3 ms·

> This i good news you're posting. Not good news, it's "slightly better than it could be" news. > wages are growing faster for your market right now than the

by toyg 3y ago

> This i good news you're posting. Not good news, it's "slightly better than it could be" news. > wages are growing faster for your market right now than they have at any time in your career so far. Best in two decades doesn't mean "best in the postwar era", which is the usual horizon for labor conditions. And yeah, having started working in 2000, I've been blessed with real-terms wage stagnation for most of my working life. What luck! Why am I not grateful to unbridled capitalism?!?

ajross 3y ago
I have to ask again: what specific number would you like to see for real wage growth in the UK to concede that the economy is "good"? If it's not "best in two decades", how much higher must it be? What fraction of historical workers have lived under those conditions?
- toyg 3y ago
  Have a look at some charts like these: https://www.economicvoice.com/chart-of-the-week-historical-real-average-salary/ https://www.economicvoice.com/chart-of-the-week-historical-r... The average over 160 years has been above 2%, and between 1950 and 2008 we've sailed close to double digits at times. This in a situation where, obviously, return from capital grew at much higher rates, increasing inequality - so hardly ideal, but decent. > What fraction of historical workers have lived under those conditions? The modern economy was effectively forged with Bretton Woods. Wages hit the brakes in the mid '90s, so for roughly 50 years workers had it decent - not always great, but decent. The subsequent 25 years have sucked. Here in UK we kinda papered over the cracks with an increase in public service provisions until roughly 2008, and it's been effectively "managed impoverishment" since then.
  - ajross 3y ago
    Your first link says that total pay rose YoY at 1.3%. Your link above says that the average over 160 years[1] is 1.4%[2]. I just don't know what you want. You're doing well relative to your recent compatriots and very acceptably relative to your ancestors. You're fine. If you can't find a way to be happy with that kind of wealth, well, that's on you and not macroeconomics. There's clearly no number someone can give you that's going to make you happy. [1] Which seems awfully cherry picked. It moves the boundary all the way back to before the industrial revolution. Surely you'd agree that the turn of the century was a huge economic outlier, no? [2] Not 2%, I can't find that number anywhere.

by toyg 3y ago

ajross 3y ago

I have to ask again: what specific number would you like to see for real wage growth in the UK to concede that the economy is "good"? If it's not "best in two decades", how much higher must it be? What fraction of historical workers have lived under those conditions?

toyg 3y ago
Have a look at some charts like these: https://www.economicvoice.com/chart-of-the-week-historical-real-average-salary/ https://www.economicvoice.com/chart-of-the-week-historical-r... The average over 160 years has been above 2%, and between 1950 and 2008 we've sailed close to double digits at times. This in a situation where, obviously, return from capital grew at much higher rates, increasing inequality - so hardly ideal, but decent. > What fraction of historical workers have lived under those conditions? The modern economy was effectively forged with Bretton Woods. Wages hit the brakes in the mid '90s, so for roughly 50 years workers had it decent - not always great, but decent. The subsequent 25 years have sucked. Here in UK we kinda papered over the cracks with an increase in public service provisions until roughly 2008, and it's been effectively "managed impoverishment" since then.
- ajross 3y ago
  Your first link says that total pay rose YoY at 1.3%. Your link above says that the average over 160 years[1] is 1.4%[2]. I just don't know what you want. You're doing well relative to your recent compatriots and very acceptably relative to your ancestors. You're fine. If you can't find a way to be happy with that kind of wealth, well, that's on you and not macroeconomics. There's clearly no number someone can give you that's going to make you happy. [1] Which seems awfully cherry picked. It moves the boundary all the way back to before the industrial revolution. Surely you'd agree that the turn of the century was a huge economic outlier, no? [2] Not 2%, I can't find that number anywhere.