42 ms·

The core of the issue seems to be that the graph I posted represents the experience of the median rather than the average worker. The data you suggest as more r

by epups 3y ago

The core of the issue seems to be that the graph I posted represents the experience of the median rather than the average worker. The data you suggest as more representative is simply the result of placing CEOs together with factory floor workers. I would argue that for the general perception of the population, the median pay is far more significant than the average one. You can read more here if you are interested: https://www.epi.org/blog/nothing-misleading-about-this-typical-workers-pay-and-productivity-have-diverged/ https://www.epi.org/blog/nothing-misleading-about-this-typic...

eru 3y ago
Yes, other people have also noticed that the graph is rubbish, and EPI is trying to defend it. Badly. I don't mind using median instead of averages, if it's clearly labelled. The version of the graph you linked first was almost not labelled at all. However, even in their apology / defense they are still not fixing the mixed-up deflators. They merely claim that we should ignore this problem. However following links in the meek defense leads to https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ which has a bit more information than what you first linked. (I might go through it later. But on a first skimming, it's seems to be still pretty light on actual details about the numbers and where they came from.) > If the fruits of economic growth are not going to workers, where are they going? > [...] And it went into higher profits (i.e., toward returns to shareholders and other wealth owners). That's wrong. The capital share of GDP hasn't really budged. (And in this case, distribution doesn't matter for our discussion. Since we only care that it's not going to workers, not which shareholders are getting what.) However, the share of GDP going to land rent is disturbing. But EPI doesn't want to talk about NIMBYs, I guess.

by epups 3y ago

eru 3y ago

Yes, other people have also noticed that the graph is rubbish, and EPI is trying to defend it. Badly. I don't mind using median instead of averages, if it's clearly labelled. The version of the graph you linked first was almost not labelled at all. However, even in their apology / defense they are still not fixing the mixed-up deflators. They merely claim that we should ignore this problem. However following links in the meek defense leads to https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ which has a bit more information than what you first linked. (I might go through it later. But on a first skimming, it's seems to be still pretty light on actual details about the numbers and where they came from.) > If the fruits of economic growth are not going to workers, where are they going? > [...] And it went into higher profits (i.e., toward returns to shareholders and other wealth owners). That's wrong. The capital share of GDP hasn't really budged. (And in this case, distribution doesn't matter for our discussion. Since we only care that it's not going to workers, not which shareholders are getting what.) However, the share of GDP going to land rent is disturbing. But EPI doesn't want to talk about NIMBYs, I guess.