Posted on 06/02/2013 6:13:18 AM PDT by blam
Real Wages Decline Again — Literally No One Notices
Kenneth Thomas, Middle Class Political Economist
Jun. 1, 2013, 12:09 PM
You read it here first: Real wages fell 0.2% in 2012, down from $295.49 (1982-84 dollars) to $294.83 per week, according to the 2013 Economic Report of the President. Thus, a 1.9% increase in nominal wages was more than wiped out by inflation, marking the 40th consecutive year that real wages have remained below their 1972 peak.
Yet no one in the media noticed, or at least none thought it newsworthy. I searched the web and the subscription-only Nexis news database, and there are literally 0 stories on this. So I meant it when I said you read it here first. In fact, there was little press coverage of the report at all, in sharp contrast to last year.
Below are the gory details. The data source is Appendix Table B-47, "Hours and Earnings in Private Non-Agricultural Industries, 1966-2012." The table has been completely revised since last year's edition of the report. The data is for production and non-supervisory workers in the private sector, about 80% of the private workforce, so we are able to focus on what's happening to average workers rather than those with high incomes. I use weekly wages rather than hourly because there has been substantial variation (with a long-term decline) in the number of hours worked per week, from 38.5 in 1966 to 33.7 in 2012. The table below takes selected years to reduce its size.
Year Weekly Earnings (1982-84 dollars)
1972 $341.73 (peak)
1975 $314.77
1980 $290.80
1985 $284.96
1990 $271.10
1992 $266.46
1995 $267.17
2000 $285.00
2005 $285.05
2010 $297.79
2011 $295.49
2012 $294.83
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
If food and gasoline were counted in inflation would be much higher.
5.56mm
Contractors are noticing. There’s very little work in the home improvement business from people fixing up their own homes, even compared to 2011, which was worse than 2008.
Are they gross wages or take-home pay?
1972 $341.73 (peak)
1975 $314.77
1980 $290.80
1985 $284.96
1990 $271.10
1992 $266.46
1995 $267.17
2000 $285.00
2005 $285.05
2010 $297.79
2011 $295.49
2012 $294.83
what are these in 2013 dollars?
This is an AVERAGE! People don’t get paid an average. They get paid a specific amount.
IOW, look at actual rate of pay per hour and the difference almost entirely disappears.
$8.88 in 72 vs. $8.75 in 2012.
The most logical explanation for this difference therefore being an increase in the percentage of part time workers.
And it is a long-standing far-left goal to get the work week down to fewer hours. At one time, the goal was a 40-hr week. That was achieved. Then, they started seeking a 30-hr week. We are on the way. Obamacare and the cutoff of benefits (and resulting savings for the business) for workers who are basically part-time is part of this progression.
People notice alright - at least those who work and pay taxes to get through life.
But at the individual level it is just something you have to deal with to make it through the day.
Like snowstorms, tornadoes, wildfire there isn’t much you can do other than cope with it.
Sure - we hate the guts of the politicians responsible but it is clear that there will be no relief from either party. They are both busy making government bigger and making thinngs worse - not better.
“If food and gasoline were counted in inflation would be much higher.”
The stats would be ghastly, that’s why they don’t count them.
Of course it would, because food and fuel prices are taking an ever larger bite out of my paycheck, and the pols and their backers are really hoping you don’t notice.
Ummmmm....and what year did we go off the gold standard?
part time work because we need more jobs for more people....so more 32 hrs a week and less 40 hrs a week....
“The company had more workers enrolled in the state’s public health care program in last year’s last quarter than any other employer.”
As a very large employer in Wisconsin - 84 Walmart stores in Wisconsin, with 29,514 employees in 2012, in the retail sales industry it is NOT amazing that such a large employer in retail sales might top the list in Wisconsin employees enrolled in the state’s subsidized health care program.
Does the report mention what was that number, for Walmart, for the “most workers enrolled in the state’s public health care program”? No it does not. But here it is - 897 employees and 776 of their dependents. Thats 3% of Walmart’s Wisconsin workforce.
“estimating that the cost of the publicly funded health care comes to $251,706 per year for a Supercenter that employees 300 workers.”
Which is a phony estimate because given the actual record of just 3% of Walmart employees enrolled in the state subsidized health care program, there is NO justification for the report’s estimate for the $251,706. None.
“Then, they considered the other public-assistance programs available to these families on Badgercare. Assuming that the families take advantage of all the additional programs offered, the final cost amounts to over $900,000.”
Which is another phony estimate because it merely ties income to enrollment as if the two magically always meet, when many Walmart employees can include elderly enrolled in Medicare, part-time teenage employees living with parents and covered under their benefit plans, souses of two and three income households covered by their spouses health insurance, and young people who want 100% of what they earn and do not want to pay for coverage in the subsidized plan, etc. etc. But the report estimate does not deal with reality, does not deal with the actual enrollment of Walmart employees in the additional state programs. It seemly equates income with enrollment. In other words, garbage in garbage out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.