No, wages are not stagnant, lefties

Was inflation figured into that?

If wages go up 3% and inflation goes up 6% what do you have?

Didnt bother to read the article, didja?

Yep some cherry picking going on ther but lets look at this from the article:



It is true enough that, when adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the average hourly wage of nonsupervisory workers in America has remained about the same. But not just for three decades. The average hourly wage in real dollars has remained largely unchanged from at least 1964—when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) started reporting it.

Moreover, there are several problems with this measurement of wages. First, the CPI overestimates inflation by underestimating the value of improvements in product quality and variety. Would you prefer 1980 medical care at 1980 prices, or 2013 care at 2013 prices? Most of us wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter.

Second, this wage figure ignores the rise over the past few decades in the portion of worker pay taken as (nontaxable) fringe benefits. This is no small matter—health benefits, pensions, paid leave and the rest now amount to an average of almost 31% of total compensation for all civilian workers according to the BLS.

Improvements in quality? Does not really matter if you still HAVE to buy them and they cost a higher percentage of your wages.

also The fringe beneftis have been eroding at an increasing rate since 1980's.
Helath ins now costs lots more than it used to thru an employer for those that even provide health insurance.
More and more conpmny paid for retirement plans are gone, replaced with 401K's or the like or nothing.
A higher percentage of workers are now temporary or part time than in the past.

the inflation figures touted by industry and govt often do not include things like food and energy costs which consume a large part of the working classes income.

Yes this was a cherry picking article for sure just right for those like the Rabbi.

You havent shown any cherry picking.
If something is improved quality, it is obviously worth more. If you pay the same for it, you are doing relatively better.
The erosion or non erosion of fringe benefits is irrelevant to his argument. Unless you want to argue that no one gets fringe benefits. Even you aren't that stupid.
 
To know the author is accurate you only need to look at the proliferation of the fast food industry and chain restaurants. They were pretty much nonexistent in the early 1960's and look at what we have today, they're on almost every block in every city and town in America. Most all of the jobs they created are for the most part low skilled, low wage and if you think the shear numbers don't effect the average wage in this country, then you have your head up you ass.

Yeah and the parking lots at Wal mart are pretty full too, proving that the economy is roaring and people are just fine?

And that proves me wrong, how?
 
To know the author is accurate you only need to look at the proliferation of the fast food industry and chain restaurants. They were pretty much nonexistent in the early 1960's and look at what we have today, they're on almost every block in every city and town in America. Most all of the jobs they created are for the most part low skilled, low wage and if you think the shear numbers don't effect the average wage in this country, then you have your head up you ass.

Yeah and the parking lots at Wal mart are pretty full too, proving that the economy is roaring and people are just fine?

And that proves me wrong, how?
It doesnt. But when a leftist can't answer an argument he has to default to something that sounds sort of vaguely counter but really is no such thing.
 
The OP is a right-wing lie anyway. Here is how the wages really look like:

average-hourly-wages.png


SWA-Wages | Table 4.3 | Hourly and weekly earnings of private production and nonsupervisory workers, 1947?2011 (2011 dollars) | State of Working America
 

Forum List

Back
Top