U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-21-2018, 09:40 PM
 
10,830 posts, read 20,353,390 times
Reputation: 10033

Advertisements

I think on the low end side wages have definitely been stagnant. I remember late 90's I was making $10/hr in high school working at a grocery store. 20 years later they don't make much more than that, maybe $12/hr. Previous job was at fast food making $7.50/hr.

I lived at home but as a kid I could've moved out and gotten my own apartment. Bought a new car. Etc. All on that $10/hr.

Now, you'd live with roommates and drive a beater. And barely get by.

Professional salaries have tracked or in many cases beaten inflation by a significant margin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-21-2018, 11:13 PM
 
2,575 posts, read 4,506,668 times
Reputation: 6202
I looked at a website that shows inflation-adjusted dollars by year, and I entered what I was earning as Federal minimum wage in 1971 in an after-school job I had in high school, and checked what the Federal minimum wage is now. It's about a dollar less than it "should" be, adjusting for inflation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2018, 12:18 AM
 
2,256 posts, read 1,209,554 times
Reputation: 4607
I'll get to it later

Last edited by aridon; 11-22-2018 at 12:29 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2018, 12:36 AM
 
2,256 posts, read 1,209,554 times
Reputation: 4607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
TNo, it hasn't.

In 1990, 79% earned $30,000 or less, and today only 48% earn $30,000 or less.
Most of your post was garbage and as an example of said garbage I'll leave this snippet above

You forgot about inflation in your quest to try and justify that the middle class has expanded

Alleged PhD compared 1990 wages to 2018 never bothering to adjust for inflation Yeah...


Back to wages.

The disparity of income growth is increasing with 49% of the gains going to upper income, was 29% in 1970's vs 43% for middle which was 63% in the 70s.
..

American middle class, “middle-income” Americans are defined as adults whose annual household income is two-thirds to double the national median, about $42,000 to $126,000 annually in 2014 dollars for a household of three.3 Under this definition, the middle class made up 50% of the U.S. adult population in 2015, down from 61% in 1971.


The American Middle Class Is Losing Ground | Pew Research Center

The rest of your post was a rambling mess.

I mentioned defined benefit contributions vs 401k because contributions are not part of the traditional cost inflation adjustments, much like student loans or housing costs which are all much higher among other things like health Care. I did mention that our inflation measurements were imperfect.

Any serious discussion about wage gaps should include them because they are real costs to people today that more and more have to deal with as the final defined benefit plans set sail and all the missing pieces of inflation continue to soar.

Anyway if you get nothing else from this post at least remember that if you're going to compare wages across decades please consider inflation in your calculations.

By all means though, tell me more of what I allegedly voted for.

Last edited by aridon; 11-22-2018 at 01:32 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2018, 03:45 AM
 
65,829 posts, read 67,139,137 times
Reputation: 44094
actually mircea is correct in a way ...... think about this very carefully .

if the price of milk goes up along with some other items because of demand , shortages , political issues , tariffs , taxes , etc and it is NOT CAUSED BY MONETARY INFLATION why should adjustments in the incomes be accounted for unless the money supply was inflated ? they shouldn't as expenses went up but manipulation of the money supply was not causing it . my expenses simply rose .

think about his very carefully and mircea makes sense from an economics sense .

because demand on some goods and services causes their price to rise does not mean calculations should be offset with an adjustment . that is push inflation not monetary inflation . expenses simply went up . .

on the other hand if the money supply was inflated and we had monetary inflation then yeah you would be correct , we should get an off setting calculation adjustment . most of the inflation we have seen is not monetary but push pull and while getting a raise is nice , there is no reason the money value needs to be accounted for when external forces cause the expenses to go up . .

so depending on the type of inflation ,whether push pull or monetary the adjustments to income can be quite different .

while to us an increase in price is an increase in price , when looking at certain parameters it really matters whether other factors than monetary inflation caused that rise .

if the dollar is not being manipulated but the landlord is merely raising my rent because apartments are in demand , my income should not be inflated too by the amount of the rent increase for calculation purposes . all it means is my expenses went up .

so mircea certainly has raised a valid point . there is a difference between expenses going up because of other factors vs monetary inflation causing it and the adjustments needed to incomes to offset them for certain calculations .. expenses rising does not constitute monetary inflation all the time nor mean incomes have to be recalculated and adjusted ..

Last edited by mathjak107; 11-22-2018 at 04:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2018, 06:58 AM
 
20,347 posts, read 28,626,851 times
Reputation: 18291
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelsup View Post
I think on the low end side wages have definitely been stagnant. I remember late 90's I was making $10/hr in high school working at a grocery store. 20 years later they don't make much more than that, maybe $12/hr. Previous job was at fast food making $7.50/hr.

I lived at home but as a kid I could've moved out and gotten my own apartment. Bought a new car. Etc. All on that $10/hr.

Now, you'd live with roommates and drive a beater. And barely get by.

