NYTimes: Wages fall to an historic low!

[opebo]

As a percentage of national income.

See the Results of Your Right-Wing Ideology, Workers

[MODU]

Boohoo  . . . "My income doesn't match up to a certain mathematical percentage.  WHAAAA!"

[opebo]

Boohoo  . . . "My income doesn't match up to a certain mathematical percentage.  WHAAAA!"

Your post is nonsensical as usual, MODU.  If one has been reduced in circumstance due to the political machinations of another, it makes sense to take note and attempt to reciprocate.

[MODU]

Boohoo  . . . "My income doesn't match up to a certain mathematical percentage.  WHAAAA!"

Your post is nonsensical as usual, MODU.  If one has been reduced in circumstance due to the political machinations of another, it makes sense to take note and attempt to reciprocate.

Let's see . . . wages have increased.  Economy has increased.  Economy increased rapidly.  Wages did not increase at the same pace as economy.  Whoop-dee-doo.  I'm not crying in my cornflakes because I didn't get a 5.7% pay increase.  But my "real wage" didn't fall either, but actually rose by 4%, yet in their mathematical model, it somehow magically dropped.  It's just a stupid mathematical relationship which really doesn't mean much of anything except for people who wish to use it to their advantage. 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'll give you an example in the US in FY 2004/5 - real wages rose by 2.4%, however the inflation rate was 3.4%. Yes, a person's wage rose by 2.4% (on average), but the actual cost of living increased by 3.4% (again on average) therefore they are 1% worse off.

It's not possible to take a case by case example - it has to be looked at one the whole - for instance in 2004 there were many parts of the country who wondered what the hell people were talking about a economic slow-down for... cause they didn't see it. But for those experiencing it (like in places like Canton, OH) it was real.

[Nym90]

It was my understanding that "real wages" already compensates for inflation. I thought that was the definition of the term.

In any event, I agree that those in poverty, the "working class", and the middle class are definitely worse off overall under Republican economic policies. The upper middle class probably breaks even personally in the short term, and the wealthy are better off in the short term (in the long term, however, everyone's financial well-being needs a strong working class and middle class as this is required to keep the overall national economy going strongly).

[opebo]

Boohoo  . . . "My income doesn't match up to a certain mathematical percentage.  WHAAAA!"

Your post is nonsensical as usual, MODU.  If one has been reduced in circumstance due to the political machinations of another, it makes sense to take note and attempt to reciprocate.

Let's see . . . wages have increased.  Economy has increased.  Economy increased rapidly.  Wages did not increase at the same pace as economy.  Whoop-dee-doo.  I'm not crying in my cornflakes because I didn't get a 5.7% pay increase.  But my "real wage" didn't fall either, but actually rose by 4%, yet in their mathematical model, it somehow magically dropped.  It's just a stupid mathematical relationship which really doesn't mean much of anything except for people who wish to use it to their advantage. 

Not at all, your 'real wage' clearly dropped as you are poorer relative to your non-working (owning) fellows.  Obviously in any capitalist country in which one is 'bidding' for resources with others ones relative wealth is just as important as the absolute.  

For example, though one may still be able to afford some sort of automobile, or some sort of housing, one is pushed into the unfashionable and third rate sorts.  A right-wing economist may argue that the worker of 2006 is better off than the worker of 1972 (a dubious claim to be sure), but what really mattered then was that a Chevrolet or a Cadillac, a ranch house or an upper middle class colonial were not that different.  Nowadays the gulf is huge between the lifestyle of the owners and their servile hirelings.

And in any case, the real point here was that though ostensibly even the right-wing definition of 'real wages' used by economists rose, it rose hardly at all compared to the rise in productivity - in other words, the workers got no share of their increased production.

[MODU]

Ahh, so when the market cools off a bit, and pay increases stays the same, then everyone is suddenly making money.  Nope, it's a terrible form of statistical analysis. 

[TeePee4Prez]

Boohoo  . . . "My income doesn't match up to a certain mathematical percentage.  WHAAAA!"

Your post is nonsensical as usual, MODU.  If one has been reduced in circumstance due to the political machinations of another, it makes sense to take note and attempt to reciprocate.

