has high as the 1964 figure.
For the CPI, it went from 31.2 in December of 1964 to 190.3 in December of 2004. The 2004 figure is about 6.1 times the 1964 figure.
This all seems to suggest just about no increase in real wages. Anyone know why this book shows an increase? The sources listed in
1964 to 190.3 in December of 2004. The 2004 figure is about 6.1 times the 1964 figure.
This all seems to suggest just about no increase in real wages. Anyone know why this book shows an increase? The sources listed in the book are The Statistical Abstract of the United States and The Economic Report
ng workers afford homes is put into place, a flat rate tax
will be really unlikely in the US.
Tom
- Original Message -
From: "Fred Foldvary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: Real wages constant since 1964
--- john hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why are we better off today?
> (Better products & two wage households would be a
> start, I guess.)
Better products, yes, but not necessarily two-wage households.
If the price of housing goes up substantially, a spouse may be induced to
work for wages, b
> If you measure wages in desk calculators instead of dollars, I'm sure
> they've gone up substantially! ;-)
> --Robert
And if you measure wages in units of a real-estate price index, they have
gone down substantially!
Fred Foldvary
=
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
As the listmember who probably has the dampest ink on his econ B.A., I can verify that that's what's being taught in our universities.
-JP[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/4/03 3:07:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:>I think you are remembering your undergraduate education incorrectly
In a message dated 12/4/03 3:07:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I think you are remembering your undergraduate education incorrectly (it
>has been a while Bryan). Some goods don't get any quality adjustment. It
>is possible that that is what you are remembering. There are cases where
>there are
Not my class! I remember laboring for a while under the misimpression that hedonic
methods were used for autos (they aren't), but when you took Econ 1 from me I
certainly never said the CPI wasn't adjusted for quality.
And yes, you can go the BLS web links that I had in my original post and read
Really? Every undergraduate class I can remember listed the failure to
adjust for quality as one of the main problems with the CPI. And I
don't think they just said it was "inadequate."
William Dickens wrote:
This is completely wrong. The CPI-u is, and the CPI-x was, adjusted
for
quality change
In a message dated 12/3/03 1:53:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>> This is completely wrong. The CPI-u is, and the CPI-x was, adjusted
>for
>>> quality changes (see http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm ). The CPI-X
>>> doesn't exist anymore.
>>
>>So what price statistic wasn't adjusted for quality ch
William Dickens wrote:
This is completely wrong. The CPI-u is, and the CPI-x was, adjusted for
quality changes (see http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm ). The CPI-X
doesn't exist anymore.
So what price statistic wasn't adjusted for quality changes?
--
Prof. Bryan Caplan
>> This is completely wrong. The CPI-u is, and the CPI-x was, adjusted
for
>> quality changes (see http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm ). The CPI-X
>> doesn't exist anymore.
>
>So what price statistic wasn't adjusted for quality changes?
They all are. No one (who knew what he was talking about) has ev
Can the quality difference between a DVD and a VHS tape be measured? Between a 1975
Ford Sedan and a 2004 one? I know the good folks at the BLS try, and I admire the
efforts, but how can features like improved visual quality or the safety advantage of
antilock brakes be measured, other than th
from roughly 1968-1983 the BLS series understates
real
>wages. Using a better deflator, CPI-x, which accounts for changes in
the market
>basket (though perhaps not for changes in quality) discloses that real
wages
>have indeed risen quite a bit since 1964.
This is completely wrong. The C
esn't account for changes in the quality of goods or the market basket,
and overstates inflation more the higher the actual rate of inflation, for the
inflationary period from roughly 1968-1983 the BLS series understates real
wages. Using a better deflator, CPI-x, which accounts for change
oored. Is this right, or am I doing something
> wrong. I thought that real wages were generally
> higher today than in the past, ups & downs
> notwithstanding. Why are we better off today?
>
> (Better products & two wage households would be a
> start, I guess.)
If you
something
wrong. I thought that real wages were generally
higher today than in the past, ups & downs
notwithstanding. Why are we better off today?
(Better products & two wage households would be a
start, I guess.)
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Bl
17 matches
Mail list logo
