Re: Wages Up by Smallest Amount in Nine Years

Sue wrote:
> js wrote:
>
> >You have misinterpreted the data, you failed to post the link
> >to the source, and generally just made up this stuff for fun -
>
> That is an accusation of lying.
>  Please be polite and act gentlemanly.

The article lead paragraph that you posted to start this thread stated
the following:

"Wages and benefits paid to civilian workers rose last year
by the smallest amount in nine years, the government
reported Tuesday."

I challenged your interpretation that the picture was not "rosy" by
providing the detailed data representing what the article author was
using:

> >Here are the REAL numbers
>
> ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/ECI.ECCONST.TXT
>
> >1980 to 2005 constant dollar compensation as measured by the
> >employer Cost index (this is the number that SHOULD be used).
>
> Not what I am posting about.

You posted about hourly production worker wages - not wages and
benefits (total compensation) odf the civilian workforce.  DUH!

And Sue, the article you used to start the thread was about
compensation of thecivilian workforce - not hourly wages of production
workers.

Then you justify it with this?

"I already posted that the highest inflation corrected  average hourly
incomes occurred in the early 1970s."

> If you wish
> to open up a discussion on employer costs in post it on a separate
> thread.
> It is a diversion away from the thread as posted here.

It is not a diversion - your hourlies are.  In fact, your selectivity
in data to restrict it to straight wages for production and
non-supervisory personnel is so dishonest one should get wash ones
hands after reading your "analysis."

The articles speaks to compensation - and addresses wages - of the
CIVILIAN labor force.  And the conclusion is that in real dollars,
compensation is up and has been and contiinues to be since 1980 - the
first year that total comp numbers are available on the BLS website.

> The data I was referring is found below.

OK - let's take a look then, shall we?

> Step 1) Go to
> http://www.bls.gov/ces/cesbtabs.htm
> Step 2) click item 4 which will give you
> Table B-4. "Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory
> workers"
> Step 3) IMPORTANT: place check in: Constant (1982) dollars
> Step 4) go to bottom of table and  click "retrieve data"
> Step 5)  change dates from to 1995 to 1965
> and check "include graphs  NEW!
> Hit GO

> This will give you the table of data and a chart which highlights the
> period between 1965 and 2005

For hourly wages for a select sample of production and service workers
in non-syupervisory roles without consideration of the benefits they
receive in addition to their compensation.

Sliced it pretty thin to make your argument.

What's even more dishonest - why did you pick 1970 as your base year?
Had you picked 1977, the year of the Carter administration, you would
have had a base rate of 8.67 and had you run it only for the Carter
years, the 1981 number was 7.83 - a drop of 84 cents - or 10%.

Doing the same for the Bush first four years, 200 to 2004, you would
have seen this - 8:07 to *:23, a gain of 2%.  Run the Clinton 8-year
presidency and you get this: start in 1992 (7.52) and end with 200
(8.07) for a gain of 7 percent.  Bush the Father?  Down 4.5%.

Run the numbers from 1965 to present?  Up 3%.  From 1972 to the
present?  Down 10%.
>>From 1992 to present?  Up 9%.  What number do you want and how real do
you want it to be.

> The high point is in 1973 with $9.08. The hourly figure
> dropped to a low of about 7.50 in the Reagan-Bush One
> period, rose again to a local high of $8.29 in
> 2002 and has since backed off more
>
> If you wish to know the recent weekly
> earning changes http://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.t03.htm

Again, you sliced a segment of the population to make a point - a point
in direct contradiction to the data presented in the original artuicle
you posted and a thread you named.

In terms of the CIVILIAN population, the compensation packages went up
4.9% from Dec 2004.  Inflation was less than that.  Hence, in inflation
adusted dollars, the average employee is better off.

> In real constant dollars (1982) it dropped from
> $277.19 in December of 2004 to $276.16
> 2005. What confuses the workers is, of course,
> is that their pay in uncorrected $ increased
> from $534.15 to $ 550.66.

In real terms, compensation for employees is not the $18 in wages, but
the $26.05 of value they actually receive.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm

Here are the data - and it is these data cited by the article that you
use to justify your conclusions and support by slicing a segment of the
statistic to meet your personal and political agenda.

That spin to me is exactly what you said - a lie.

> But these changes are recent, one has to look at this  over
> a number of years to get a trend.  The trend is not up.

The hourly wage for production workers is down in real terms.  The
compensation paid employees in the US is up in real terms.

Since we work for compensation, then this is the metric that is
necessary.

The trend is up. I proved it with data - here's the link again
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/eci.ecconst.txt

Hourly wages for a segment of production workers is hardly the proper
way to evaluate the economics of civilian workforce compensation.

Thanks for playing, Sue.  Play again?

js

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Starbucks to close 600 stores
    ... worker's real wages have decreased ... then compensation has risen significantly over the ... Total compensation rises in lockstep with total productivity - something elementary that seems to have escaped the French, the union, etc. - you can't make more $ as a nation in real terms unless you work harder and produce more stuff. ... workers and management - it's possible that all the growth coming at the high end. ...
    (alt.coffee)
  • Workers Compensation News - November 10, 2005, Volume 3 Issue 313
    ... NASI (Workers' Compensation: ... medications in physician offices in Philadelphia, ... this week to employees announcing the company was revising its policies ...
    (misc.legal)
  • Re: Starbucks to close 600 stores
    ... worker's real wages have decreased ... then compensation has risen significantly over the ... Total compensation rises in lockstep with total productivity - something elementary that seems to have escaped the French, the union, etc. - you can't make more $ as a nation in real terms unless you work harder and produce more stuff. ...
    (alt.coffee)
  • Re: Workers or Workers Comp?
    ... Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. ... spelling, grammar and "punctuational" errors, document them ... the TV screen with her digital camera, transferred the photo to her ... Why isn't it "Worker's" compensation? ...
    (sci.med.transcription)
  • Cambo Six seeks $12m from government to pay compensation for its forced closure
    ... Bookie says it wants govt to pay compensation for its forced closure ... the brunt of the costs to workers caused by its decision. ...
    (soc.culture.cambodia)
Loading