[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Underreported Data Suggests Victory for GOP in PA Suburbs

Well these images show US ship, helicopter and plane activity days and hours before the first explosion.

Macron will think twice about insulting Italy from now on.

America’s military and our country won’t survive if wokeism continues to rule

What Trump Gets Right about Harvard

The wesT has no viable opTions ... shorT of nuclear war --- of defeaTing Russia in Ukraine

Who’s our real president? Joe Biden — or the staffers who keep walking back his comments?

Flint, Mich. Clerk Resigns After Elections Group Calls Out Lopsided Number Of Democrat Poll Watchers

China Recruited Top US Scientists To Gain Military Edge In Hypersonic, UAV & Submarine Tech – Reports

Pete Kaliner: Former EcoHealth VP says they developed COVID-19

Biden’s FBI is no beTTer Than ... The worsT miliTanT police enTiTies --- in hisTory

U.S Military Recruitment video. Woke Homos

The Latino vote in Nevada could lead to a Republican Senate majority

DeSantis Moves to Prohibit Communist China From Buying Farmland, Land Around Military Bases

Trump haTers who said ... “his supporTers" --- "musT be exTerminaTed”

'I'm NoT Bluffing' - Vladimir PuTin ... Warns The WesT --- He Is Willing To Use Nuclear Weapons

Democrats are blind to the dangers the illegal migrants they invite in face

Crazed NorTh DakoTa Man ... Runs Over - Kills Teen --- For “ExTremisT” Republican Views

WWIII - The DemocraTs’ ulTimate weT dream ... JusT imagine - marTial law wiTh DemocraTs ruling over us --- wiTh an iron-fisT

By transporting migrants, GOP governors are exposing Democrats’ hypocrisy

Release Biden’s secret voter plan

Nikki Haley: I won’t stand for liberal intimidation from Tish James or her office

Facebook spied on private messages of Americans who questioned 2020 election

Progressives, Journalists Worry: Are Polls Once Again Overestimating Democrats?

Crime Runs Rampant In Democrat Strongholds, With Shootings, Beheading Last Weekend

Biden Quietly Loosens Tech Export Rules to Chinese Communist Firms Just Days After Huawei Lobbyist’s Brother Joins White House.

Now it's a majority of voters who want Biden impeached!

Bank of America's Equity: Racial Discrimination, Elitism, Fraud, and Bad Business

NUKE ALERT - ‘DirecT ThreaT’ ... Russia could use TacTical nuclear weapons in Ukraine --- Taking us To brink of WW3 - warns miliTary chief

Special Master Order Reveals Biden’s Direct Involvement In Trump Raid And Six Other Bombshells

DemocraTs ... Dangerously Copy The TacTics --- Of Famous FascisTs

TIPP Poll Asks: Does America Have A Two-Tier Justice System?

FBI agent Timothy Thibault hid intel from whistleblower on Hunter and the ‘Big Guy’ Joe Biden

Biden’s open border is attracting a huge new category of illegal migrants

Inmates received $1.3 billion in covid-19 stimulus checks, including those serving life sentences

China’s Forced Organ Harvesting Demands U.S. Response

Studies Show ... ThaT Covid “Vaccines” --- Cause Massive Blood Damage

Zuckerberg’s Admission Of FBI Meddling In 2020 Election Is Even Bigger Than It Seems

Redacted Mar-A-Lago Affidavit Confirms Biden’s DOJ Fished For A Crime To Pin On Trump

Remember The People's Convoy (Feb 2022)

EveryThing abouT The raid ... The case being builT by The DeparTmenT of JusTice --- reeks of sloppiness - desperaTion.

Unsealed Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit reveals the government has no case against Trump

Wave of lawsuits coming against psychiatrists and doctors who rubber-stamped transgender mutilations and surgeries

CONFIRMED: FBI Colluded With Big Tech To Prevent Voters From Learning About Hunter Biden’s Laptop

With IRS Funding, Democrats Plan to Audit the Middle Class

Biden’s 87,000 IRS Agents Set to Become Woke Army of “Equity” Enforcers

My husband Capt. David Dorn was murdered in 2020 riots. His killer had help dividing America.

The ReTurn of PeTer STrzok ... How a Fired FBI Official Is Making The Case --- AgainsT Himself

Parents and the left are in an all-out war, and the kids are collateral damage

Mar-a-Lago ... The --- Abyss


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Economy
See other Economy Articles

Title: Average Hourly Earnings: Deciphering Historical Trends
Source: soso
URL Source: http://www.advisorperspectives.com/ ... Average-Hourly-Wage-Trends.php
Published: Feb 20, 2016
Author: Doug Short
Post Date: 2016-02-20 20:03:29 by SOSO
Keywords: None
Views: 4639
Comments: 28

Average Hourly Earnings: Deciphering Historical Trends

September 12, 2012

by Doug Short

There is, however, another broad series that dates from 1964 -- one tracks the hourly earnings for Production and Nonsupervisory private employees. Before we look at that complete series, here is an overlay of the two (Total Private and Production/Nonsupervisory) for the overlapping timeframe. The objective is to see the relative correlation between the two.