Let's see . . . wages have increased.  Economy has increased.  Economy increased rapidly.  Wages did not increase at the same pace as economy.  Whoop-dee-doo.  I'm not crying in my cornflakes because I didn't get a 5.7% pay increase.  But my "real wage" didn't fall either, but actually rose by 4%, yet in their mathematical model, it somehow magically dropped.  It's just a stupid mathematical relationship which really doesn't mean much of anything except for people who wish to use it to their advantage. 

Not at all, your 'real wage' clearly dropped as you are poorer relative to your non-working (owning) fellows.  Obviously in any capitalist country in which one is 'bidding' for resources with others ones relative wealth is just as important as the absolute.  

For example, though one may still be able to afford some sort of automobile, or some sort of housing, one is pushed into the unfashionable and third rate sorts.  A right-wing economist may argue that the worker of 2006 is better off than the worker of 1972 (a dubious claim to be sure), but what really mattered then was that a Chevrolet or a Cadillac, a ranch house or an upper middle class colonial were not that different.  Nowadays the gulf is huge between the lifestyle of the owners and their servile hirelings.

And in any case, the real point here was that though ostensibly even the right-wing definition of 'real wages' used by economists rose, it rose hardly at all compared to the rise in productivity - in other words, the workers got no share of their increased production.

I'm glad there are members of the owning class like opebo sticking up for us.  Keep it up man.  You get more credibility with these postings rather than the 'ladyboy" comments. 

People like MODU who are better established rather than someone like me out of college can afford to be more smug about the state of the economy.  opebo definitely has credence in this argument. 

[Smash255]

It was my understanding that "real wages" already compensates for inflation. I thought that was the definition of the term.

In any event, I agree that those in poverty, the "working class", and the middle class are definitely worse off overall under Republican economic policies. The upper middle class probably breaks even personally in the short term, and the wealthy are better off in the short term (in the long term, however, everyone's financial well-being needs a strong working class and middle class as this is required to keep the overall national economy going strongly).

^^^^^^

As usual Nym hits the nail on the head

[John Dibble]

It was my understanding that "real wages" already compensates for inflation. I thought that was the definition of the term.

Just for clarification, you are correct:

real wages
Definition

Income of an individual, organization, or country, after taking into consideration the effects of inflation on purchasing power. also called real income.

[MODU]

People like MODU who are better established rather than someone like me out of college can afford to be more smug about the state of the economy.  opebo definitely has credence in this argument. 

Believe me, I was worse off long ago.  Living off of a military income is not an easy one, no matter how young you are.  As far as the state of the economy goes, it's not a matter of being smug but a matter of being a realist.  The economy rises and falls in spurts, so it is too easy to take a snapshot in time and compare two bits of data and extract some "significant" conclusion based on its analysis, which is all that this article has done.

[J. J.]

"As a percentage of national income."

This is exceptionally misleading.  Let me give you an example.

From 1993-7 my personal income from wages decreased as a percentage of my gross personal income.  Now my wages increased a bit more quickly than inflation, so what caused this.

I put money into investments and savings that earned interest.  I had more interest, as a percentage of my income, in 1997 that I did in 1993.  My real income has increased, my wealth has increased, but the percentage of wages making up my personal income has decreased.

Let's say that I made $19,800 in wages and $200 in interest in 1993.  The percentage of income from wages is 99%.  In 1997, I'm making $22,500 in wages in 1993 dollars, and $2,500 in interest also in 1993 dollars.  My percentage of income form wages is 90%; it dropped.  My income, in real dollars, has increased by 25%, even after inflation.

[opebo]

"As a percentage of national income."

This is exceptionally misleading.  Let me give you an example.

From 1993-7 my personal income from wages decreased as a percentage of my gross personal income.  Now my wages increased a bit more quickly than inflation, so what caused this.

I put money into investments and savings that earned interest.  I had more interest, as a percentage of my income, in 1997 that I did in 1993.  My real income has increased, my wealth has increased, but the percentage of wages making up my personal income has decreased.

