3 ms·
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
by 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 agoWages 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 agoMy graph also shows median income, and it clearly shows it has not stagnated, but risen, and not by any small amount.
- cryptoz 6y agoMedian income has nothing to do with real wage stagnation.
- pmiller2 6y agoIt 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 agoNow, 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 agoProductivity 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 agoYou 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 agoThat 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 agoMedian (average) measures are the refuge of the scoundrel. Refuting the (willful) abuse of statistics is like trying to refute numerology with reason.
- rightbyte 6y agoRefuting numerology with reason works quite well for most people.
- pmiller2 6y agoReason doesn't work great for convincing a numerologist that they are wrong.
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoIt does a number on the audience though.
- specialist 6y agoIndeed. 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 agoThe 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 agothe 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 agohttps://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 agoThe "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 agoIn 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 agoI wonder how this chart would look if it factored in living expenses.
- pmiller2 6y agoHousing, education, and healthcare expenses have all increased faster than the rate of inflation, so, it would not look good. Not good at all.