44 ms·

>At the bottom, real wages have fallen. Wages are not the only form of remuneration. Total remuneration is the stat you should look at, since also since 1980 a

>At the bottom, real wages have fallen. Wages are not the only form of remuneration. Total remuneration is the stat you should look at, since also since 1980 a lot of law changes have made it more costly to employ, and most jobs, even low wage ones, have received lots more benefits. Also, since 1980, wages at the low end have increased for women and minorities. Only white males at the low end have decreased. Finally, almost no one spends a career at the low end - entry wages to the workforce are just that - a start for a career. Look at lifetime earnings to see what the lowest lifetime earners make, and then you will see vast improvements in both wages and total remuneration. BLS tracks all of these variables. Wages, total remuneration, and total cost to employ are the relevant things to look through to get a better picture. Look through them sometime.

blowski 5y ago
Agreed, real wages are not the whole picture, but any metric can be manipulated to show whatever we like. For me, the purchasing power of the median individual is one of the best 'simple' pieces of data to track over time, but that can can hide the difference between geographical areas, and how we calculate PPP is controversial. What to do? Look at a broad range of outcomes like social mobility - indicators that can't be moved directly and themselves have an impact on future change.
- ChrisLomont 5y ago
  >but any metric can be manipulated to show whatever we like That's nonsense. If you believe that, then there is no worth to using any metrics or numbers to try and understand the world. It's a common defense by people that don't get the result they want when looking at solid evidence. I gave you a place to find solid evidence. >the purchasing power of the median individual is one of the best 'simple' pieces If that is eroded by legislation making it costlier to employ, then this is just as valuable, because then instead of spreading rage against employers, it's the people and the government that is causing wage decreases, not employers. Ignoring relevant factors makes "solutions" unusable because you're not solving the problems. >Look at a broad range of outcomes like social mobility Well, then you're in luck. Social mobility has not decreased in the past 50+ years [1]. This was done using all tax records from all Americans by a group that wanted to show social mobility had declined, but they could not do so once given all the data. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economic-mobility-hasnt-changed-in-a-half-century-in-america-economists-declare/2014/01/22/e845db4a-83a2-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economic-mob...
  - blowski 5y ago
    If we’re not allowed to debate the veracity and interpretation of stats, then I guess I’m done here.
    - ChrisLomont 5y ago
      >If we’re not allowed to debate the veracity and interpretation of stats That is a long way from your claim that all stat "can be manipulated to show whatever we like". The way to show some stat is false, or even manipulated, is to demonstrate that claim by using better evidence or stats. The way is not to simply hand wave that all stats can be manipulated to "to show whatever we like". If you want to claim BLS stats are not true (debating the veracity), then provide better sourced ones. I am unaware of any agency that does a wider, longer running, better sourced, better documented system for the relevant stats I mentioned. If you have one, provide it. If you cannot, then accept the BLS as the best available and create a belief based on that evidence. You claimed wages have fallen. I pointed out quite valid reasons for that using relevant factors that are counter to the narrative you want, and, that taking more factors into account, this is a not unreasonable outcome. Simply implying that I or others are manipulating facts to reach any conclusion we want, without perhaps providing yet more factors or evidence, is not debate.

blowski 5y ago

Agreed, real wages are not the whole picture, but any metric can be manipulated to show whatever we like. For me, the purchasing power of the median individual is one of the best 'simple' pieces of data to track over time, but that can can hide the difference between geographical areas, and how we calculate PPP is controversial. What to do? Look at a broad range of outcomes like social mobility - indicators that can't be moved directly and themselves have an impact on future change.

ChrisLomont 5y ago
>but any metric can be manipulated to show whatever we like That's nonsense. If you believe that, then there is no worth to using any metrics or numbers to try and understand the world. It's a common defense by people that don't get the result they want when looking at solid evidence. I gave you a place to find solid evidence. >the purchasing power of the median individual is one of the best 'simple' pieces If that is eroded by legislation making it costlier to employ, then this is just as valuable, because then instead of spreading rage against employers, it's the people and the government that is causing wage decreases, not employers. Ignoring relevant factors makes "solutions" unusable because you're not solving the problems. >Look at a broad range of outcomes like social mobility Well, then you're in luck. Social mobility has not decreased in the past 50+ years [1]. This was done using all tax records from all Americans by a group that wanted to show social mobility had declined, but they could not do so once given all the data. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economic-mobility-hasnt-changed-in-a-half-century-in-america-economists-declare/2014/01/22/e845db4a-83a2-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economic-mob...
- blowski 5y ago
  If we’re not allowed to debate the veracity and interpretation of stats, then I guess I’m done here.
  - ChrisLomont 5y ago
    >If we’re not allowed to debate the veracity and interpretation of stats That is a long way from your claim that all stat "can be manipulated to show whatever we like". The way to show some stat is false, or even manipulated, is to demonstrate that claim by using better evidence or stats. The way is not to simply hand wave that all stats can be manipulated to "to show whatever we like". If you want to claim BLS stats are not true (debating the veracity), then provide better sourced ones. I am unaware of any agency that does a wider, longer running, better sourced, better documented system for the relevant stats I mentioned. If you have one, provide it. If you cannot, then accept the BLS as the best available and create a belief based on that evidence. You claimed wages have fallen. I pointed out quite valid reasons for that using relevant factors that are counter to the narrative you want, and, that taking more factors into account, this is a not unreasonable outcome. Simply implying that I or others are manipulating facts to reach any conclusion we want, without perhaps providing yet more factors or evidence, is not debate.