, and if not for the recession, would probably be at all time highs. I would not be surprised if once 2017 or 2018 numbers were in all time values will be reached. So yes, wages are increasing. One reason low end stays mostly flat is it includes all people just starting careers, who have no skills, so it's not unreasonable that the inflation adjusted value they provide is not tremendously increased. Looking at values over this time frame also needs demographics figured in for this reason, and as the workforce becomes younger, wages are expected to become lower, while each individual person at point X in a career still has higher wages. Census reports cover this. Remember avg wages are static snapshots of a moving cohort.

Retric 9y ago
The problem with your argument is the last 40+ years is +/- 10% of ~22,000. Yes there are highs and lows, but that's not progress that's just how well the economy is that year. Basically take 22,000 * a function of unemployment rate and the data is flat over time. PS: Looking at the highest income for a quintile also says very little about it as everyonone is making less than that. You really want the median of the quintile or the average of everyone within that range.
- ChrisLomont 9y ago
  The mean is a bad metric for the reason I showed above. The median of the quintile is the decile which I was unable to find. However, if I chose the decile, you'd make the same complaint you're making now that it's the highest of that group, so somehow inadmissible as evidence.. As such, the quintile, which is also a median (of the bottom 40%), is a good measure. Plus I presented data for it - if you want another metric show the data. Another quite relevant factor, as I showed above, is as boomers retire, the bottom gets pulled down by people that are not poor. Given that this demographic has swelled the ranks of the bottom quintile over the recent decades, that the pay has slightly increased means for the truly poor the pay has increased even more than listed in this number. The evidence from the BLS I gave above shows that the mean income in the bottom quintile is ~$11K, but the mean expenditures are ~$25k. This is because of retirees, as can be found in Census and BLS reports with some digging. Factor that in :)

Retric 9y ago

The problem with your argument is the last 40+ years is +/- 10% of ~22,000. Yes there are highs and lows, but that's not progress that's just how well the economy is that year. Basically take 22,000 * a function of unemployment rate and the data is flat over time. PS: Looking at the highest income for a quintile also says very little about it as everyonone is making less than that. You really want the median of the quintile or the average of everyone within that range.

ChrisLomont 9y ago
The mean is a bad metric for the reason I showed above. The median of the quintile is the decile which I was unable to find. However, if I chose the decile, you'd make the same complaint you're making now that it's the highest of that group, so somehow inadmissible as evidence.. As such, the quintile, which is also a median (of the bottom 40%), is a good measure. Plus I presented data for it - if you want another metric show the data. Another quite relevant factor, as I showed above, is as boomers retire, the bottom gets pulled down by people that are not poor. Given that this demographic has swelled the ranks of the bottom quintile over the recent decades, that the pay has slightly increased means for the truly poor the pay has increased even more than listed in this number. The evidence from the BLS I gave above shows that the mean income in the bottom quintile is ~$11K, but the mean expenditures are ~$25k. This is because of retirees, as can be found in Census and BLS reports with some digging. Factor that in :)