4 ms·

"For wage earners this isn’t so much of a problem as long as wages inflate as well (which, well, they haven’t)" This, I think is a bit of an overstatement. Alt

by loxs 14y ago

"For wage earners this isn’t so much of a problem as long as wages inflate as well (which, well, they haven’t)" This, I think is a bit of an overstatement. Although wages may not have inflated too much, compared to, say gold, they have certainly inflated in terms of quality of life. Prices of personal possessions are extremely low, compared to 50 or 100 years ago, mostly due to "technical progress". 100 years ago a watch was a great luxury - passed down from generation to generation. But today "everybody" owns a smartphone, a computer, a wardrobe full of clothes. Everyone can afford high-caloric food (at least in the "developed world"). Not very much like 100 years ago.

bmunro 14y ago
It is probably referring to the fact that income for the bottom 50% of US earners has remained largely stagnant since the 1970s (after accounting for inflation) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/31/wages-arent-stagnating-theyre-plummeting/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/31/w... http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2011/09/poverty-figures.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2011/09/po...
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Only because new people entered the country and dragged the median down. http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/immigrants_simpsons_paradox_great_stagnation.html http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/immigrants_simpsons_p... Consider a nation with Steve (income $50) Bill (income $50) and George (income $100). The median is $50. Now suppose Steve's income remains the same, Bill's goes up to $60, and George's income goes up to $150. The median has gone up to $60, right? However, suppose during this time, Jose (income $30) and Hector (income $40) immigrated. The median is back down to $50 even though every single person saw their income go up. The longitudinal data I link to demonstrates that this is exactly what happened (albeit with different numbers). (Note: this is an argument against drawing conclusions from Simpson's paradox, not an argument against immigration.)

by loxs 14y ago

bmunro 14y ago

It is probably referring to the fact that income for the bottom 50% of US earners has remained largely stagnant since the 1970s (after accounting for inflation) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/31/wages-arent-stagnating-theyre-plummeting/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/31/w... http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2011/09/poverty-figures.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2011/09/po...

yummyfajitas 14y ago
Only because new people entered the country and dragged the median down. http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/immigrants_simpsons_paradox_great_stagnation.html http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/immigrants_simpsons_p... Consider a nation with Steve (income $50) Bill (income $50) and George (income $100). The median is $50. Now suppose Steve's income remains the same, Bill's goes up to $60, and George's income goes up to $150. The median has gone up to $60, right? However, suppose during this time, Jose (income $30) and Hector (income $40) immigrated. The median is back down to $50 even though every single person saw their income go up. The longitudinal data I link to demonstrates that this is exactly what happened (albeit with different numbers). (Note: this is an argument against drawing conclusions from Simpson's paradox, not an argument against immigration.)