• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are stagnating wages a myth?

SocialD said:
That's basically what I was saying yes. Although median wage isn't the wage exactly in the middle of all wages. taht would be just a plain average.
Median is calculated by finding the point in which half of income earners earn more than X amount and half earn less. their reasoning might explain a fraction of the issue in median, but there is a bigger picture that it doesn't really.
example.
the statistical average wage in 2005 was about ~35500. adjusted for inflation that's about 43100 in 2015. in 2015 the average was about ~44500. so there was a gain in that decade albeit small.
Looking at the previous decade 23000 average in 1995 is about 29500 adjusted in 2005. As noted though the average in 2005 was ~35500. so we had some significant wage increases in that period.

Now if we look at 'median' wage during the same periods.
median in 1995 is ~$17000 . adjusted in 2005 would be ~$21800
the median in 2005 was ~$24500 which adjusted to 2015 would be ~$29700
however the median in 2015 is ~$28500.

So speaking about 'average income we had an increase of ~20.3% in average income between 1995 and 2005. and between 2005 and 2015 we had an increase of about 3.2%
and speaking to 'median' income we had an increase of ~12.4% from 1995 to 2005. and from 2005 to 2015 we had a decrease of about 4.2%

So this article could possibly explain the difference between a the results of average compared to the results of median ( et al a 3.2% increase vs a 4.2% decrease ) by implicating the outflow of older experienced workers vs the influx of younger workers.
yet I find the extremity of the contrast between the decades a bit large to explain a away a 17.1% loss in average or a 16.6% loss in median a bit much, to understate it for the explanation.
Click to expand...

There's a debate to be had about median vs average. I think the article has it right.
 
Jack Hays said:
There's a debate to be had about median vs average. I think the article has it right.
Click to expand...

Median is a better representation or baseline to use when measuring economic health for certain. And that boomer effect can explain a portion of this.. my point is the difference is greater than this can fully account for. in my view.
 
Jack Hays said:
Fair enough, but still begs the question whether that graph is driven a real decline, or by replacement in the workforce of senior (retiring) workers by junior (entering) workers.
Click to expand...

Except seniors aren't retiring en mass as they did before the recession and the jobs created during the "recovery" are jobs that a low paying in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom