3 ms·
Like many liberals, I thought it was a fact that US wages had stagnated in the past 40 years. And rich were the only beneficiaries. But in fact the median incom
by ridewinter 6y ago
Like many liberals, I thought it was a fact that US wages had stagnated in the past 40 years. And rich were the only beneficiaries. But in fact the median income has steadily risen:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_Unite...
So I ask HN, why has this narrative become so widespread?
- rbecker 6y agoThe graphs at https://econographics.wordpress.com/tag/wages/ https://econographics.wordpress.com/tag/wages/ paint a less rosy picture. [1] is I think what is sometimes cited. Which does show growth, but slower than productivity growth. A quick glance at the graph on top of the wiki page you linked suggests it's consistent with it. But [2] is I think most often cited, and shows hardly any growth at all post 1972 or so. I'd also be interested to know why it looks so different from your graph and [1]. Perhaps how 'real income' is defined differs from the adjustments [2] made. [1] https://econographics.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/productivity-vs-compensation.jpg https://econographics.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/productivi... [2] https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
- ridewinter 6y agoPerhaps the difference is hourly pay vs. median income. The lowest tier of workers hasn't risen as much as the median income.