3 ms·
This article is from February—could a fourth possible reason be that local variance is a normal phenomenon and this is not indicative of a wider trend? I say th
by laser 8y ago
This article is from February—could a fourth possible reason be that local variance is a normal phenomenon and this is not indicative of a wider trend? I say this because the sudden and drastic dip in median weekly earnings in the last quarter of last year has already recovered 75% in the first two quarters this year according to https://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.t01.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.t01.htm
Went from $353 -> $345 -> $351 at end of second quarter this year.
The overall trend is still very much up. That being said, even if wages do continue to increase, the fact that only half of real growth is making it to workers is still problematic and could be related to other reasons mentioned in the article.
- jhayward 8y agoIt is a 30-year trend. Here's [1] the chart since 2000. [1] https://econographics.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/corporate-profits-and-wages.jpg https://econographics.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/corporate-...
- laser 8y agoRight, but that's the trend of capital becoming more valuable than labor, which is related, but not the same thing as looking at real-wage growth. Workers portion of total production can be going down yet still be gaining an overall increase in real wages and purchasing power if it's made-up for by overall growth. From the perspective of creating a better society, that long term trend of capital increasingly consolidating and rentiering is still dangerous and likely has a breaking point, but so long as real-wages rise for people, it's not as immediately or obviously devastating. Yet, the evidence presented in the article seemed to be pointing to real-wages not increasing, and I'm not sure that's true.