US Wage growth: Perception and Reality

[Dinner]

The problem with simply taking total wages earned and dividing it by the total number of workers is that the average is a very poor figure for determining how people really are doing. Medians are much better for figuring that out and the medians are what the article Bosh posted spoke about.

[Kidlicious]

You could use a few different numbers, but saying wages increased 6.9% per year since 1970 is just BS. DanS must be talking about total wages and salaries in nominal terms which is misleading for sure. The share or wages and salary of national income has been on a downward trend since 1970 (or so). It's gone up a bit at times, but the trend is clearly downward. There's going to be increasing pressure on employers to pay higher wages and salaries since corporate cash savings are so high, but there will also be pressure for shareholders and others for that cash too. Employee negotiating power is nowhere near what it was, and the shareholders will end up getting most of the savings. We'll see a little increase in wages if there is no recession, but it won't be significant.

[Kuciwalker]

You could use a few different numbers, but saying wages increased 6.9% per year since 1970 is just BS. DanS must be talking about total wages and salaries in nominal terms which is misleading for sure. The share or wages and salary of national income has been on a downward trend since 1970 (or so).

You are talking about different things.

If the national income increases while wages as a proportion of it decreases, total wages can still increase.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

You could use a few different numbers, but saying wages increased 6.9% per year since 1970 is just BS. DanS must be talking about total wages and salaries in nominal terms which is misleading for sure. The share or wages and salary of national income has been on a downward trend since 1970 (or so).

You are talking about different things.

If the national income increases while wages as a proportion of it decreases, total wages can still increase.

Yes, I know.

[chequita guevara]

As Oerdin pointed out, total average wages can be increasing whiole decreasing in real terms for most people. The figure I've most often seen is that for the bottom 90% of the population, wages have fallen 10% since 1973. In other words, the rich have gotten very rich. Corporate officer compensation went from something liike 40 times the average workers wage to 450 times.

During the 2nd half ot the Clinton years, real wages finally rose above 1973 levels, only to lose all the ground they made in those few years in 2001.

Faminly incomes, however, have increased ~50%, according to previous posts in previous threads by DanS and I see no reason to doubt that. The reason, of course, is the rise of the two-income family.

[Kuciwalker]

As Oerdin pointed out, total average wages can be increasing whiole decreasing in real terms for most people.

And the numbers DanS gave showed that's not what's happening.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

As Oerdin pointed out, total average wages can be increasing whiole decreasing in real terms for most people.

And the numbers DanS gave showed that's not what's happening.

No, he only said that wages have increased 6.9% per annum since 1970. That says nothing about who is getting the wage increase. Remember the adage that if you stand next to Bill Gates, the two of you have an average wealth of $20 billion. Same principle applies.

Nor does it say how the wages have increased, as expendiatures of for the individuals receiveing the wages. Without more data, it doesn't mean very much.

[Addled Platypus]

they are getting more money for the same crappy service??...real nice(not)


Uncle Sam just needs more tax revenue

[RGBVideo]

Dan using his usual "repeat until true" -method without showing any proof

[One_more_turn]

"Want higher wages? We'll just close down the shop and move production somewhere else!"

The globalization has created huge pool of cheap skilled labor that's going to keep downward pressure on wages for decades to come.

Unfortunately, labor unions are still stuck in the 19th century mindset. Instead of globalize like the companies do, they still cling to their own little turf, their local pond, and still try to roll back the history instead of adapting to it. Labor unions must globalize if they want to survive and continue to protect the workers. They must cross the national boundary. If the management can, why can't they?

[Kuciwalker]

Labor unions

[One_more_turn]

I was in China from June to August. I visited many cities, especially those places where lots of foreign investments are taking place. Engineers are dirt cheap over there. I've met plenty of young, bright college grad who ENTHUSIATICALLY work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, for as little as $200 a month. US engineers can't compete with that. Even if they are lucky enough to avoid losing their jobs, they won't be seeing any meaningful raises until that gap has been narrowed somewhat. US engineers still have lots of edge such as language and experience, but do this edge justify a 40x-50x higher salary?

Motorola recently closed one of their network infrastructure group in Schaumburg and asked everyone to move to Chongqing, China, and accept the local wages there. Guess how many US locals took that bait?

[Whoha]

"US engineers still have lots of edge such as language and experience, but do this edge justify a 40x-50x higher salary?"

absolutely not, but since they depend on those 40-50x higher paid people to actually buy their product...

[Jon Miller]

People really need to act so that the corporations don't screw them over. What I don't understand is how people can't see that corporations and the nation state are in active competition, and that the nation states don't see this, and allow parasitic actions by the corporations.

I am for the nationalization of all corporations.

Jon Miller

[Kidlicious]

Nation States
Corporations