4 ms·

Wild to write an article where point 1 is “Decline in real wage growth. Check” in the time period with the first real wage growth in decades.

unstatusthequo 3y ago
I think "real" wage growth is exactly that point. There hasn't been any, and the recent growth is miniscule and is not even close to having kept up with inflation over that time.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- adammarples 3y ago
  "Real" wages are inflation adjusted by definition.
  - simonblack 3y ago
    That assuming that the 'real' inflation figures are used. To maintain his buying power since 1963, a blue-collar production worker should be earning about $5000 a week 60 years later. That just does not occur. It's the main reason that the US is no longer as rich and powerful as it was in the 1960s. If the 'working man' is not able to spend as much as he once could, the economy is a lot weaker than it should have been.
- qclibre22 3y ago
  Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over : https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
photonthug 3y ago
Real wage growth might be technically defined in terms of inflation but isn’t it clear that technical definitions are often just agenda-driven instruments that economists are giving to politicians, and this won’t match the ground truth? Who cares what the gamed metrics say when Housing and food and education are pretty unaffordable for some people, arguably for a whole generation of Americans. The problem is worse outside of stem. Even inside stem jobs I see people choosing to stay childless due to the expense, literally planning to die young because retirement planning seems like a crazy ideal. It’s not everyone but how many do we need to say there’s a problem? Not sure how people can still be in denial about these things.

unstatusthequo 3y ago

I think "real" wage growth is exactly that point. There hasn't been any, and the recent growth is miniscule and is not even close to having kept up with inflation over that time.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
adammarples 3y ago
"Real" wages are inflation adjusted by definition.
- simonblack 3y ago
  That assuming that the 'real' inflation figures are used. To maintain his buying power since 1963, a blue-collar production worker should be earning about $5000 a week 60 years later. That just does not occur. It's the main reason that the US is no longer as rich and powerful as it was in the 1960s. If the 'working man' is not able to spend as much as he once could, the economy is a lot weaker than it should have been.
qclibre22 3y ago
Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over : https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

photonthug 3y ago

Real wage growth might be technically defined in terms of inflation but isn’t it clear that technical definitions are often just agenda-driven instruments that economists are giving to politicians, and this won’t match the ground truth? Who cares what the gamed metrics say when Housing and food and education are pretty unaffordable for some people, arguably for a whole generation of Americans. The problem is worse outside of stem. Even inside stem jobs I see people choosing to stay childless due to the expense, literally planning to die young because retirement planning seems like a crazy ideal. It’s not everyone but how many do we need to say there’s a problem? Not sure how people can still be in denial about these things.