real wages down for 95% of US workers since 2000

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
fake business cycle invented by federal reserve.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO. Your entertainment value goes up every thread.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
fake business cycle invented by federal reserve.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO. Your entertainment value goes up every thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like it because he gives me the cliff notes of Borodog's most recent statements in digestible one-liners.

[Zeno]

From the Foreign Affairs article:

“Less than four percent of workers were in educational groups that enjoyed increases in mean real money earnings from 2000 to 2005; mean real money earnings rose for workers with doctorates and professional graduate degrees and fell for all others. In contrast to in earlier decades, today it is not just those at the bottom of the skill ladder who are hurting. Even college graduates and workers with nonprofessional master's degrees saw their mean real money earnings decline. By some measures, inequality in the United States is greater today than at any time since the 1920s.”

The roaring 20’s rears its ugly head and we all know what that lead to. But that aside, from the above it appears no one with a Bachelors degree (or less) is gaining any ground in the job market as far as real wages are concerned. That is quite a statistic (where is the chart or reference?). Also it is amazing that, apparently, few if any people have switched jobs to something better, were promoted to better jobs, or that the hordes of Mexicans that sneak across the porous US border have any marked improvement in real wages. Anyway, the above reflects a job market that is in complete and utter stagnation. Again, this is amazing.

Again from the Foreign Affairs article:

“In the United States, according to estimates from the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics and others, trade and investment liberalization over the past decades has added between $500 billion and $1 trillion in annual income -- between $1,650 and $3,300 a year for every American.”

Something seems incongruous here. Anyway, I assume they are referring to purchasing power (thank you Wal-Mart?). So, let’s say someone earns $ 20,000 a year in 2000 and the same amount in 2005. Then, according to the above said person has added $ 8,250 to $ 16, 500 to their “annual income” over a five year period, a 41 to 82% increase. Inflation is about 3 % a year so minus 15 % and you still have substantial real growth in annual income or “purchasing power”. And on a percentage basis this helps those less well off than those in high-income brackets. But that is just statistics and as everyone knows there are three kinds of lies: lies, dammed lies, and statistics.


Again from the Foreign Affairs article:

“The best way to avert the rise in protectionism is by instituting a New Deal for globalization -- one that links engagement with the world economy to a substantial redistribution of income. In the United States, that would mean adopting a fundamentally more progressive federal tax system. The notion of more aggressively redistributing income may sound radical, but ensuring that most American workers are benefiting is the best way of saving globalization from a protectionist backlash.”

The first sentence of the above says almost nothing but it sounds great. Anyway, this is hogwash. First, the protectionism is coming from inept and moronic government meddling not because of any fundamental worker unrest (unless this chimera is stirred up by demagogues seeking office to score points with voters). Second, given my second point above derived from the articles own statistics apparently all workers, and especially those with lower incomes, are already benefiting substantially from globaliztion so why the need for this redistribution of income? No need at all in my opinion, what is needed is to inform the workers that their “annual incomes” have increase remarkably because of globalization, thus there is no need for protectionism and, as usually, government lackeys and think tank jockeys are lying to them.

-Zeno

[lehighguy]

What Americans need is a foriegn work ethic. They are going to get floored if they think they can keep foriegners out and steal what they need from the few peopel in this country actually being competitive.

[T50_Omaha8]

[ QUOTE ]
“In the United States, according to estimates from the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics and others, trade and investment liberalization over the past decades has added between $500 billion and $1 trillion in annual income -- between $1,650 and $3,300 a year for every American.”


Something seems incongruous here. Anyway, I assume they are referring to purchasing power (thank you Wal-Mart?). So, let’s say someone earns $ 20,000 a year in 2000 and the same amount in 2005. Then, according to the above said person has added $ 8,250 to $ 16, 500 to their “annual income” over a five year period, a 41 to 82% increase.

[/ QUOTE ] There's something wrong with your calculations, I think.

The wealth creation supposedly expanded 5-10% of US GDP, so it probably added around $1k-$2k to a $20k yr/worker's income. Sounds about right to me.

[btmagnetw]

[ QUOTE ]
DER DOOK ERR JERRRRBS!

[/ QUOTE ]DURKK URR JERBBS!!!!

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
There's something wrong with your calculations, I think.

The wealth creation supposedly expanded 5-10% of US GDP, so it probably added around $1k-$2k to a $20k yr/worker's income. Sounds about right to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point of the article is that it should've added to real wages, but it didn't.

Think of buying a new car and trading in your old car to the dealer. The dealer gives you a "good" price on your tradein, but just jacks up the price of the new car to compensate, you get the idea.