Re: Real wages constant since 1964?!

2003-12-06 Thread Fred Foldvary
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]

Re: Real wages constant since 1964?!

2003-12-06 Thread Fred Foldvary
--- 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, but

Re: Real wages constant since 1964?!

2003-12-04 Thread Bryan Caplan
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 changes

Re: Real wages constant since 1964?!

2003-12-04 Thread William Dickens
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

Re: Real wages constant since 1964?!

2003-12-04 Thread John Perich
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

Re: Real wages constant since 1964?!

2003-12-03 Thread William Dickens
David Levenstam wrote: Yes, the BLS series uses CPI-u to deflate the nominal wage series. Since CPI-u doesn'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

Re: Real wages constant since 1964?!

2003-12-03 Thread William Dickens
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 ever

Re: Real wages constant since 1964?!

2003-12-03 Thread AdmrlLocke
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 changes? They

Re: Real wages constant since 1964?!

2003-12-02 Thread Robert A. Book
I'm sorry to bother you with this. I just looked up the time series for total private average hourly earnings, seasonally adjusted, in 1982 dollars on the BLS web site. It comes back that they've been more-or-less constant since 1964. I'm floored. Is this right, or am I doing something

Re: Real wages constant since 1964?!

2003-12-02 Thread AdmrlLocke
In a message dated 12/2/03 11:48:08 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you measure wages in desk calculators instead of dollars, I'm sure they've gone up substantially! ;-) --Robert Yes, the BLS series uses CPI-u to deflate the nominal wage series. Since CPI-u doesn't account for changes in