4 ms·
The number isn't inflation adjusted. The increase is 2.8, inflation was 2.9.. and the BLS has constant dollar version of this same report, and it indicates pay
by rgbrenner 8y ago
The number isn't inflation adjusted. The increase is 2.8, inflation was 2.9.. and the BLS has constant dollar version of this same report, and it indicates pay decreased by -0.1%.
https://www.bls.gov/web/eci/ecconstnaics.pdf https://www.bls.gov/web/eci/ecconstnaics.pdf
WSJ decided to run with the non-inflation adjusted numbers, and then wrote an entire article saying workers got a pay increase... which they didn't. This is cherry picking at its finest. I'm actually flagging this.
- donohoe 8y agoI agree. Also flagging this
- petermcneeley 8y agoI disagree. A lie by omission by wsj is news worthy in and of itself. Just change the title.
- donohoe 8y agoPerhaps - but not in my power to do so. In absence of that I do what I can.
- propman 8y agoIn the article it says that one of the reasons for the increase is due to upwards inflationary pressures and says 2.2% inflation. The fact that we’ve had such tepid wage increases for the past decade that a measly .6% growth is the best in a decade can be viewed as pathetic in a vacuum or as the “biggest pay increase in nearly a decade”. Both are true, but overall I’d still say it’s good news in an area which has been extremely bleak.
- rgbrenner 8y agoexplain the bls constant dollar report. It does not agree with you.
- JohnTHaller 8y agoThis is par for the course with the Wall Street Journal. The past couple articles have been flagged here for being purposely misleading like this.