« Claims that intelligent left-wing bloggers couldn't possibly agree with | Main | What is at stake in the new EU negotiations? »
Two sentences to forget
Between 2000 and 2005, [real] compensation for the average worker rose $3000. But money income was only 29% of the increase.
Here is the link. Some of you will understand the title of this post...
Posted by Tyler Cowen on June 21, 2007 at 08:11 AM in Data Source | Permalink
Comments
Suppose real inflation is 5% over those 5 years (quite conservative, especially since final consumers can't exclude food and energy prices). Then a $3000 increase in compensation compensates the inflation from merely $14000 of the income. I doubt that this is quite the average level of income in USA.
Posted by: A Tykhyy at Jun 21, 2007 9:06:04 AM
The data source says real income, I have now clarified that in the post...
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Jun 21, 2007 9:40:44 AM
Thanks for pointing this out, Tyler. That is a horrible track record our economy has over hte last 5 years. $3000 in 5 years among full-time workers? And this is the average, not the median, as Roberts acknowledges. So given what we know about the trends in all the other data we have at our disposal, total compensation is probably near flat at the median. The US has done better in the past and probably should be held to a higher standard going forward.
Posted by: Matt at Jun 21, 2007 10:56:16 AM
Assuming that the $3,000 figure is the same percent change as the change as. the index of real compensation that BLS issues -- that is what the footnotes imply -- that works out to be about a 1.5% average annual growth rate. Over the same 5 years the average annual rate of growth for productivity was 3.3%. But over the long run real compensation, including fringe benefits
has grown at about the same rate as productivity growth. So why are we seeing this very unusual and wide spread divergence between compensation and productivity growth?
When I read the main leftist blog like Economist View, Brad Delong, Angry Bear, etc., this is what I see them blogging about. What do you see them blogging about that I don't?
Posted by: spencer at Jun 21, 2007 11:42:40 AM
Good point Matt - that's the median, not the mean. It's quite possible that very few people saw their compensation increase, given the big gains at the top of the scale.
Also, I agree with spencer - the broken link between productivity and real wages is a conundrum.
Posted by: Mr. Noah at Jun 21, 2007 6:38:01 PM
So... all a government needs to do to convince the population that they are managing the economy well, is to restrict the growth in fringe benefits and maximise the proportion of wages that comes in straight cash.
So why do they do the opposite? Isn't that shooting themselves in the foot?
Posted by: doctorpat at Jun 21, 2007 7:08:24 PM
It makes perfect sense to me. One just has to be willing to accept the concept of "make the numbers go higher".
I use that phrase in a figurative sense.. when it comes to inflation, "make the numbers go higher" literally means to make the inflation number lower or "just right" or make it whatever everyone thinks is the good number.
So, mainly, our economic well-being is supposed to be okay since there are a bunch of people standing around pointing at pictures saying, "Look at the numbers going higher!" If I ran the show, I'd just have a 50 year median salary chart printed out and just tell people to refer to it if they wanted to know what everyone was earning that year. You wouldn't need to bother with all this worry about "What is inflation? Really?" or "Do increasing health care costs count as wage gains?"
Don't you dare ask 2,000 people aged 40-45 what they were earning after taxes in 2002 vs. 2006. Though, I wonder what that would show.
I wonder if they would remember.. and I wonder if they could gage what their debt was then.
Posted by: eli at Jun 21, 2007 7:43:30 PM
Well, it's been almost 24 hours and Tyle still hasn't clarified what he meant.
He seems to like to do this, alot. I guess he doesn't want to shy away too many readers by taking a truly unpopular position.
Posted by: Student at Jun 22, 2007 7:21:09 AM
"So... all a government needs to do to convince the population that they are managing the economy well..."
Wow! Central planning. I didn't realize that free market economies were "managed" by the government. Hint: the ones that have been were dismal failures. The more the government sticks to maintaining rule of law instead of prioritizing your morality for you, the happier you will be.
Has nobody even thought that the people in 2005 are not the same people as in 2000?
Posted by: Methinks at Jun 22, 2007 1:46:58 PM
Regardless of whether governments can or do manage economies, outside of the narrow scope of MR readers, most voters THINK that governments manage economies.
And they usually vote based on that presumption.
So my question still stands: If having the increases in people's pay in non-cash form makes the headline figures look bad, and hence the government look bad, why don't they discourage it?
Posted by: doctorpat at Jun 26, 2007 2:11:40 AM
