6 ms·

This argument strikes me as bizarre. 1) The distribution of income has been different over time. 2) If it had been pegged at 70's levels, and wealth generat

This argument strikes me as bizarre. 1) The distribution of income has been different over time. 2) If it had been pegged at 70's levels, and wealth generation had been unaffected, incomes would have grown more. 3) But this hypothetical didn't happen. Ergo 4) You're being robbed by the enemies of the proletariat. Also, the data on offer strike me as odd. There has been far more than 8% wage growth since the 70s. This Pew Trends article, which controls for factors like household size, indicates that household income has risen 49% since 1970.[0] Note that incomes have risen significantly since 1990, even as the number of dual income households has remained flat during that period. [1] [0] https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/ https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-... [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/ft_dual-income-households-1960-2012-2/ https://www.pewresearch.org/ft_dual-income-households-1960-2...

skitout 6y ago
"In fact, in real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago" "Meanwhile, wage gains have gone largely to the highest earners." https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...
- marcusverus 6y ago
  Your source ignores benefits.
  - anemoiac 6y ago
    The source you're referring to explicitly discusses benefits. It even includes a chart that depicts the relationship between "wages and salaries" and "total benefits" over the past twenty years. While I think it's important to distinguish between wages and total earnings, it's also important to differentiate between earnings and purchasing power. The fact that benefits have increased over time won't mean much to the average American if that increase simply reflects a corresponding increase in the cost of healthcare, for example. In my view, the important question to ask isn't whether median earnings have been completely stagnant over recent decades (i.e. 0.00% growth in real terms), but whether increasing inequality represents some sort of structural change. Thinking in those terms, the range of varying estimates regarding the change in median earnings over recent decades seems relatively small and insignificant when compared to the larger economic picture.

skitout 6y ago

"In fact, in real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago" "Meanwhile, wage gains have gone largely to the highest earners." https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...

marcusverus 6y ago
Your source ignores benefits.
- anemoiac 6y ago
  The source you're referring to explicitly discusses benefits. It even includes a chart that depicts the relationship between "wages and salaries" and "total benefits" over the past twenty years. While I think it's important to distinguish between wages and total earnings, it's also important to differentiate between earnings and purchasing power. The fact that benefits have increased over time won't mean much to the average American if that increase simply reflects a corresponding increase in the cost of healthcare, for example. In my view, the important question to ask isn't whether median earnings have been completely stagnant over recent decades (i.e. 0.00% growth in real terms), but whether increasing inequality represents some sort of structural change. Thinking in those terms, the range of varying estimates regarding the change in median earnings over recent decades seems relatively small and insignificant when compared to the larger economic picture.