5 ms·

Increasing considerably faster? Do you have a citation for this information with some specific numbers for 'considerably faster'?

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Do you have a citation for this information with some specific numbers for 'considerably faster' From February 2009, the year after the crisis, through February 2018, when this article was published, average seasonally-adjusted hourly earnings of American private-sector employees rose by 2.2% per year [1][a]. From February through July, the same statistic rose at an annualized rate of 5.9% [b]. The former approximates inflation; the latter dramatically exceeds it. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003 [a] (26.74 / 22) ^ (1 / 9) - 1 [b] (27.05 / 26.74) ^ (1 / (1 / 5)) - 1
- andrepd 8y ago
  Yes, if you cherry-pick your baseline at the bottom of the worst economic catastrophe of the last 80 years, then things don't look too shabby.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > if you cherry-pick your baseline at the bottom of the worst economic catastrophe of the last 80 years The 2007-09 "bear market...lasted from October 9th 2007 to March 9th 2009" [1]. Using the same data as before [2] we find similarly-paltry 2.2% annualized wage growth between October 2007 and October 2017 [a]. Your counterargument is not only inaccurate, it also makes no sense. My argument relies on the former number being smaller than the latter. Picking a low baseline presents my evidence in its most conservative form. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bear_market_of_2007–09 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bear_market_of_2... [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003 [a] (26.47 / 21.06) ^ (1 / 10) - 1
    - AstralStorm 8y ago
      Yes, which is why you should pick earliest data to be the most conservative and then say "hey, we're living much better than people in 1800s". Comparing down is not helpful. The government is supposed to be striving up and not letting things settle compared to a low baseline or slide down. If you're arguing that the situation is within bounds of some sort of cycle or variance, you get to show evidence for bounded variance (e.g. bands) and arguments on how much of it is normal.
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > which is why you should pick earliest data to be the most conservative and then say "hey, we're living much better than people in 1800s" My argument was that wage growth in the last few months has been significant; before that it was insignificant. So yes, the average American is earning more (in real terms) than in the 1800s, 1950s or even mid-2000s. But that wasn’t the argument.
- pas 8y ago
  Could you perhaps elaborate on how this compares to the BLS Real Earnings report https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf ?
- moorhosj 8y ago
  Are you suggesting something happened in February to change things or just using the most convenient time frame? Data on BLS shows wages going from $26.34 in July 2017 to $27.05 in July 2018 [1]. That is 2.7% wage growth. CPI data from July 2017 to July 2018 shows 2.9% increase for all items [2]. This is negative real wage growth over the past 12-months. It's also worth keeping in mind that these are average wages, so they would be susceptible to wage movements at the higher-end (as there is no upper-bound). [1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm [2] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
- sxyuan 8y ago
  I realise I am late to the thread, but to set the record straight, you sir have got your math wrong. 5 months is not 1/5 of a year, but 5/12, so the correct annualised growth rate for Feb-July 2018 is (27.05 / 26.74) ^ (1 / (5 / 12)) - 1 = 2.8% An improvement, but hardly a spectacular one, and nowhere near 5.9%.
dlp211 8y ago
They don't, because it isn't true. Source, first link when you search "BLS wage growth" which links to the BLS site a PDF that shows wage growth is flat over time with some volatility.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> Do you have a citation for this information with some specific numbers for 'considerably faster' From February 2009, the year after the crisis, through February 2018, when this article was published, average seasonally-adjusted hourly earnings of American private-sector employees rose by 2.2% per year [1][a]. From February through July, the same statistic rose at an annualized rate of 5.9% [b]. The former approximates inflation; the latter dramatically exceeds it. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003 [a] (26.74 / 22) ^ (1 / 9) - 1 [b] (27.05 / 26.74) ^ (1 / (1 / 5)) - 1

andrepd 8y ago
Yes, if you cherry-pick your baseline at the bottom of the worst economic catastrophe of the last 80 years, then things don't look too shabby.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > if you cherry-pick your baseline at the bottom of the worst economic catastrophe of the last 80 years The 2007-09 "bear market...lasted from October 9th 2007 to March 9th 2009" [1]. Using the same data as before [2] we find similarly-paltry 2.2% annualized wage growth between October 2007 and October 2017 [a]. Your counterargument is not only inaccurate, it also makes no sense. My argument relies on the former number being smaller than the latter. Picking a low baseline presents my evidence in its most conservative form. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bear_market_of_2007–09 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bear_market_of_2... [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003 [a] (26.47 / 21.06) ^ (1 / 10) - 1
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    Yes, which is why you should pick earliest data to be the most conservative and then say "hey, we're living much better than people in 1800s". Comparing down is not helpful. The government is supposed to be striving up and not letting things settle compared to a low baseline or slide down. If you're arguing that the situation is within bounds of some sort of cycle or variance, you get to show evidence for bounded variance (e.g. bands) and arguments on how much of it is normal.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > which is why you should pick earliest data to be the most conservative and then say "hey, we're living much better than people in 1800s" My argument was that wage growth in the last few months has been significant; before that it was insignificant. So yes, the average American is earning more (in real terms) than in the 1800s, 1950s or even mid-2000s. But that wasn’t the argument.
pas 8y ago
Could you perhaps elaborate on how this compares to the BLS Real Earnings report https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf ?
moorhosj 8y ago
Are you suggesting something happened in February to change things or just using the most convenient time frame? Data on BLS shows wages going from $26.34 in July 2017 to $27.05 in July 2018 [1]. That is 2.7% wage growth. CPI data from July 2017 to July 2018 shows 2.9% increase for all items [2]. This is negative real wage growth over the past 12-months. It's also worth keeping in mind that these are average wages, so they would be susceptible to wage movements at the higher-end (as there is no upper-bound). [1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm [2] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
sxyuan 8y ago
I realise I am late to the thread, but to set the record straight, you sir have got your math wrong. 5 months is not 1/5 of a year, but 5/12, so the correct annualised growth rate for Feb-July 2018 is (27.05 / 26.74) ^ (1 / (5 / 12)) - 1 = 2.8% An improvement, but hardly a spectacular one, and nowhere near 5.9%.

dlp211 8y ago

They don't, because it isn't true. Source, first link when you search "BLS wage growth" which links to the BLS site a PDF that shows wage growth is flat over time with some volatility.