Replies

Frankly, I placed THREE phone calls to the reporter about her source(s) for the stats.

I suspect it's a combination of stats.

We know that 'hours worked' is deteriorating, now hanging around 33.1/week. (It was as high as 35.7 in the '90's.) We know that 'median wage' is only holding steady vs. cost-of-living. (Using 'median' wage gives a slightly different, perhaps more clear picture of middle-America than 'average' wage.) As an alternative, she could have used 'spendable income' which would have factored in the significant consumer-paid cost of healthcare (vs. 'insured').

But I could not directly verify her stat, either. Of course, one could spend the better part of a week on Census/BEA statistical reports--and THEN learn only that "personal income" is not exactly just income. (It also amortizes increases in the value of housing, e.g. into the 'income' number.)

Is it credible? Perhaps. There's been a serious wage compression issue floating around since the early 1990's. During the 1990's, it was a bother. But since 2001, the result has been a distinct 'downslide' in the salaries paid for certain positions: ALL HR-related with the exception of VP, and in IT at all levels except VP, as well. I can testify to that directly as a professional in recruitment.
From indirect sources, one gathers the same is true in the field of design engineering.

IOW, if you take out the very highest levels of corporate governance, the vast 'middle's' income has gone down, and 20-25% is a reasonable number.

Summarily: I can't verify her number directly. She won't return phone calls on the topic. The article seems to have disappeared from her byline archive on Insight, but WAS printed after Minkew's famous 'gaffe.' On the other hand, her claim is not without some merit, based on my knowledge of the job market and other statistical info.