4 ms·

This number is meaningless unless compared to productivity; wages have comparatively been flat since the 1970s. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/0

by 23B1 4y ago

This number is meaningless unless compared to productivity; wages have comparatively been flat since the 1970s. 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... When you start adding in other considerations, the picture is worse. https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> number is meaningless unless compared to productivity No, it's not. Productivity adds a dimension to the question: it tells us the pie got bigger without more ingredients. But that isn't relevant to the absolute size of one's slice. Real wages are meaningful without preference to productivity. > wages have comparatively been flat since the 1970s Flat isn't falling. Taking into account benefits, per your Pew article [1], they're up. (Barely.) The real economy grew in that time, and the rich got richer with it. That's a problem. But it's not a problem of falling real wages. [1] 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...
- nwienert 4y ago
  If wages stay flat and capital makes gains, then in the most true general sense wage-earners are earning less of a % than before. Also what’s the story with purchasing power which seems to be way down. I think those are much more important to highlight and less pedantic.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > in the most true general sense wage-earners are earning less of a % than before Yes. The fraction of GDP paid out to labour has fallen. This is a problem. But it's a problem of dividing gains, not of anyone being materially worse off than they were before. > what’s the story with purchasing power which seems to be way down It's not. It's flat to slightly up over the last half century. That's what real wage measures: the real purchasing power of the median earner's wage.
    - nwienert 4y ago
      But there are tricks there aren't there? I'd want to look at home and car purchasing power, education, healthcare. If it's bundling in some tricks around technology as I've seen, it's very misleading IMO. And also the bundling of weird home tricks like nicer technology in the home is another misleading factor. Ultimately I think people are happiest with sq foot and location. From what I've seen a single wage earner in the 50s was far wealthier than even double wage of equivalent prestige jobs today, I don't really think a bigger and brighter TV even begins to touch the happiness achieved by having your family in a bigger house.
notch898a 4y ago
Productivity increases may be mostly due more to improvements in capital vs improvements in labor, though. If I make my peasants plow the field by hand, and then buy a horse, I'm not going to pay the peasants more for that. Rather I'm going to tell them they should be glad they are able to use the horse, as their muscles are less strained. I may even pay them less as it's less intensive.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  That assumes possibly the most ancient, menial task, and assumes the peasants always do it the same way (i.e., it circularly assumes that labor productivity doesn't increase). Educating and training people, giving them general and specific skills, makes them much more productive.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    I'd argue the educational gains in the past 30 years have been negative. The markets appear to indicate the worker value hasn't improved much lately, but capital has. >Educating and training people, giving them general and specific skills, makes them much more productive. And yet if you talk to almost any American, they will explain that the educational system has gone downhill. If the product produced through education is of lower quality, I would not expect the wage demanded to be higher.
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      Lots of people saying something doesn't at all make it true; in fact, it should make you skeptical that they are following a mis/disinformation herd and don't know what they are saying. Education isn't the only source of skills, of course. There is training, and also people are far better informed now, for example, due the the Internet (or disinformed). Even if the quality of education is reduced, it's not nearly zero. Partly because of education (and health, freedom, political stability, etc.) we are far more productive than illiterate neolithic peasants farmers. Also, the quality could go down, but may more people could be educated, resulting in a large net gain.

by 23B1 4y ago

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> number is meaningless unless compared to productivity No, it's not. Productivity adds a dimension to the question: it tells us the pie got bigger without more ingredients. But that isn't relevant to the absolute size of one's slice. Real wages are meaningful without preference to productivity. > wages have comparatively been flat since the 1970s Flat isn't falling. Taking into account benefits, per your Pew article [1], they're up. (Barely.) The real economy grew in that time, and the rich got richer with it. That's a problem. But it's not a problem of falling real wages. [1] 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...

nwienert 4y ago
If wages stay flat and capital makes gains, then in the most true general sense wage-earners are earning less of a % than before. Also what’s the story with purchasing power which seems to be way down. I think those are much more important to highlight and less pedantic.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > in the most true general sense wage-earners are earning less of a % than before Yes. The fraction of GDP paid out to labour has fallen. This is a problem. But it's a problem of dividing gains, not of anyone being materially worse off than they were before. > what’s the story with purchasing power which seems to be way down It's not. It's flat to slightly up over the last half century. That's what real wage measures: the real purchasing power of the median earner's wage.
  - nwienert 4y ago
    But there are tricks there aren't there? I'd want to look at home and car purchasing power, education, healthcare. If it's bundling in some tricks around technology as I've seen, it's very misleading IMO. And also the bundling of weird home tricks like nicer technology in the home is another misleading factor. Ultimately I think people are happiest with sq foot and location. From what I've seen a single wage earner in the 50s was far wealthier than even double wage of equivalent prestige jobs today, I don't really think a bigger and brighter TV even begins to touch the happiness achieved by having your family in a bigger house.

notch898a 4y ago

Productivity increases may be mostly due more to improvements in capital vs improvements in labor, though. If I make my peasants plow the field by hand, and then buy a horse, I'm not going to pay the peasants more for that. Rather I'm going to tell them they should be glad they are able to use the horse, as their muscles are less strained. I may even pay them less as it's less intensive.

wolverine876 4y ago
That assumes possibly the most ancient, menial task, and assumes the peasants always do it the same way (i.e., it circularly assumes that labor productivity doesn't increase). Educating and training people, giving them general and specific skills, makes them much more productive.
- notch898a 4y ago
  I'd argue the educational gains in the past 30 years have been negative. The markets appear to indicate the worker value hasn't improved much lately, but capital has. >Educating and training people, giving them general and specific skills, makes them much more productive. And yet if you talk to almost any American, they will explain that the educational system has gone downhill. If the product produced through education is of lower quality, I would not expect the wage demanded to be higher.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    Lots of people saying something doesn't at all make it true; in fact, it should make you skeptical that they are following a mis/disinformation herd and don't know what they are saying. Education isn't the only source of skills, of course. There is training, and also people are far better informed now, for example, due the the Internet (or disinformed). Even if the quality of education is reduced, it's not nearly zero. Partly because of education (and health, freedom, political stability, etc.) we are far more productive than illiterate neolithic peasants farmers. Also, the quality could go down, but may more people could be educated, resulting in a large net gain.