Professional salaries have tracked or in many cases beaten inflation by a significant margin.
The majority who fit in the middle are similarly stagnant. I worked in Retail Management from 1999 to 2017 where salaries for the General Store Manager with most retailers (excluding big box) hasn't budged from around 40K that entire span. When raises did occur they were the "cost of living" variety which usually equaled 3%, and nowhere near pacing inflation....especially rental housing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2018, 07:19 AM
 
65,829 posts, read 67,139,137 times
Reputation: 44094
by all accounts except for inflation expecting the same job function to somehow be worth more is a poor assumption .

unless you are directly tied in to bringing in more business like an outside salesman bringing in accounts there really is not much logic in thinking the same position should some how magically be worth more beyond inflation cola's.

most of us may have started as warehouse workers 40 years ago but we did not remain picker packers forever . we made our money advancing. a lot of same position wage growth was forced by unions not markets .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2018, 09:08 AM
 
2,888 posts, read 1,593,280 times
Reputation: 2264
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
actually mircea is correct in a way ...... think about this very carefully .

if the price of milk goes up along with some other items because of demand , shortages , political issues , tariffs , taxes , etc and it is NOT CAUSED BY MONETARY INFLATION why should adjustments in the incomes be accounted for unless the money supply was inflated ? they shouldn't as expenses went up but manipulation of the money supply was not causing it . my expenses simply rose .

think about his very carefully and mircea makes sense from an economics sense .

because demand on some goods and services causes their price to rise does not mean calculations should be offset with an adjustment . that is push inflation not monetary inflation . expenses simply went up . .

on the other hand if the money supply was inflated and we had monetary inflation then yeah you would be correct , we should get an off setting calculation adjustment . most of the inflation we have seen is not monetary but push pull and while getting a raise is nice , there is no reason the money value needs to be accounted for when external forces cause the expenses to go up . .

so depending on the type of inflation ,whether push pull or monetary the adjustments to income can be quite different .

while to us an increase in price is an increase in price , when looking at certain parameters it really matters whether other factors than monetary inflation caused that rise .

if the dollar is not being manipulated but the landlord is merely raising my rent because apartments are in demand , my income should not be inflated too by the amount of the rent increase for calculation purposes . all it means is my expenses went up .

so mircea certainly has raised a valid point . there is a difference between expenses going up because of other factors vs monetary inflation causing it and the adjustments needed to incomes to offset them for certain calculations .. expenses rising does not constitute monetary inflation all the time nor mean incomes have to be recalculated and adjusted ..
Mostly horse excrement justifying horse excrement.

Happy Thanksgiving(!)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2018, 09:14 AM
 
65,829 posts, read 67,139,137 times
Reputation: 44094
same to you have a happy holiday .


the problem is people want to treat all price increases the same way with a broad brush and adjust income to match . but that is not always the correct thing to do . if it is not monetary inflation and in effect the dollar was not manipulated , but events or weather caused the price increases then it is really not a dollar issue-PRICES ROSE BECAUSE OF OTHER CAUSES .


if demand fell off those prices would come right back down , but certain things just in inherently go up with growing demand . but there is no reason to monetarily adjust income .

so there is a lot of logic in what mircea is saying since most of our inflation more recently is demand inflation not monetary .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2018, 10:18 AM
 
5,906 posts, read 3,147,632 times
Reputation: 15537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
When people try to compare things to say the 50-60s they tend to gloss over a lot of facts Facts to include how the avg size of a new house is up 70%+/-, how bathrooms out number bedrooms, how the size of the avg family has declined, how many more households now have two cars, multiple TVs, multiple computers/tablets, everyone with cellphones/smartphones, internet, 200 channels of cable and many other things compared to the 50-60s size house, larger family size, one car, one tv, 10-20 channels, one home phone I could go on but the point should be clear
This is a classic example of the average can be misleading. While the average has gone up certainly, a better measure is the median. And the median size has not increased near as dramatically as the average. Some things that are driving the average is the increase in much larger homes without a corresponding increase in the size of the typical home. We saw this while living in Colorado Springs in the 90s. There was a huge rash of homebuilding in the 4000-6000 square foot size while across town there was a continuing run on 1500-1800 square foot building. So those overly large residences drove up the average but didn't really much change the size of the typical home being bought. Something else we saw happen and were keyed in on by a realtor friend was the inclusion of the basement, and sometimes garages, in square footage to make people think they were getting a bigger house. As he explained it the basement was not historically included in square footage, so the same house could grow a 1000 square feet just by counting the basement.


The interesting this is when we look at the cost of luxuries such as TV. In the 70s a color TV could cost a couple month's wages. Today, a much bigger TV is only a couple days wages. So in real terms, not just inflation adjusted, the cost of luxuries live multiple TVs has come down. I could have five or size large screens in my house for less than my parents paid for a small color console in 1976. So those aren't really a good indicator of inflation. It seems today luxuries are cheap and essentials are what is expensive. That's a reverse of the 70s and may be a false indicator of the economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top