Is the Wealth Trickling Down on You?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Wages drop despite economic boom

Wages in the U.S. fell over the past year despite an ongoing economic boom, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday.

In the last 12 months through July, real average hourly earnings dropped 0.4 percent. That figure takes into account seasonal differences, as well as the effects of rising prices.

An increase in the length of the average workweek was not enough to compensate for the fall, leaving average weekly earnings down 0.1 percent in the same period.

Over the past month alone, real hourly wages were flat, while real weekly earnings dropped 0.2 percent.

The sluggish advance in wages comes amid an economy that, by other measures, is booming. The economy grew at an annualized rate of 4.2 percent in the second quarter, and unemployment dipped below 4 percent in July.

The dynamic could prove troublesome for Republicans hoping that a thriving economy will boost them in November's midterm elections.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/401341-wages-drop-despite-economic-boom

Doesn't look like it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Wages drop despite economic boom

Wages in the U.S. fell over the past year despite an ongoing economic boom, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday.

In the last 12 months through July, real average hourly earnings dropped 0.4 percent. That figure takes into account seasonal differences, as well as the effects of rising prices.

An increase in the length of the average workweek was not enough to compensate for the fall, leaving average weekly earnings down 0.1 percent in the same period.

Over the past month alone, real hourly wages were flat, while real weekly earnings dropped 0.2 percent.

The sluggish advance in wages comes amid an economy that, by other measures, is booming. The economy grew at an annualized rate of 4.2 percent in the second quarter, and unemployment dipped below 4 percent in July.

The dynamic could prove troublesome for Republicans hoping that a thriving economy will boost them in November's midterm elections.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/401341-wages-drop-despite-economic-boom

Doesn't look like it.

Well, I think that it's a reflection of growing inflation. That should be equally troubling to the republicans. Inflation when up 2.9%; that means that wages grew 2.5% last year.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

relative to what?

 

[Harry Bosch]

relative to what?

I don't understand your question. If the data states that "real" wages dropped .4%; and inflation was 2.9%; that means that wages increased 2.5%. Sounds great. But it didn't keep up with inflation...

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

relative to what?

I don't understand your question. If the data states that "real" wages dropped .4%; and inflation was 2.9%; that means that wages increased 2.5%. Sounds great.

It might sound great on an absolute scale but it depends on what it is relative to. Relative to a booming economy, it is pretty sucky, people doing great work, not being rewarded as much as they could be. Or even relative to cost of living which I am sure is closely related to the inflation you mention. If cost of living goes up 3% but wages go up 2% then yes, that is a "relative to what" question.

 

[steve_bank]

Yes I feel a trickle. It is yellow, liquid, and warm.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That's either old age or Donald Trump.

 

[Harry Bosch]

relative to what?

I don't understand your question. If the data states that "real" wages dropped .4%; and inflation was 2.9%; that means that wages increased 2.5%. Sounds great.

It might sound great on an absolute scale but it depends on what it is relative to. Relative to a booming economy, it is pretty sucky, people doing great work, not being rewarded as much as they could be. Or even relative to cost of living which I am sure is closely related to the inflation you mention. If cost of living goes up 3% but wages go up 2% then yes, that is a "relative to what" question.

Where did I say that it sounded great? You're missing my point. Wages did increase last year. They increased faster than the previous year. However, real wages are down because inflation is growing.

 

[Trausti]

It might sound great on an absolute scale but it depends on what it is relative to. Relative to a booming economy, it is pretty sucky, people doing great work, not being rewarded as much as they could be. Or even relative to cost of living which I am sure is closely related to the inflation you mention. If cost of living goes up 3% but wages go up 2% then yes, that is a "relative to what" question.

Where did I say that it sounded great? You're missing my point. Wages did increase last year. They increased faster than the previous year. However, real wages are down because inflation is growing.

Yes.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Just yesterday, a rich guy pissed on my leg and told me it was raining.

 

[Worldtraveller]

The republicans gloating about how their taxes have gone down and they're now bringing a whopping $40/month more remind of the bit from Twain's 'Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court'.

I made various acquaintanceships, and in my quality of stranger was able to ask as many questions as I wanted to. A thing which naturally interested me, as a statesman, was the matter of wages. I picked up what I could under that head during the afternoon. A man who hasn't had much experience, and doesn't think, is apt to measure a nation's prosperity or lack of prosperity by the mere size of the prevailing wages; if the wages be high, the nation is prosperous; if low, it isn't. Which is an error. It isn't what sum you get, it's how much you can buy with it, that's the important thing; and it's that that tells whether your wages are high in fact or only high in name. I could remember how it was in the time of our great civil war in the nineteenth century.
In the North a carpenter got three dollars a day, gold valuation; in the South he got fifty -- payable in Confederate shinplasters worth a dollar a bushel. In the North a suit of overalls cost three dollars -- a day's wages; in the South it cost seventyfive -- which was two days' wages. Other things were in proportion. Consequently, wages were twice as high in the North as they were in the South, because the one wage had that much more purchasing power than the other had.

 

[Elixir]

Is the Wealth Trickling Down on You?

(Hangs Head...)
Yes, actually. I am among the fortunate. We sold our Company on Jan1 2018, and the tax on the proceeds dropped from 35% to 20%, resulting in hundreds of thousands going into our pockets instead of to taxes. And it will continue in '19 and '20 (the remaining payout period) unless the Dems manage to do something about it.
I'm not a rich guy, but I'd gladly forego that additional income if it would make the orange menace go away.
I guess I should be railing against those hundreds of millions of people who are getting royally screwed in the deal, telling them that they should have been growing a Company for the last ten years so they could sell it at this timely juncture?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm a rich man. Acres and acres of diamonds. Every man a king.

All working class people know they're being robbed by liberals. Why does everyone hate America?