Let's say that I made $19,800 in wages and $200 in interest in 1993.  The percentage of income from wages is 99%.  In 1997, I'm making $22,500 in wages in 1993 dollars, and $2,500 in interest also in 1993 dollars.  My percentage of income form wages is 90%; it dropped.  My income, in real dollars, has increased by 25%, even after inflation.

What the hell does this have to do with the matter under discussion, J.J.?  The working class recieves virtually its entire income from wages, while the owning class receives its entire income from investments, so the two different types of income go to two entirely separate classes of people.  Any increase in ownership-income as opposed to work-income will redistribute from the workers to the owners.

[J. J.]

What the hell does this have to do with the matter under discussion, J.J.?  The working class recieves virtually its entire income from wages, while the owning class receives its entire income from investments, so the two different types of income go to two entirely separate classes of people. 

That's an incorrect statement.  The "working class" became very aware of investments since the 1980's.  About 50% of all households own some stock, for example. http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/wellspent/archives/2005/11/stock_ownership.html

There are other methods of generating income from resources, including the more traditional, like interest from CD's and buying an renting out property.  Those aren't "wages."  As these increase, the precentage of total income from wages decreases, but the individual's income increases.  As a person's worth expands, his precentage of income from "wages" should decrease.

[opebo]

What the hell does this have to do with the matter under discussion, J.J.?  The working class recieves virtually its entire income from wages, while the owning class receives its entire income from investments, so the two different types of income go to two entirely separate classes of people. 

That's an incorrect statement.  The "working class" became very aware of investments since the 1980's.  About 50% of all households own some stock, for example.

This is completely irrelevant, J.J.  'Some stock'?  It doesn't matter if they have a few meager shares in their IRAs and whatnot, these people derive nearly all their income from work.  They are working class.

[/quote]There are other methods of generating income from resources, including the more traditional, like interest from CD's and buying an renting out property.  Those aren't "wages."[/quote]

Yes, and these are the purvue of the owning class, J.J., not workers

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The point is, J.J., these are not the same persons!  When the national income increases, and profits and investment income increase greatly while wages are declining, the net result is a redistribution from one class to another.  What did you imagine, that the typical american worker has somehow magically accrued some large assets in the last few years?  No, the assets of the owning class have been made more profitable, while the wages of the workers have been driven down.

Anyway, here's another fine article on the subject of the recent precipitous decline in wages from the NYtimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/opinion/30wed1.html?_r=1&oref=login

[J. J.]

What the hell does this have to do with the matter under discussion, J.J.?  The working class recieves virtually its entire income from wages, while the owning class receives its entire income from investments, so the two different types of income go to two entirely separate classes of people. 

That's an incorrect statement.  The "working class" became very aware of investments since the 1980's.  About 50% of all households own some stock, for example.

This is completely irrelevant, J.J.  'Some stock'?  It doesn't matter if they have a few meager shares in their IRAs and whatnot, these people derive nearly all their income from work.  They are working class.

There are other methods of generating income from resources, including the more traditional, like interest from CD's and buying an renting out property.  Those aren't "wages."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As these increase, the precentage of total income from wages decreases, but the individual's income increases.  As a person's worth expands, his precentage of income from "wages" should decrease.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Opebo, the American worker, a class that you know very little about, has bee accruing assets (in such things as retirement plans, not to mention traditional investments), for the last quarter century.  These generate interests.

Let's assume that there is a worker, A, who makes $19,800 and has no other income.  His percentage of income from wages is 100%. 

He saves a bit during the year and the next year gets $200 in interest.  He makes exactly the same the next year in wages.  How much has he made overall?  $20,000, more than he was.  What percentage of his income is from wages?  99%.  I case you cannot figure it out his percentage of wages has dropped; 99% is less than 100%.  His income has increased.  His income has has ground by more than 1%, even though his wages (adjusted for inflation) have not increased.

Multiply this by 120,000,000 and you have some idea of why wages are becoming a smaller proportion of income.

[Gustaf]

It's pretty obvious that most people today have a much higher standard of living, meaning that for the same amount of work they can get more and better things.