• 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!

Employment Situation Report for October

Yes



I don't see where mid or low wage workers were involved in that statement.
Because it is my response to your statement: "But increasing the minimum wage does exactly that. Unless wages above the minimum get an raise (provided that their productivity justifies their income)...."



Did you attend public school? That is a real question, because I find it difficult to believe that someone doesn't understand something as basic as this.The median wage earner is not the typical wage earner. It's the wage earner where half of the population makes more and less than that person. Average is the method of selecting a "typical" value for data, meaning it takes into account ALL wage earners income, and divide that by the number of workers in the economy. The median income earner doesn't capture the typical income earner. That's really basic.
I agree that the "average wage" does not line up with the median worker...that is the point, but the point still is, the context was low/mid wage WORKERS, not average wages. You still insist on the higher average wage when it has nothing to do with the workers you cited in post 32.



I didn't lay out anything. From the beginning, I have always mentioned average hourly earnings.

"But increasing the minimum wage does exactly that. Unless wages above the minimum get an raise (provided that their productivity justifies their income)...."

Again, you forgot what the point of the argument is, and you still insist on moving goalposts.

Calculating the average wages is not meant to reflect what most people are making. It reflects the typical. Basic arithmetic should be able to tell you why.
All it does is calculate an average wage that is skewed away from median workers.....AND FROM THE CONTEXT YOU CREATED. LOL!



You're debating that post. Not me. You asked a question and I answered it. It's really not my fault you don't like the answer.
As per usual, your answer was a non-sequitur, it was not applicable to the workers under discussion.



You wanted to know how wages have tracked productivity gains, and I showed you. Again, it really isn't my fault you don't like the answer.
As I said before, you have failed to show that the workers in question, the context you created, have had their wages increase with productivity since 1980.

I like it fine that this failure is yours.
 
1) How many permanent jobs do roads a bridges create? Seems to me, any job is a good job.

Maintaining a good infrastructure is a hell of a lot of permanent work. An oil pipeline for a Canadian company to ship Canadian crude to be sold in China is not. It's a boon for a couple of rich guys at the expense of our land.

apdst said:
2) Do you have a link I don't have to subscribe to, to read?

It's Rupert Mudoch's Wall Street Journal. I don't think you need a subscription. At least it didn't when I got there from a google search earlier.
 
Yes



Because it is my response to your statement: "But increasing the minimum wage does exactly that. Unless wages above the minimum get an raise (provided that their productivity justifies their income)...."

But that isn't what you asked for.

I agree that the "average wage" does not line up with the median worker...that is the point, but the point still is, the context was low/mid wage WORKERS, not average wages. You still insist on the higher average wage when it has nothing to do with the workers you cited in post 32.

Average wages are used when comparing the growth of those wages to productivity gains, not the wages of any particular income group.

Again, just because you don't understand the data, doesn't mean that the data is wrong.

"But increasing the minimum wage does exactly that. Unless wages above the minimum get an raise (provided that their productivity justifies their income)...."

Again, you forgot what the point of the argument is, and you still insist on moving goalposts.

You asked for an answer. You got it.. You should have been more specific. It's not my job to be specific for you.

All it does is calculate an average wage that is skewed away from median workers.....AND FROM THE CONTEXT YOU CREATED. LOL!

Both the BLS and BEA understand that there is nothing to be skewed when looking at average hourly earnings. Perhaps you should take your complaints up with them.

As per usual, your answer was a non-sequitur, it was not applicable to the workers under discussion.

That's your opinion.

As I said before, you have failed to show that the workers in question, the context you created, have had their wages increase with productivity since 1980.

I like it fine that this failure is yours.

I've already shown how employee wages have outpaced productivity. I'm not really not required to show how they have kept pace with any particular income group because that is not how it works. Again, the average hourly earnings (or labor compensation) of employees are used when comparing the growth of those wages to productivity gains, not the wages of any particular income group. That is how the BLS measures this.
 
Maintaining a good infrastructure is a hell of a lot of permanent work. An oil pipeline for a Canadian company to ship Canadian crude to be sold in China is not. It's a boon for a couple of rich guys at the expense of our land.



It's Rupert Mudoch's Wall Street Journal. I don't think you need a subscription. At least it didn't when I got there from a google search earlier.

Spin and lies are sll the Left have to bring to the table.
 
How would the typical be the median? The median just means that half of a data sample is higher and the other half is lower. The average takes all numbers in the data set and divides it. That provides a closer representation of what the typical person is actually like. That is why it is called the 'average.'
Depends on how skewed the data set is in order to best represent the central tendency. In the case of personal income, high income earners (very few) necessarily skew the population (very many) average. As such, using median income in this regard is better suited for the discussion.
 
Nothing is missing. You just don't understand what Unit Labour Cost measures.
Do you understand how UlC correlates to output growth? Hint: around 1980, the relationship began to inverse and by the turn of the century ULC became correlated to real output growth.
 
Spin and lies are sll the Left have to bring to the table.

:lamo

When you can't deal with the facts, dodge it and just spew standard rehearsed generalized hack lines.
 
Back
Top Bottom