Likewise, *this* official U.S. government source also shows U.S. wages rising since 1959 even after being adjusted for inflation.
Posted on 03/20/2004 12:30:25 PM PST by sarcasm
Likewise, *this* official U.S. government source also shows U.S. wages rising since 1959 even after being adjusted for inflation.
I have a feeling that many already know.
You have selected a different data series, hourly wages, which given variations in weekly hours worked isn't the same. Select CES0500000051 if you wish to compare apples to apples. If you do so, you will see what I said was true for '70-'04 remains true for '64-'04.
However, even looking at the series you picked, over a forty year period from '64 to '04 hourly wages rose from $7.80 to $8.30 - that is what you call increased wages paid to America workers?
A 50 cent raise over forty years?
No wonder they used to give gold watches at retirement.
Yes, the point of contention was whether hourly *wages* had risen or fallen, after all.
And your source shows an inflation-adjusted *gain* in U.S. wages.
That's better than a loss, btw!
They claim it the same BLS data which I graphed for you. If you look at the spreadsheet column "Average Weekly Earnings Total Private 1982 Dollars" in 1964 earnings were $283 and in 2004 $279.45 - a decrease.
Giving you the advantage and cherry picking the first lowest data point in 1959 earnings were $260.86, which yields a whopping $18.59 weekly raise in 45 years.
An $18.59 weekly raise in 45 years - from your own data source.
Yes, an inflation adjusted *growth* of wages in the U.S.
It was a binary question, after all. Did "real" U.S. wages go up or down?
Per your source, my source, and even sarcasm's Canadian source...wages went up.
Please be specific. I do not see an "inflation adjusted" gain in the CES0500000051 '70-'04 data I posted. That data series shows a loss in real wages.
That's better than a loss, btw!
Whether from your chosen BLS hourly series CES0500000049 showing an inflation adjusted 50 cent hourly gain over 40 years, or your budget source showing an $18.59 weekly raise in 45 years is 46 cent/hour, both are about the same, and measured in pennies per year.
Pennies per year. Yeah, better than a loss.
It was a binary question, after all. Did "real" U.S. wages go up or down?
That is your excuse, after all? You'll declare economic victory for pennies a year (and relying on cherry picked data), just because in absolute binary terms a few pennies a year is "up"?
A few more pennies per year is the core of your argument?
If you wish to advocate that people not invest there, have at it. If what you are proposing is that governmental force be used to compel other people to invest the way you think they should, count me out.
Yeah, well, they don't have crazy lesbians running their school systems, trying to create a society where all the males have been drugged, shunted aside, and deliberately dumbed down so that the wimmins can have all the jobs. It's a wonder we have anyone left in engineering school except the Chinese and Indian students. In the graduate engineering schools, I think it is mostly foreign students. So the crazy lesbians are succeeding. Don't blame the Chinese... we all sat back and watched this happen to our schools. We still aren't doing anything about it, even though the only thing they have left to accomplish is to make it illegal for boys to attend school. The UnTaliban, right here in the good old USA. And you worry about the Chinese?
Pennies per year. Yeah, better than a loss."
Yes, better than a loss. U.S. wages have risen, even after being adjusted for inflation. We are wealthier today than back in the past.
Thus, people are incorrect to claim that U.S. wages have fallen on average.
That was the fact being debated.
We are wealthier today by a few inflation-adjusted pennies per *hour* than we were half a century or so ago.
Your math is wrong. Your "wealth" nets out to about 1 cent per hour over a 45 year period, by either source you quote.
Find a bank that will pay interest on such a substantial deposit.
Well it only took 175 posts or so, but we've managed to come to a *consensus* that Marx was wrong after all...that wages really aren't down in our capitalistic society...that we really aren't impoverishing ourselves...and that we really aren't doomed to rebel against some mythical "ruling class." U.S. wages are up, it seems, by every source listed so far.
Don't you mean, by over 1 inflation-adjusted cent per hour *per year* on average?!
Well how high do you want interest rates to go?
I am having trouble finding the humor. I have been following the thread and it seems that Southack has made his case.
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.