I have mentioned two factors in response to your earlier emails and got no response, so perhaps my message didn't go through. One factor regards the question of what they're measuring--money wage versus total employee compensation. The non-wage component of total employee compensation has risen substantially over the past decade or two, primarily in the form of increasing value of medical insurance. The other factor regards the deflator they're using--CPI-U versus CPI-X or perhaps even GDP deflator.
Of course we might wonder why real median income per capita has risen even using the CPI-U as a deflator but real median wages have not. I'd start with total employee compensation to answer that question. In a message dated 4/17/07 11:54:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > In that NY Times article, Frank said that the median hourly wage adjusted > for inflation was lower in 2005 than it was in 1980. I looked for data on the > median hourly wage over time at the BLS and could not find a series going > back to 1980. One person who works there told me they did keep track of it. > > I did find data on the median real income over time at the Census Bureau > website. Here is a link to the data I used in my analysis below > > http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p05ar.html > > From 1974 to 1982, the real median income for males fell 7.7%. From 1982 > (maybe the first year Reagonomics may have had an effect) to 1990, they went > up > 8.8%. For females, in the earlier period, it increased 6.8%. In the latter > period, it increased 27.9%. > > Frank seemed to be saying that "trickle down" or Reagonomics did not work. > These numbers seem to show that it worked well or at least did not do poorly. > > From BLS data, it appears that the mean real hourly wage from 1980-2005 did > not change much. This Census Bureau site shows the real median income for > both males and females being higher in the latter year. Anyone know why the > discrpeancy? Has the proportion of income earners who are paid by the hour > changed? The increase for both men and women means things have gotten > better. Anyone know if there is anything wrong with the census data? > > > > > Cyril Morong, Ph. D. > Associate Professor of Economics > San Antonio College > ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
