3 ms·
No, I’m not sure you can reduce wages 30-40-50% for many workers without moving the median down, unless a similar number of workers on the lower side had their
by zaroth 7y ago
No, I’m not sure you can reduce wages 30-40-50% for many workers without moving the median down, unless a similar number of workers on the lower side had their wages increased 42-66-100% (that would effectively mean two workers swapping places, which would keep the median the same).
Worth mentioning that the 4th and 5th Quintiles have either not grown at all (in real terms) or even slightly fallen.
Of course compared the the 1st quintile and Top 5% everyone else has been totally screwed.
I think the narrowing of the middle class has more to do with the dramatic rise in housing, education, and health care costs than it does with wages.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2018/10/16/u-s-household-incomes-a-51-year-perspective https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2018/10/1...
- nopzor 7y agoare you normalizing for how many fte are in the average household? i'm guessing there are a lot of 2-working-parent households now than there were in 1970. and possibly more working kids still living with their parents too. when you consider this shift, it might allow for a reduction in wages. just speculation. i haven't looked at the data.
- echaozh 7y agoMedian is not mean. If everyone under the median suddenly gets no pay at all, or anything under, the median doesn't change.
- sytelus 7y agoMedian guarantees that at least half of the population has income increased. Mean is unreliable to make any such guarantees. Bill Gates walks in to bar and everyone is millionaire on average.