5 ms·

Real wages (adjusted for inflation) have fallen since November 2020. https://www.statista.com/chart/32428/inflation-and-wage-growth-in-the-united-states/ https

Real wages (adjusted for inflation) have fallen since November 2020. https://www.statista.com/chart/32428/inflation-and-wage-growth-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/chart/32428/inflation-and-wage-grow...

epistasis 2y ago
But choose 2019 or 2021 as the base and wages have kept pace with or exceeded inflation: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/has-pay-kept-up-with-inflation/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/has-pay-kept-up-with-infl...
- cfraenkel 2y ago
  If you only want to see what you want to see, it's easy to find evidence. On the other hand, look at the commonly posted wages vs productivity graphs (productivity goes up pretty much unbroken, but wages flatline since roughly mid-70s), or compare the 'US is #1!!' GDP per capita numbers against the *median* income numbers. Bit of a difference when you remove Musk, Gates, Bezos et al income from the comparison.
  - bpt3 2y ago
    Why would you expect wages to track productivity in an environment where automation increasingly drives productivity gains and the means of automation are provided by employers?
- TeaBrain 2y ago
  This rise since 2021 can be easily seen in the graph in the article I posted also, but the catch is that the increases have been relatively flat where they can been found, and that increase followed a lowering in real wages. Whichever way the data is looked at since 2020, it isn't very reassuring to the general public that wages have essentially stayed flat with inflation, when US productivity growth has been going up. I was actually surprised about the article I referenced in the comment above. The figure I'd read of previously was that real wages had cumulatively increased around 2% since 2020, which the Brookings article seems to reference. 2% real increases in wages is strikingly low considering US productivity growth. It was the figure I was originally looking up.
bpt3 2y ago
The time when a large portion of low wage workers were unemployed due to a pandemic? Probably not a great data point to use as your baseline.
- TeaBrain 2y ago
  You can take your pick of any point since the pandemic. Wage growth has essentially stayed flat with inflation, whether that be a slight increase or decrease. Much of the nominal wage growth with white collar workers would have been tied to promotions, which inflation has eaten the real gains of. It is no wonder that many people have a poor view of their place in the economy and it is certainly not just "vibes", like it was arrogantly written off as by many.
  - bpt3 2y ago
    You realize what you said contradicts the data that has been posted repeatedly in this topic? Real wage growth surged post-pandemic, especially for lower-income workers. Most economists have explained the vibes as: People blame inflation for increased prices but credit their own industriousness for wage gains, and are angry they don't get to basically double dip.
    - TeaBrain 2y ago
      Way to down vote my comment without posting that data you refer to. Nominal wages surged post-pandemic in Q2 2020, but cooled off after then. Someone already replied to my comment with a Brooking institute article which confirms the figures I had previously heard, in that real wages have only increased 2% annualized since 2019.
      - bpt3 2y ago
        I didn't downvote anything, and I didn't re-post data because I assumed you already had it as a participant in this discussion. A 2% annualized increase in real wages is excellent? Compare it to real wage increases elsewhere and you'll see that "only" is not the correct modifier to use.
SideQuark 2y ago
Wow, talk about a deceptive article. It’s so completely shady the writer surely did this on purpose to fool people like you. Here’s [1] the wage graph from BLS during that time period, same source as the author. See that incredible, record setting spike at precisely the month in question, never seen before or after? Gee, what do you suppose did that? The US had just poured 2 trillion into wages for free for pandemic recovery. This is why you shouldn’t fill your head with nonsense from such crappy sources. Liars will lead you into your own echo chamber. Read proper economic journalists until you learn enough not to believe stuff like that article. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- TeaBrain 2y ago
  >Here’s [1] the wage graph from BLS during that time period, same source as the author. See that incredible, record setting spike at precisely the month in question, never seen before or after? Gee, what do you suppose did that? Given how arrogant you are, it is ironic that you're the one that interpreted the graph incorrectly. They didn't reference the spike "precisely the month in question". The figure they referenced at the start of the graph was Q4 2020. The spike in the FRED graph was in Q2. Perhaps you should think before you type next time, so you don't paint yourself the fool you claim others to be. If they had referenced the spike in Q2, the decrease would have been >5%. If you want to start casting stones, you better be sure you're right.
  - SideQuark 2y ago
    Read the graph. The nov, q4 value in the graph is 376, is part of the Covid spike, and no other points in all of history that are not part of that spike are as high as the q4 value. Zoom in if you cannot read it. A spike is not a single month. It’s a spike with an upside and downside. You think the effects of a free few trillion poured into people’s hands only affected an infinitesimal width spike? So no, I did not interpret this graph incorrectly, and the poster chose a point from an artificial spike to mislead. Perhaps if you aggregated inflation, which is a lagging variable, it will turn out he chose precisely the quarter that made his point better than any other quarter, in which case he really went the extra mile to provide misleading claims. If you’re going to attempt to discredit a correct argument, at least evaluate it correctly.
willis936 2y ago
Meanwhile the real cost of housing is still increasing. It is a bipolar world: the haves and the have nots. If you own land: the economy is great. If you don't own land: you're screwed. Whatever metrics that say wealth inequality is down are lying. It's a polarized world of haves and have nots and people are pissed off.