Now let's step back and view the complete Production/Nonsupervisory series, which dates from January 1964 (giving us a January 1965 start for the YoY data). At first glance the chart looks horrible. We are currently at a level below the start of all recessions.

But the chart above is totally misleading. The single biggest force in hourly wages over the last half century has been inflation. So let's have a look at the same chart, but this time with the hourly wages adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index as the deflator and chained to today's dollar.

The "real" picture is far less grim. Yes, hourly wages, YoY, are currently just fractionally above zero (0.15% to be precise), but that's higher than the YoY number at the start of all but one of the recessions in this timeframe.

But wait. Before you write me off as a hopeless optimist on private wages, let's look at two more snapshots: nominal and real wage growth using dollar values for the vertical axis. Remember, the series that starts in the 1960s is for Production and Nonsupervisory employees. To give us a clue about the spread between the longer series and the total private series from early 2006, I've included it as well (the red line).

The first of this pair has an obvious look about it. Hourly wages have grown dramatically.

But when we adjust for inflation using the CPI, we get a very different picture. Real hourly earnings peaked in January of 1973 and hit a trough in May of 1995. Note that the peak was followed later in the year by the Oil Embargo and the onset of the era of stagflation.

There are many underlying forces at work in the chart above: the growth of women in the labor force (which began accelerating in 1973 and began peaking in the mid-1990s), gender differences in wages, the impact of automation on labor tasks, the secular trend away from manufacturing toward services, etc.

Suffice to say that, in real terms, the average hourly earnings for Production and Nonsupervisory employees, as the latest update, comes to about $39,500 for a 2000-hour work year. The average for all private employees (the series that dates from 2006) is about $7,500 more at $47,040.

Are these dramatic advances over the mid-1960s? No. When we adjust for inflation, chained in today's dollar, the average annual figure in 1964 would have been $37,072 (the comparable purchasing power of a 1964 annual salary of $5000 for Production/Nonsupervisory employees).

At the household level other trends were afoot -- not least of which was the growth of two-income households as more women entered the workforce. But the percentage of two-income households has been eroded by the Great Recession and the demographics of aging boomers entering their retirement years.

If we look at the Census Bureau's historical data, we can calculate that the ratio of two-income households to single-income households peaked in 1994 at 51.5% (see Table H-12). The ratio of two-income households to all households peaked the following year at 35.5%. As of 2010, the most recent year in the CB's published data, the ratios have dropped to 45.5% and 31.6%, respectively.

I'll close this commentary with a longer look back. The main series illustrated above was for Production and Nonsupervisory employees dating from 1964. The BLS has a series dating from 1939 for Manufacturing employees. Here it is, adjusted for inflation.

From a wages standpoint, the manufacturing-driven economy in the US peaked in January 1978. The greatest acceleration was during the WWII years, followed by a dip during the adjustment period bracketed by the first two post-war recessions. The acceleration resumed, at a reduced pace, to the peak in January 1978.

The year of the peak resonates with me personally in one respect. It was the year I had my first encounter with a personal computer, the Apple II, which was released in 1977. That fledgling Apple quickly demolished its early competition, Radio Shack's TRS-80 and the Commodore PET. Flash forward to the present: Last month we learned that Apple has set a new record for market capitalization.

The Apple II, of course, was a manufactured product, but one that introduced the masses to radically new ways to approach business and pleasure. It marked a turning point in the transition from the Era of Manufacturing to the Information Age.

I remain skeptical of average hourly earnings, nominal or real, as a leading or coincident indicator of business cycle peaks and troughs. But in the larger historical context, a chart of hourly wages tells us a great deal about once-in-a-lifetime secular trends in our economy and culture.


Poster Comment:

Some lessons are worth reviewing as many rend for forget them and more seem never to have learned this one. "There are many underlying forces at work in the chart above: the growth of women in the labor force (which began accelerating in 1973 and began peaking in the mid-1990s), gender differences in wages, the impact of automation on labor tasks, the secular trend away from manufacturing toward services, etc.

From a wages standpoint, the manufacturing-driven economy in the US peaked in January 1978. The greatest acceleration was during the WWII years,

I remain skeptical of average hourly earnings, nominal or real, as a leading or coincident indicator of business cycle peaks and troughs. But in the larger historical context, a chart of hourly wages tells us a great deal about once-in-a-lifetime secular trends in our economy and culture." (6 images)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 26.

