3 ms·
In arguing that we should take a simple average, this seems to be trying to make wage growth seem better by putting more emphasis on the top ranks that have see
by svachalek 8y ago
In arguing that we should take a simple average, this seems to be trying to make wage growth seem better by putting more emphasis on the top ranks that have seen most of the growth over the past few decades. However the wording seems to imply the problem is that higher earners have slower growth because they're later in their careers. Are they talking about a different thing or just being weaselly?
- munk-a 8y agoIt's being weaselly, I believe the article is saying that the current record keeping means that if high earner growth slowed down in relation to low earner growth it would be (all other things equal) recorded as a decrease in growth (or absolute value even). But it doesn't offer numbers about an unweighted average because the unweighted average is -worse-. Tech workers' mid & high level salaries have been keeping a good pace with inflation (even after adjusting to the CoL effects in areas like silicon valley) it's low income workers who have been hit the worst by our modern economy with their hourly wages well behind simple inflation adjusted figures from three decades ago. This is just... a terribly written article sadly. It's like if you were to say "Global warming is going to be 2-3 deg C" and I argued "No, you're wrong, your numbers are highly suspect and thus I deny climate change (because I am getting figures closer to 4.5 deg C)"... can we classify this type of article as "kicking over the other's kids toys"?