- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.
There's a debate to be had about median vs average. I think the article has it right.