#2. To: SOSO (#0)

all this proves is wages have been chasing inflation

paraclete  posted on  2016-02-20   20:25:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: paraclete (#2)

all this proves is wages have been chasing inflation

It proves much, much more than that. But it appears that you will never know.

Ask yourself, please, if the lost manufacturing jobs have been replaced by lower paying service type jobs how come the real hourly wage in 2014 was the same as in 1969? That is mathematical impossible.

SOSO  posted on  2016-02-20   22:27:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: SOSO (#3)

There are at least three ways in which the lost manufacturing jobs can nevertheless be accompanied by the same comparable hourly wages.

FIRST: there is the question of inflation. The numbers may be "inflation adjusted", but of course the inflation statistics themselves are monkeyed with in ways that under-report real inflation.

SECOND: there is the matter that the wages of which you speak are AVERAGE. The average of $60,000 and $40,000 is $50,000. But the average of $99,000 and $1000 is also $50,000. In the earlier case, both ends of the average can live. But in the second case, the first person lives well and the second person can't survive. Both averages are the same. We all know that the wages at the top of the scale have twisted way upwards relative to the average. So, you have McJobs at lower wages, and you have high paying jobs in the favored sectors living well. Same average, but much worse actual conditions for the bottom half.

If you want to be more persuasive, use median figures, not average figures.

THIRD, there is the matter that if you measure unemployment the way it used to be measured, during the Depression, or the way it is measured in other countries, the American unemployment rate is about 16%, not 6%. Once people drop out of the work force, they don't have wages at all, and they drop out of the statistics. So, your "average wage" can stay the same, in a society where suffering grows immensely, because the people utterly wiped out by the loss of manufacturing, and unable to become permanent re-employed, don't even figure in your numbers. But they DO vote. For Trump.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-02-21   15:01:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Vicomte13 (#8)

There are at least three ways in which the lost manufacturing jobs can nevertheless be accompanied by the same comparable hourly wages.

"FIRST: there is the question of inflation. The numbers may be "inflation adjusted", but of course the inflation statistics themselves are monkeyed with in ways that under-report real inflation."

The charts report REAL Wages, i.e. adjusted for inflation. So as long as the basis for adjusting for inflation over the time series of the data being reported has not changed this is not at factor.

"SECOND: there is the matter that the wages of which you speak are AVERAGE."

If you want to be more persuasive, use median figures, not average figures."

The persuasiveness of data isn't any more or less whether it is reropted as the median/average or the mean. Neither alone gives you a full picture of what the data set looks like. The fact is that for the purpose of this discussion the reporting of average income vs. mean income or vice versa doesn't make too much of a difference. Given that the charts report income for Non-supervisor workers the spread between lower paid and higher paid non-supervisory personnel is not likely to be significant, and certainly not an order of magnitude.

The extent to which the average is different from the median is an indication about the size of the standard deviation, or how wide the data is scattered and/ or skewed. Now the standard of deviation around the average in any given year of over a period of time in question could have changed. Given that the charts report income for Non-supervisor workers the standard deviation around the median is not likely to have varied much and the difference between the mean and median is likely not that much as well.

Why don't you post the data in terms of the median if you wish. I am not getting paid for doing this.

"So, your "average wage" can stay the same, in a society where suffering grows immensely, because the people utterly wiped out by the loss of manufacturing, and unable to become permanent re-employed, don't even figure in your numbers"

First, these are no MY numbers but what the U.S. government reports.

NOw, given that the REAL average wage of Total non-supervisory personnel is the same in 2014 as it was in 1969, the only way that that could happen is if the wages of remaining service employees were at least as high or higher than the wages of the manufacturing jobs that were lost. The arithmetic on this is irrefutable. Less people would have to be making the same or more hourly wage elsewise the average wage would decline not remain the same. An additional point, there were a whole lot more people working in 2014 than in 1969. In other words, the number of data points grew by a significant amount over that time frame. This is strong, if not irrefutable, evidence that the new service jobs were paying at least as much as the manufacturing jobs that were lost.

You just cannot escape the rigors and precision of arithmetic, especially when you are dealing with a huge amount of data in the data set.

SOSO  posted on  2016-02-21   22:02:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: SOSO (#9)

No, SOSO, the charts DON"T report the REAL wages, adjusted for inflation.

They report the "real" wages, adjusted for "inflation".

Our inflation numbers themselves are tricked. They are established by the government, using a formula that has been tinkered with again and again in ways that consistently show inflation to be less than it is. It is eye opening to look into the making of the numerical sausage.

The same thing is true with unemployment statistics. Over the years they keep tinkering with the way it is calculated, and the direction of the tinkering is always in the direction that protects the politicians.

The full ugly weight of inflation and unemployment is teased out of the statistics.

