5 ms·

Real pay going up 1% per year for 18 years means that it has gone up 19.61% since the year 2000. Another great example of statistics being framed to elicit a ce

Real pay going up 1% per year for 18 years means that it has gone up 19.61% since the year 2000. Another great example of statistics being framed to elicit a certain response.

bojan 8y ago
I wonder how it stakes compared to the real GDP growth during the same period.
- TinyRick 8y ago
  Or the inflation rate.
  - Arnt 8y ago
    1% higher. That's what real pay growth means: Nominal minus inflation.
  - rohit2412 8y ago
    It's real, not nominal. Real growth takes in account inflation to find real growth, while nominal includes the effects of inflation
- ginko 8y ago
  The US GDP has nearly doubled since 2000. https://www.statista.com/statistics/188105/annual-gdp-of-the-united-states-since-1990/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/188105/annual-gdp-of-the...
ForHackernews 8y ago
"at most" does not imply consistent 1% growth year over year.
mindthegap 8y ago
While in the same time frame inflation has been well above 1% per year all the time.
- piker 8y ago
  "Real X" means X, adjusted for the effects of inflation.
alexgmcm 8y ago
The Economist is a very honest publication and broadly classical liberal in the British and European sense of the term. In fact it was voted as one of the most trustworthy sources. You make it sound like some sensationalist rag.
paidleaf 8y ago
But how much have home prices increased since 2000? How much has rent increased? How much has food prices? 19.61% increase in wages seems like a lot but if you factor in housing prices increased 100%+, prices of steaks increased 200%, etc, then that 19.61% doesn't look too good.
- cceyhan 8y ago
  This is real income, so costs are already accounted for.
  - paidleaf 8y ago
    Inflation calculations doesn't include housing price.
    - kgwgk 8y ago
      I don’t know which calculations are you talking about precisely, but usually (US,EU,OECD) the hosing costs are included in the form of actaul rents, imputed rents, and maintenance costs.
    - IkmoIkmo 8y ago
      Says who? They generally do.
  - VLM 8y ago
    The real lesson is statistics used in political discussion are ALWAYS manipulated into meaninglessness. If you can hear an axe grinding in the background you know the numbers are have been carefully and methodically rendered meaningless. The trick is to find statistics that aren't used (or aren't used as much) in political discussion. What is the ... divorce rate, or percentage of psychologically medicated people, or suicide rate, or addiction rate or average children per women, crime rates, immigration in or out of an area, job market trends by occupation and pay rate, ratio of local school academic spending to athletic spending, or similar non-headline metrics of success (or not success).
pjc50 8y ago
By comparison, UK property prices have doubled in nominal terms since then.
- fortythirteen 8y ago
  1. Real income is adjusted for inflation. 2. Property prices have multiple other factors affecting them than just GDP. For instance, if you have a large increase in population without enough new housing to account for it, then property prices naturally go up. I think that describes 21st century Britain quite well, don't you? 3. The economic dogma of blaming all problems on the rich is no different than blaming all problems on a certain ethnic group. It's just that it's not as easy to immediately recognize it as intellectually dishonest.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    The population has increased from 59m to 66m in this period (https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/population https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/population), an increase of 11% which is hardly overwhelming.
    - fortythirteen 8y ago
      Are most of those 7m moving to Brockenhurst? No, they're piling into London, and new domiciles aren't keeping up, so prices are skyrocketing and pushing up the "national average".
      - pjc50 8y ago
        London is something of a special case: https://londonist.com/2016/04/london-migration https://londonist.com/2016/04/london-migration I'd argue that the over-centralisation of the UK economy is a big part of the problem there; there should be as much investment in public transport in Manchester and Birmingham as there is in London.
  - giantsloth 8y ago
    It’s extremely intellectually dishonest to compare people who live in extreme comfort and can afford tremendous amounts of power because of their money to people who are historically oppressed by law and culture because of their ethnicity. Edit: Also, who has said they hate the rich? Stop propping up silly YouTube strawmen for you to take down with your logic lording.
tzahola 8y ago
At most 1%.
wool_gather 8y ago
Note, it's at most 1% per year. The HN headline is actually a quote from the body of the article: > In most rich countries, real pay has grown by at most 1% per year, on average, since 2000. The next sentence breaks out one piece of that average: > For low-wage workers the stagnation has been more severe and prolonged: between 1979 and 2016, pay adjusted for inflation for the bottom fifth of American earners barely rose at all.