epistasis 2y ago

But choose 2019 or 2021 as the base and wages have kept pace with or exceeded inflation: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/has-pay-kept-up-with-inflation/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/has-pay-kept-up-with-infl...

cfraenkel 2y ago
If you only want to see what you want to see, it's easy to find evidence. On the other hand, look at the commonly posted wages vs productivity graphs (productivity goes up pretty much unbroken, but wages flatline since roughly mid-70s), or compare the 'US is #1!!' GDP per capita numbers against the *median* income numbers. Bit of a difference when you remove Musk, Gates, Bezos et al income from the comparison.
- bpt3 2y ago
  Why would you expect wages to track productivity in an environment where automation increasingly drives productivity gains and the means of automation are provided by employers?
TeaBrain 2y ago
This rise since 2021 can be easily seen in the graph in the article I posted also, but the catch is that the increases have been relatively flat where they can been found, and that increase followed a lowering in real wages. Whichever way the data is looked at since 2020, it isn't very reassuring to the general public that wages have essentially stayed flat with inflation, when US productivity growth has been going up. I was actually surprised about the article I referenced in the comment above. The figure I'd read of previously was that real wages had cumulatively increased around 2% since 2020, which the Brookings article seems to reference. 2% real increases in wages is strikingly low considering US productivity growth. It was the figure I was originally looking up.

bpt3 2y ago

The time when a large portion of low wage workers were unemployed due to a pandemic? Probably not a great data point to use as your baseline.

TeaBrain 2y ago
You can take your pick of any point since the pandemic. Wage growth has essentially stayed flat with inflation, whether that be a slight increase or decrease. Much of the nominal wage growth with white collar workers would have been tied to promotions, which inflation has eaten the real gains of. It is no wonder that many people have a poor view of their place in the economy and it is certainly not just "vibes", like it was arrogantly written off as by many.
- bpt3 2y ago
  You realize what you said contradicts the data that has been posted repeatedly in this topic? Real wage growth surged post-pandemic, especially for lower-income workers. Most economists have explained the vibes as: People blame inflation for increased prices but credit their own industriousness for wage gains, and are angry they don't get to basically double dip.
  - TeaBrain 2y ago
    Way to down vote my comment without posting that data you refer to. Nominal wages surged post-pandemic in Q2 2020, but cooled off after then. Someone already replied to my comment with a Brooking institute article which confirms the figures I had previously heard, in that real wages have only increased 2% annualized since 2019.
    - bpt3 2y ago
      I didn't downvote anything, and I didn't re-post data because I assumed you already had it as a participant in this discussion. A 2% annualized increase in real wages is excellent? Compare it to real wage increases elsewhere and you'll see that "only" is not the correct modifier to use.

SideQuark 2y ago

Wow, talk about a deceptive article. It’s so completely shady the writer surely did this on purpose to fool people like you. Here’s [1] the wage graph from BLS during that time period, same source as the author. See that incredible, record setting spike at precisely the month in question, never seen before or after? Gee, what do you suppose did that? The US had just poured 2 trillion into wages for free for pandemic recovery. This is why you shouldn’t fill your head with nonsense from such crappy sources. Liars will lead you into your own echo chamber. Read proper economic journalists until you learn enough not to believe stuff like that article. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
TeaBrain 2y ago
>Here’s [1] the wage graph from BLS during that time period, same source as the author. See that incredible, record setting spike at precisely the month in question, never seen before or after? Gee, what do you suppose did that? Given how arrogant you are, it is ironic that you're the one that interpreted the graph incorrectly. They didn't reference the spike "precisely the month in question". The figure they referenced at the start of the graph was Q4 2020. The spike in the FRED graph was in Q2. Perhaps you should think before you type next time, so you don't paint yourself the fool you claim others to be. If they had referenced the spike in Q2, the decrease would have been >5%. If you want to start casting stones, you better be sure you're right.
- SideQuark 2y ago
  Read the graph. The nov, q4 value in the graph is 376, is part of the Covid spike, and no other points in all of history that are not part of that spike are as high as the q4 value. Zoom in if you cannot read it. A spike is not a single month. It’s a spike with an upside and downside. You think the effects of a free few trillion poured into people’s hands only affected an infinitesimal width spike? So no, I did not interpret this graph incorrectly, and the poster chose a point from an artificial spike to mislead. Perhaps if you aggregated inflation, which is a lagging variable, it will turn out he chose precisely the quarter that made his point better than any other quarter, in which case he really went the extra mile to provide misleading claims. If you’re going to attempt to discredit a correct argument, at least evaluate it correctly.

willis936 2y ago

Meanwhile the real cost of housing is still increasing. It is a bipolar world: the haves and the have nots. If you own land: the economy is great. If you don't own land: you're screwed. Whatever metrics that say wealth inequality is down are lying. It's a polarized world of haves and have nots and people are pissed off.