4 ms·

This is not true. Wages did stagnate from about the mid 70s until about the mid 90s, but median, real wages have been increasing steadily since then [0] [0] ht

This is not true. Wages did stagnate from about the mid 70s until about the mid 90s, but median, real wages have been increasing steadily since then [0] [0] https://x.com/LettieriDC/status/1922704140834099370 https://x.com/LettieriDC/status/1922704140834099370

bluefirebrand 1y ago
Sounds like wages are about 20 years removed where they should be then, since cost of living didn't exactly stagnate for 20 years
- MostlyStable 1y ago
  "Real" as opposed to "nominal" in this context means inflation adjusted, which means that wages have been increasing faster than inflation for 30 years. Now, it is true that some components of cost of living, most notably housing, have (especially in particular regions) also increased in cost faster than the general inflation level. But that's not due to some inherent breakdown between productivity and wages. It's due to a series of bad policy and development choices mostly in cities. So if you want to have that discussion, that's fine, but it's totally separate from the original discussion about productivity and wages.
  - bluefirebrand 1y ago
    > which means that wages have been increasing faster than inflation for 30 years If you look at the graph you posted and carried the slope of the pre-70s trajectory forward, assuming that the 70s-90s slump had not happened, would the graph end in the same place it is currently? No. Not even close > So if you want to have that discussion, that's fine, but it's totally separate from the original discussion about productivity and wages. It's absolutely not a separate discussion, the end result is that the same "real wage" that used to provide a comfortable life is now poverty You cannot just shrug your shoulders and say "well incomes are matching productivity so this is fine actually"
    - tiahura 1y ago
      The average us worker now had to complete with more women entering the workforce and entering more fields and careers. They also had to compete with ever increasing numbers of immigrants and they had to compete with foreign workers. When you massively increase the supply of labor, you’re going to have downward pressure on wages.
thayne 1y ago
Increasing and stagnating are not mutually exclusive. Wages may be increasing, but the benefits of productivity gains have not been evenly distributed. Productivity has increased faster than wages have, and difference has gone to the already wealthy.
- andsoitis 1y ago
  > Productivity has increased faster than wages have, and difference has gone to the already wealthy. What/who has financed productivity increases? Isn’t it tools and infrastructure etc. for the most part, paid for by asset owners? There are likely exceptions, but big picture.
orwin 1y ago
Compare to productivity: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ Capital earn more than Work since the 90s-2000s(depending on the country).

bluefirebrand 1y ago

Sounds like wages are about 20 years removed where they should be then, since cost of living didn't exactly stagnate for 20 years

MostlyStable 1y ago
"Real" as opposed to "nominal" in this context means inflation adjusted, which means that wages have been increasing faster than inflation for 30 years. Now, it is true that some components of cost of living, most notably housing, have (especially in particular regions) also increased in cost faster than the general inflation level. But that's not due to some inherent breakdown between productivity and wages. It's due to a series of bad policy and development choices mostly in cities. So if you want to have that discussion, that's fine, but it's totally separate from the original discussion about productivity and wages.
- bluefirebrand 1y ago
  > which means that wages have been increasing faster than inflation for 30 years If you look at the graph you posted and carried the slope of the pre-70s trajectory forward, assuming that the 70s-90s slump had not happened, would the graph end in the same place it is currently? No. Not even close > So if you want to have that discussion, that's fine, but it's totally separate from the original discussion about productivity and wages. It's absolutely not a separate discussion, the end result is that the same "real wage" that used to provide a comfortable life is now poverty You cannot just shrug your shoulders and say "well incomes are matching productivity so this is fine actually"
  - tiahura 1y ago
    The average us worker now had to complete with more women entering the workforce and entering more fields and careers. They also had to compete with ever increasing numbers of immigrants and they had to compete with foreign workers. When you massively increase the supply of labor, you’re going to have downward pressure on wages.

thayne 1y ago

Increasing and stagnating are not mutually exclusive. Wages may be increasing, but the benefits of productivity gains have not been evenly distributed. Productivity has increased faster than wages have, and difference has gone to the already wealthy.

andsoitis 1y ago
> Productivity has increased faster than wages have, and difference has gone to the already wealthy. What/who has financed productivity increases? Isn’t it tools and infrastructure etc. for the most part, paid for by asset owners? There are likely exceptions, but big picture.

orwin 1y ago

Compare to productivity: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ Capital earn more than Work since the 90s-2000s(depending on the country).