Real pay going up 1% per year for 18 years means that it has gone up 19.61% since the year 2000. Another great example of statistics being framed to elicit a certain response.

bojan 8y ago

I wonder how it stakes compared to the real GDP growth during the same period.

TinyRick 8y ago
Or the inflation rate.
- Arnt 8y ago
  1% higher. That's what real pay growth means: Nominal minus inflation.
- rohit2412 8y ago
  It's real, not nominal. Real growth takes in account inflation to find real growth, while nominal includes the effects of inflation
ginko 8y ago
The US GDP has nearly doubled since 2000. https://www.statista.com/statistics/188105/annual-gdp-of-the-united-states-since-1990/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/188105/annual-gdp-of-the...

ForHackernews 8y ago

"at most" does not imply consistent 1% growth year over year.

mindthegap 8y ago

While in the same time frame inflation has been well above 1% per year all the time.

piker 8y ago
"Real X" means X, adjusted for the effects of inflation.

alexgmcm 8y ago

The Economist is a very honest publication and broadly classical liberal in the British and European sense of the term. In fact it was voted as one of the most trustworthy sources. You make it sound like some sensationalist rag.

paidleaf 8y ago

But how much have home prices increased since 2000? How much has rent increased? How much has food prices? 19.61% increase in wages seems like a lot but if you factor in housing prices increased 100%+, prices of steaks increased 200%, etc, then that 19.61% doesn't look too good.

cceyhan 8y ago
This is real income, so costs are already accounted for.
- paidleaf 8y ago
  Inflation calculations doesn't include housing price.
  - kgwgk 8y ago
    I don’t know which calculations are you talking about precisely, but usually (US,EU,OECD) the hosing costs are included in the form of actaul rents, imputed rents, and maintenance costs.
  - IkmoIkmo 8y ago
    Says who? They generally do.
- VLM 8y ago
  The real lesson is statistics used in political discussion are ALWAYS manipulated into meaninglessness. If you can hear an axe grinding in the background you know the numbers are have been carefully and methodically rendered meaningless. The trick is to find statistics that aren't used (or aren't used as much) in political discussion. What is the ... divorce rate, or percentage of psychologically medicated people, or suicide rate, or addiction rate or average children per women, crime rates, immigration in or out of an area, job market trends by occupation and pay rate, ratio of local school academic spending to athletic spending, or similar non-headline metrics of success (or not success).

pjc50 8y ago

By comparison, UK property prices have doubled in nominal terms since then.

fortythirteen 8y ago
1. Real income is adjusted for inflation. 2. Property prices have multiple other factors affecting them than just GDP. For instance, if you have a large increase in population without enough new housing to account for it, then property prices naturally go up. I think that describes 21st century Britain quite well, don't you? 3. The economic dogma of blaming all problems on the rich is no different than blaming all problems on a certain ethnic group. It's just that it's not as easy to immediately recognize it as intellectually dishonest.
- pjc50 8y ago
  The population has increased from 59m to 66m in this period (https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/population https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/population), an increase of 11% which is hardly overwhelming.
  - fortythirteen 8y ago
    Are most of those 7m moving to Brockenhurst? No, they're piling into London, and new domiciles aren't keeping up, so prices are skyrocketing and pushing up the "national average".
    - pjc50 8y ago
      London is something of a special case: https://londonist.com/2016/04/london-migration https://londonist.com/2016/04/london-migration I'd argue that the over-centralisation of the UK economy is a big part of the problem there; there should be as much investment in public transport in Manchester and Birmingham as there is in London.
- giantsloth 8y ago
  It’s extremely intellectually dishonest to compare people who live in extreme comfort and can afford tremendous amounts of power because of their money to people who are historically oppressed by law and culture because of their ethnicity. Edit: Also, who has said they hate the rich? Stop propping up silly YouTube strawmen for you to take down with your logic lording.

tzahola 8y ago

At most 1%.

wool_gather 8y ago

Note, it's at most 1% per year. The HN headline is actually a quote from the body of the article: > In most rich countries, real pay has grown by at most 1% per year, on average, since 2000. The next sentence breaks out one piece of that average: > For low-wage workers the stagnation has been more severe and prolonged: between 1979 and 2016, pay adjusted for inflation for the bottom fifth of American earners barely rose at all.