The 1969 male worker median salary was $35,567 (in 2012 dollars). Today: $33,904(talkingpointsmemo.com)
talkingpointsmemo.com
The 1969 male worker median salary was $35,567 (in 2012 dollars). Today: $33,904
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/the-new-main-street-consensus
7 comments
Women joined the workforce, supply went up, price went down. Toss in globalization (trade), more immigration, automation, and it was inevitable.
> Women joined the workforce, supply went up, price went down.
There's some truth to this. A while back Mother Jones declared the '00s to be a "Lost Decade" because household income had flatlined. [1] However, on page 36 of the same census report cited by that MJ article [2], you can see that real median income earnings (this is after inflation adjustment) of fulltime individual workers increased 2.6% for men and a very significant 8% for women during the '00s.
[1] http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/09/our-lost-decade
[2] http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf
There's some truth to this. A while back Mother Jones declared the '00s to be a "Lost Decade" because household income had flatlined. [1] However, on page 36 of the same census report cited by that MJ article [2], you can see that real median income earnings (this is after inflation adjustment) of fulltime individual workers increased 2.6% for men and a very significant 8% for women during the '00s.
[1] http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/09/our-lost-decade
[2] http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf
Many countries have seen median salaries increase. It's not really a global phenomenon.
You mean primarily the ones at the lower end of the spectrum who due to globalization are rapidly converging on the salaries of higher end countries?
Or are you talking about a subset of developed/g8 nations?
Or are you talking about a subset of developed/g8 nations?
[deleted]
"In 1969 the median salary for a male worker was $35,567 (in 2012 dollars). Today it is $33,904. So for 44 years, while wages for the top 10 percent have continued to climb, most Americans have been caught in a ”Great Stagnation,” bringing into question the whole purpose of the American capitalist economy. The notion that what benefited the establishment would benefit everyone, had been thoroughly discredited."
I don't believe this analysis (which appears to be the central point of the piece) is meaningful. What is the author trying to compare and why? A male worker in 1969 could not buy a smartphone or a flat screen television. They would pay far more for air travel. Does it really make sense to quote their salary in 2012 dollars?
I would be interested to see the price of basic necessities over time. I would imagine Walmart, etc, would have caused a fall in food prices; I am unsure of other factors.
I don't believe this analysis (which appears to be the central point of the piece) is meaningful. What is the author trying to compare and why? A male worker in 1969 could not buy a smartphone or a flat screen television. They would pay far more for air travel. Does it really make sense to quote their salary in 2012 dollars?
I would be interested to see the price of basic necessities over time. I would imagine Walmart, etc, would have caused a fall in food prices; I am unsure of other factors.
The CPI is meant to account for this.
It's weighted, and accounts for the changing quality of goods. The weighting goes something like: Housing, Transportation, Food and Beverages, Recreation, Apparel, Medical Care, Education and Communication, Other Goods and Services; in order of importance.
The fact that an iPhone costs less this year than 5 years ago isn't a huge issue for most people. Rising rents (or imputed rents), transport costs, food costs, etc is more important.
So yes, in 1969 a flat screen TV (or whatever the equivalent was) would have cost a lot. But food, housing, and so on was cheap. The CPI already accounts for this. Now, the tin-foil brigade who think CPI is flawed typically argue that basic necessities (housing, food) have gone up a lot more; which is the point I think you are trying to make. And it's kind of valid.
You are also arguing the opposite point - that new products are often better than old ones. The CPI aims to strike a balance - some stuff is more expensive, and other things are cheaper.
But overall, CPI is a pretty valid way to compare how much bang consumers get for their buck.
It's weighted, and accounts for the changing quality of goods. The weighting goes something like: Housing, Transportation, Food and Beverages, Recreation, Apparel, Medical Care, Education and Communication, Other Goods and Services; in order of importance.
The fact that an iPhone costs less this year than 5 years ago isn't a huge issue for most people. Rising rents (or imputed rents), transport costs, food costs, etc is more important.
So yes, in 1969 a flat screen TV (or whatever the equivalent was) would have cost a lot. But food, housing, and so on was cheap. The CPI already accounts for this. Now, the tin-foil brigade who think CPI is flawed typically argue that basic necessities (housing, food) have gone up a lot more; which is the point I think you are trying to make. And it's kind of valid.
You are also arguing the opposite point - that new products are often better than old ones. The CPI aims to strike a balance - some stuff is more expensive, and other things are cheaper.
But overall, CPI is a pretty valid way to compare how much bang consumers get for their buck.
Median salaries can't and don't show anything about inequality in salaries, though. If the salaries of the "top 10 percent continued to grow", while the "median salary" is roughly the same, then that means the salaries of the bottom 80-90 percent have dropped by a lot more since 1969, and there have been other charts showing this.
[deleted]
No; all else being equal, the median salary stays exactly the same independent of how much the top 10 percent salaries grow. The mean salary is another matter entirely.
An example:
An example:
1 2 4 6 7 8 9
^
1 2 4 6 7 1000 100000
^
Are benefits included? The article isn't coming up for me, but I'm betting "no."
Kaynes in the 30' thought we would work 4h per day in 2000' for the same level of life because evolution of productivity.
But because of marketing, we have more needs (cell phone, internet, advanced technical material etc...) so we need to continue to work 40-60 hours per week to live an average life.
If we decide to live with less, we will work less, so much less. It is a society mindset. (but I want to keep internet!!)
If we decide to live with less, we will work less, so much less. It is a society mindset. (but I want to keep internet!!)