4 ms·

It's not cherry picking when wages have been stagnant for the last 40+ years.

missedthecue 6y ago
Wages have not stagnated. Disposable income adjusted for inflation is up enormously since 1968, while at the same time, the average number of working hours per year is at an all time low. This is according to data collected by the federal reserve. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=rKwm https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=rKwm
- cryptoz 6y ago
  Wages have stagnated. Your graphs aren't really relevant to this question; so what if per capita disposable income has increased? That doesn't say anything at all about wages of people in America. Here is a more complete picture, with words and discussion and multiple graphs too: 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...
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    My graph also shows median income, and it clearly shows it has not stagnated, but risen, and not by any small amount.
    - cryptoz 6y ago
      Median income has nothing to do with real wage stagnation.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        It is real median income being shown, but that doesn’t show the full picture. For one thing, we need the definition of "disposable income" that's being used here.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Now, overlay that with a graph of productivity over time. Observe that productivity growth has greatly exceeded wage growth. Speculate on where the gains due to productivity have gone, if they’re not being shared with workers. There’s a story to tell here, but you’re not showing it.
      - smaryjerry 6y ago
        Productivity has nothing to do with wages. If you worked 4 hours writing a book by hand or 4 hours writing a book on a computer with spell check, you were more productive but it has nothing to do with skill of the user but the technology of the time. Another example is in the 90s only rich has cell phones, now everyone Does, does that mean everyone is now rich? Quality of life is vastly better for the world now.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        You should read an economics textbook, then come back and tell me again with a straight face that productivity doesn't affect wages. You don't seem to have an understanding of the issues, and your examples are so irrelevant as to be not even wrong. Roughly, the way it "should" work is that if Company A and Company B are in the same industry, and Company A is more productive than Company B, free market forces cause Company A to pay more than Company B, thus improving their ability to compete for workers. Generalize this to an entire industry of competing companies, and then to an entire economy.
        smaryjerry 6y ago
        That would be true if every company didn’t have nearly the same benefit. We are comparing time periods not two companies. Companies from say 1950 are not competing for workers with people from 2020.
    - specialist 6y ago
      Median (average) measures are the refuge of the scoundrel. Refuting the (willful) abuse of statistics is like trying to refute numerology with reason.
      - rightbyte 6y ago
        Refuting numerology with reason works quite well for most people.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        Reason doesn't work great for convincing a numerologist that they are wrong.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        It does a number on the audience though.
        specialist 6y ago
        Indeed. I eagerly await the day reason reigns supreme. Imagine! No more Reagonomics, anti-vax, flat earthers, birthers, pizza gate, qanon, powerpoint, climate skepticism, creationism, 9/11 truthers, Bell Curve, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  The graph is truly awful for showing hours worked. Also, what's that gigantic leap in disposable income? Are we to believe that on average American's have $50,000 worth of disposable income when they didn't before? I think that relies heavily on which version of average is being discussed.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    the spike in the last year is an glitch in their display software, but it doesn't change the central point of what's being shown here. What version of average do you think is appropriate?
    - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
      https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A229RX0 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A229RX0 Even here there is a definitive and deliberate bump right during the beginning of the COVID times. I don't believe that's an artifact. Somehow this analysis is saying people are vastly better in August than they were in February. I think that "average" in most of the different versions is useless. The millionaire and billionaire classes can be so over-represented they can draw the rest up. It doesn't answer if all of society is actually becoming more well off or just the cream continuing to rise.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        The "COVID bump" is driven primarily by stimulus checks and enhanced unemployment benefits: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/personal-income-surges-105-in-april-on-the-back-of-government-relief-payments-but-spending-lags-2020-05-29 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/personal-income-surges-105...
        SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
        In this case it would seem that that money is less "disposable" and more "extremely import to ration". I must not understand the definition of disposable.
- proverbialbunny 6y ago
  I wonder how this chart would look if it factored in living expenses.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Housing, education, and healthcare expenses have all increased faster than the rate of inflation, so, it would not look good. Not good at all.
gwright 6y ago
I'm not sure exactly what the data shows but total compensation would seem to be the more reasonable thing to look at. In particular the value associated with health insurance and other non-cash compensation has gone up.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  No, "total compensation" includes things like health insurance benefits that simultaneously have gotten more expensive in real terms over time, and don't put money in my pocket. If I could go to my landlord and trade them a months' worth of health insurance benefits for rent, then you'd be on to something. If you could find a way to separate out the part of "total compensation" that actually contributes to income, such as stock grants & such, then we could talk. But, just "total compensation" doesn't cut it. If you really want to get a true picture of how screwed the American worker is, take a look at housing and education costs over time, as well. Both have increased faster than inflation, and vastly outpaced wage growth; yet everyone needs a home, and a college degree is practically a requirement for any vaguely middle-class career.
  - gwright 6y ago
    Those benefits are income to you. Not taxable income, but they have a non-zero value. They certainly appear on the balance sheet of your employer and represent an increase in their total payroll costs.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      I don't care if they appear on my employer's balance sheet. They don't pay my rent, literally. You can say "screw insurance; we're offering all employees this super expensive concierge medical plan," and that literally has no effect on my balance sheet, which is the problem if you want me to be a good consumer in the economy and buy stuff. Or, if you don't think we need more homeless people in this country. If you want to look at the "value" of, say, an employer's group health insurance plan to me, what you really need to look at is the difference between buying the exact same coverage as an individual versus participating in the group plan. This is not an analysis that can typically be performed, because insurance companies don't want you to be able to compare on price like that. But, assuming you could, if I got, say, a $100 discount per month, and I was going to buy that coverage anyway, then, sure, you'd have a good case for calling that +$100 on my balance sheet.