It's like crime statistics, a notoriously inaccurate measure of the real state of crime, and virtually useless for cross-border comparisons, because every country measures crime differently - and each country measures crime in ways that support its government.

All of that plays hell with the sort of statistical analysis you're trying to do. You're trying to prove something with numbers whose underlying bases are not concrete bricks.

You would be correct if you said "these are the the only numbers we have, so that's what we have to work with". That's true.

But the ticky-tacky and tendentious nature of the numbers mean that we should not believe too terribly much in the results of our analyses. It is difficult to win in a tricked casino, and government statistics are a tricked casino.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-02-22   6:50:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Vicomte13 (#11)

Our inflation numbers themselves are tricked. They are established by the government, using a formula that has been tinkered with again and again in ways that consistently show inflation to be less than it is. It is eye opening to look into the making of the numerical sausage.

The same thing is true with unemployment statistics

First, I am not reporting on unemployment. I agree with your statement that the definitions have been massaged to obfuscate reality.

As for the CPI, has the data over the period from the 1950s on been adjusted for the changed definitions of CPI? For example, was the CPI for 1965 reported in 1965 different than the CPI for 1965 reported in 2015?

But I again say that I do not look at just one piece of the picture to form my conclusion. There are other indicators on the real world that corroborate the conclusion.

Do you agree that the data as presented, whether messaged or not, shows the result that the new service jobs pay at least as well as the lost manufacturing? This conclusion is inescapable. You may dispute the honesty of the data but cannot dispute what it shows in this regard.

So the next question is, do you believe that the government adjusts or falsifies the data to present a predetermined picture/conclusion? If so, what conclusion? We have had several changes of Rs and Ds in the WH and in Congress since 1950. Have they all shared the same agenda in manipulating the data to produce a consistent picture?

Over the years has there been any difference between the Ds running for office and the Rs with respect to decrying the negative impact on the U.S. economy and U.S. workers due to the loss of manufacturing jobs being replaced by service jobs? Or in their respective party platforms and campaign promises? Cui bono from your so-called manipulated data?

SOSO  posted on  2016-02-22   13:19:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: SOSO (#16)

Do you agree that the data as presented, whether messaged or not, shows the result that the new service jobs pay at least as well as the lost manufacturing?

No, I do not.

The difference between "median" and "average" is decisive here, I believe.

Also, the difference in the composition of the workforce matters.

The U-6 unemployed should be counted in the average income figures, because their lack of income should drag down the average, and the U-6 has gone upward as manufacturing has exited.

The bottom line is that you believe in free trade, and you have numbers that you believe supports your conclusion. You're not going to move off those numbers.

I don't believe in free trade, and the metrics I look at support my conclusion.

I'm not going to accept your numbers. You're not going to accept my metrics. If free-trader Rubio or Cruz are the nominee, I won't be voting for them. If protectionist Trump is the nominee, you won't be voting for him. Nothing we say to each other is going to change that. We're both big boys who have lived for many years and seen many things, and our way of looking at the world isn't going to change because of what some anonymous poster says on the Internet.

Life is short. Given that any effort to persuade each other will fail as a foregone conclusion, let's both cut our losses and stop trying here.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-02-22   15:00:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Vicomte13 (#20)

I give up. You are just being dense. My statement is that in the aggregate the new service jobs pay at least as much if not more than the lost manufacturing jobs. Unemployed people do not have jobs and therefore are not in the data set of comparing what service hobs pat vs. manufacturing jobs. All you seem to want to do is talk about income distribution, probably income inequality. That is an entirely different subject.

FTR the following chart (sorry for the scaling) that report U.S. PER CAPITA INCOME does not support your statement. It shows that per capita income, save for just a few years, has consistently increased in the U.S. NB - That is per capita income which is total income divided by every man, woman and child in the U.S. not just those working or in the labor pool by all people.

Also FTR, why should you believe any published government data on income distribution/inequality? Do you just want to pick and choose want government data yo want to believe? But you will just say

SOSO  posted on  2016-02-22   15:45:13 ET  (1 image) Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: SOSO (#21)

Giving up is the best answer. I'm not dense. I simply have zero trust in the accuracy of anything the government says on anything important. They lie like they breathe, and have for a long time.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-02-22   16:03:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Vicomte13 (#22)

Giving up is the best answer. I'm not dense. I simply have zero trust in the accuracy of anything the government says on anything important.

Not even in the following data?

SOSO  posted on  2016-02-22   20:36:33 ET  (1 image) Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: SOSO (#24)

Sure, there is plenty there in that data that visually gets to the crux of what I have been saying. But you see that as well as I do, so there's no point in rehashing it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-02-23   10:42:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 26.

        There are no replies to Comment # 26.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 26.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com