What isn't typical is you moving the goalpost when you are proven wrong or about to be.Again, not debating in good faith, using stats to hide the issue....a typical day in vixenland.
And if you are going to look at average hourly earnings, it must take into account all for all wage workers, not just the ones who matter most to you.
That makes nine straight months of job growth over 200,000. Over 10 million jobs created since the recession ended.
Gee, if only the Democrats had a broad, winning issue they could have run on. Hmm.
You didn't, and now you are moving the goalpost in attempt to save face for a bad argument.
When you measure productivity relative to wages, you look at all wages. That's not debatable.BS, not only is the current context low/mid wage earners and the disconnect between their gains and their productivity, but wage gains since 1980 have been skewed to upper earners. Sure, "average" wages have increased....but not for the workers under discussion. If anyone is moving goal posts, it is the poster who cannot remember what their own context was and wants to discuss all wages.
You look at wages for the groups under discussion, not averages that have been skewed by top wages. You want to discuss an average wage, not a median worker's wage.When you measure productivity relative to wages, you look at all wages. That's not debatable.
Average hourly earnings is a measure of the typical worker's income, not the top or mid/low income worker. That is also not debatable. This is important because this reflects the types of jobs being created, within the economy and within each industry.You look at wages for the groups under discussion, not averages that have been skewed by top wages. You want to discuss an average wage, not a median worker's wage.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...ican-recessionthe recession began on President George W. Bush's watch, and it was a consequence of the sort of lax financial regulation that Republicans (including the Reagan-appointed Fed chief, Alan Greenspan) promoted for years and, amazingly, still promoted. Some Democrats deserve blame, too--notably the Clinton-era treasury secretaries Larry Summers and Robert Rubin. But it was Republicans who pushed deregulation hardest, and who most fervently resisted extending regulatory governance to newly-evolving corners of finance. (This latter strategy, which the political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson call "drift," has been crucial in reducing regulation generally, because in Washington it is always easier to prevent something from happening than it is to create new policy.)
Last edited by iguanaman; 11-07-14 at 04:51 PM.
No, the typical worker would be the median of the population.Average hourly earnings is a measure of the typical worker's income, not the top or mid/low income worker.I have proven it is.That is also not debatable.Except that....you have already conceded that the jobs being created currently are not "average wage" jobs...that is unless your argument is so deluded to believe that new employment is paying @ $24.00 per hr.This is important because this reflects the types of jobs being created, within the economy and within each industry.