Wages have not stagnated. Disposable income adjusted for inflation is up enormously since 1968, while at the same time, the average number of working hours per year is at an all time low. This is according to data collected by the federal reserve. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=rKwm https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=rKwm

cryptoz 6y ago
Wages have stagnated. Your graphs aren't really relevant to this question; so what if per capita disposable income has increased? That doesn't say anything at all about wages of people in America. Here is a more complete picture, with words and discussion and multiple graphs too: 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...
- missedthecue 6y ago
  My graph also shows median income, and it clearly shows it has not stagnated, but risen, and not by any small amount.
  - cryptoz 6y ago
    Median income has nothing to do with real wage stagnation.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      It is real median income being shown, but that doesn’t show the full picture. For one thing, we need the definition of "disposable income" that's being used here.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Now, overlay that with a graph of productivity over time. Observe that productivity growth has greatly exceeded wage growth. Speculate on where the gains due to productivity have gone, if they’re not being shared with workers. There’s a story to tell here, but you’re not showing it.
    - smaryjerry 6y ago
      Productivity has nothing to do with wages. If you worked 4 hours writing a book by hand or 4 hours writing a book on a computer with spell check, you were more productive but it has nothing to do with skill of the user but the technology of the time. Another example is in the 90s only rich has cell phones, now everyone Does, does that mean everyone is now rich? Quality of life is vastly better for the world now.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        You should read an economics textbook, then come back and tell me again with a straight face that productivity doesn't affect wages. You don't seem to have an understanding of the issues, and your examples are so irrelevant as to be not even wrong. Roughly, the way it "should" work is that if Company A and Company B are in the same industry, and Company A is more productive than Company B, free market forces cause Company A to pay more than Company B, thus improving their ability to compete for workers. Generalize this to an entire industry of competing companies, and then to an entire economy.
        smaryjerry 6y ago
        That would be true if every company didn’t have nearly the same benefit. We are comparing time periods not two companies. Companies from say 1950 are not competing for workers with people from 2020.
  - specialist 6y ago
    Median (average) measures are the refuge of the scoundrel. Refuting the (willful) abuse of statistics is like trying to refute numerology with reason.
    - rightbyte 6y ago
      Refuting numerology with reason works quite well for most people.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Reason doesn't work great for convincing a numerologist that they are wrong.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        It does a number on the audience though.
      - specialist 6y ago
        Indeed. I eagerly await the day reason reigns supreme. Imagine! No more Reagonomics, anti-vax, flat earthers, birthers, pizza gate, qanon, powerpoint, climate skepticism, creationism, 9/11 truthers, Bell Curve, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
The graph is truly awful for showing hours worked. Also, what's that gigantic leap in disposable income? Are we to believe that on average American's have $50,000 worth of disposable income when they didn't before? I think that relies heavily on which version of average is being discussed.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  the spike in the last year is an glitch in their display software, but it doesn't change the central point of what's being shown here. What version of average do you think is appropriate?
  - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A229RX0 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A229RX0 Even here there is a definitive and deliberate bump right during the beginning of the COVID times. I don't believe that's an artifact. Somehow this analysis is saying people are vastly better in August than they were in February. I think that "average" in most of the different versions is useless. The millionaire and billionaire classes can be so over-represented they can draw the rest up. It doesn't answer if all of society is actually becoming more well off or just the cream continuing to rise.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      The "COVID bump" is driven primarily by stimulus checks and enhanced unemployment benefits: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/personal-income-surges-105-in-april-on-the-back-of-government-relief-payments-but-spending-lags-2020-05-29 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/personal-income-surges-105...
      - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
        In this case it would seem that that money is less "disposable" and more "extremely import to ration". I must not understand the definition of disposable.
proverbialbunny 6y ago
I wonder how this chart would look if it factored in living expenses.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Housing, education, and healthcare expenses have all increased faster than the rate of inflation, so, it would not look good. Not good at all.

gwright 6y ago

I'm not sure exactly what the data shows but total compensation would seem to be the more reasonable thing to look at. In particular the value associated with health insurance and other non-cash compensation has gone up.

pmiller2 6y ago
No, "total compensation" includes things like health insurance benefits that simultaneously have gotten more expensive in real terms over time, and don't put money in my pocket. If I could go to my landlord and trade them a months' worth of health insurance benefits for rent, then you'd be on to something. If you could find a way to separate out the part of "total compensation" that actually contributes to income, such as stock grants & such, then we could talk. But, just "total compensation" doesn't cut it. If you really want to get a true picture of how screwed the American worker is, take a look at housing and education costs over time, as well. Both have increased faster than inflation, and vastly outpaced wage growth; yet everyone needs a home, and a college degree is practically a requirement for any vaguely middle-class career.
- gwright 6y ago
  Those benefits are income to you. Not taxable income, but they have a non-zero value. They certainly appear on the balance sheet of your employer and represent an increase in their total payroll costs.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    I don't care if they appear on my employer's balance sheet. They don't pay my rent, literally. You can say "screw insurance; we're offering all employees this super expensive concierge medical plan," and that literally has no effect on my balance sheet, which is the problem if you want me to be a good consumer in the economy and buy stuff. Or, if you don't think we need more homeless people in this country. If you want to look at the "value" of, say, an employer's group health insurance plan to me, what you really need to look at is the difference between buying the exact same coverage as an individual versus participating in the group plan. This is not an analysis that can typically be performed, because insurance companies don't want you to be able to compare on price like that. But, assuming you could, if I got, say, a $100 discount per month, and I was going to buy that coverage anyway, then, sure, you'd have a good case for calling that +$100 on my balance sheet.