3 ms·

That's social mobility, not wage growth. Those are not the same thing. It's akin to arguing that wage growth is looking at income of a person that was flipping

That's social mobility, not wage growth. Those are not the same thing. It's akin to arguing that wage growth is looking at income of a person that was flipping burgers while in school 10 years ago now leads an engineering team. It's not the same job, not the adequate comparison. I presume you work in IT related field, so imagine you decided to take a break and be a parking lot attendant... You cannot then quote your own example as an instance of falling wages for IT workers.

refurb 8y ago
You can't have social mobility without wage growth, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. And it doesn't matter if it's not the same job. The argument has always been about opportunity and the key point of this article is for people who start out in the lowest income quintile, the average wages doubles over time. That's opportunity.
- JAlexoid 8y ago
  But this isn't wage growth. When you switch between different socioeconomic profession groups, the wage of your previous socioeconomic group doesn't change because your wages have changed. Socioeconomic group isn't for life, you know. Once you become rich, you stop being poor. Except that wage growth debate isn't about opportunity. He's trying to argue about oranges, when the initial issue is about apples. Arguments about wage growth are about costs, productivity and compensation. As in - if you're 2x more productive at doing the same job, then the gains are deposited somewhere. The argument in the end is that productivity gains are not distributed at a fair level. Equal isn't ever a requirement for a stable society, fair is enough.
  - refurb 8y ago
    It's just as much wage growth as the typical "wages haven't grown for the lowest quintile", which doesn't track what the actual job was either. And the folks tracked in this study were from 40 to retirement, so I don't see a change in career being a major driver for the income growth.
sj3k 8y ago
Yeah right? I read this and thought 'Yes, wealthy people stay quite wealthy throughout their lives, while poor people work their way into higher salaries.'
- refurb 8y ago
  Yeah, but this runs exactly counter to the common story that the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer".

refurb 8y ago

You can't have social mobility without wage growth, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. And it doesn't matter if it's not the same job. The argument has always been about opportunity and the key point of this article is for people who start out in the lowest income quintile, the average wages doubles over time. That's opportunity.

JAlexoid 8y ago
But this isn't wage growth. When you switch between different socioeconomic profession groups, the wage of your previous socioeconomic group doesn't change because your wages have changed. Socioeconomic group isn't for life, you know. Once you become rich, you stop being poor. Except that wage growth debate isn't about opportunity. He's trying to argue about oranges, when the initial issue is about apples. Arguments about wage growth are about costs, productivity and compensation. As in - if you're 2x more productive at doing the same job, then the gains are deposited somewhere. The argument in the end is that productivity gains are not distributed at a fair level. Equal isn't ever a requirement for a stable society, fair is enough.
- refurb 8y ago
  It's just as much wage growth as the typical "wages haven't grown for the lowest quintile", which doesn't track what the actual job was either. And the folks tracked in this study were from 40 to retirement, so I don't see a change in career being a major driver for the income growth.

sj3k 8y ago

Yeah right? I read this and thought 'Yes, wealthy people stay quite wealthy throughout their lives, while poor people work their way into higher salaries.'

refurb 8y ago
Yeah, but this runs exactly counter to the common story that the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer".