Home (Post) Mobile Authors Say Anything Register Login

Monday, November 20, 2006

A Brisk Rise in American Wages

By Mark Trumbull | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Pay rose faster than the cost of living for the first time in years.

American paychecks are rising again at a pace not seen since the 1990s.

The pay increase amounts to 4 percent on average over the past 12 months, and it comes at a very helpful time for millions of households.

For three years, pay increases haven’t kept pace with the rising cost of living. Then came this year’s housing slowdown, which has further squeezed family finances.

Those setbacks, however, are now being offset by rising income. Four percent may not sound like much, but you have to look back to 1997 to find a calendar year with a gain that big.

Equally significant, tamer energy prices mean that the “real” wage gains, after inflation, are above 3 percent for the past 12 months. That, too, hasn’t happened since the 1990s, even though the economy has been expanding over the past five years.

“The striking feature of this expansion has been that ... real wages for the typical worker haven’t risen that much,” says Richard Berner, US economist at the investment bank Morgan Stanley in New York. But with real incomes rising, he says, “you get a picture of an economy that can weather this housing storm.”

The risk of recession hasn’t disappeared, he and other economists say. But with a fairly tight job market and low unemployment, many expect that paychecks will keep rising solidly in 2007.

Sandy Nelson has seen the strength of rising incomes first hand this year.

She runs Mulberry Road, a children’s store near Boston’s trendy Newbury Street, and says traffic has been increasing.

More customers means more income for her - and more money to keep investing in her young business.

“I have more of what people are looking for,” she says, pointing to racks of colorful clothing for toddlers.

In other words, Ms. Nelson is ready for the vital holiday season.

“I’m just hopeful that it will be as good as what they’re saying,” she says, citing retail forecasts that New Englanders will spend more than $700 on gifts this season, on average.

The average private-sector paycheck is now $573 per week, according to Labor Department figures that cover about 8 in 10 workers - those in production or nonsupervisory jobs.
(Graphic) SOURCE: LABOR DEPARTMENT (2006 DATA ARE FOR 12 MONTHS ENDING IN OCTOBER)/RICH CLABAUGH - STAFF

As recently as this past October, weekly pay adjusted for inflation was below where it was when President Bush took office in 2001. In effect, rising prices for things like healthcare, college tuition, and especially for energy ate up all the wage gains of an expanding economy, and then some.

The spike in energy costs was extreme, but the pattern was a common one. Wages generally rise fastest when the economy is strong and inflation is low.

That’s why this moderation in fuel prices is so important.

[...]

Another positive sign: Companies are laying off fewer people this year, says John Challenger, who heads the outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas in Chicago.

Read the whole thing.

They choose to tell us this news after the election.  Wonder why?

Maybe they think we will all believe this is due to the Dems taking Congress, even though they haven’t done anything yet.(except to threaten the oil companies)

Comments

Wages need to keep up with inflation now don’t they r108?


Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sparkie Arbuckle on November 20, 2006 at 08:53 am

In economics, the term “real wages” means factored for inflation.  If you knew anything about economics, you would know that.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on November 20, 2006 at 08:57 am

In effect, rising prices for things like healthcare, college tuition, and especially for energy ate up all the wage gains

I find it interesting the three categories they’ve chosen to compare with.

1.  Healthcare.  IMO there are two factors leading towards higher health care.  a) new treatments are making people live longer better lives.  We’re benefiting from this but it comes with a cost.  b) government meddling in the market.  That comes without a net benefit although certainly some gain (while others lose).

2.  College tuition.  The blame for skyrocketing college tuition goes strictly to the government entities that run the schools.  The root cause is the subsidies that drove out all but a few private schools.

3.  Energy prices.  Petroleum has always been the most volatile component of the CPI.  It takes a while, but the market does work.  However meddling by the government has always made the problem worse.  So what do the leftist want to do?


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on November 20, 2006 at 09:00 am

3%. That’s huge! Not. And its probably BS statistics.


Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sparkie Arbuckle on November 20, 2006 at 09:00 am

3%. That’s huge! Not. And its probably BS statistics.

Take it up with the Christian Science Monitor.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on November 20, 2006 at 09:07 am

The average private-sector paycheck is now $573 per week, according to Labor Department figures that cover about 8 in 10 workers

Wow.  Is that it?  I guess I have nothing to complain about since I’ve been average for a while.

Between that average and the amount of taxes that average pays, it’s no wonder that to raise a family there has to be two wage earners.

freerepublicans.com on November 20, 2006 at 09:15 am
Rob
Rob
19179 comments
Send a private message

Between that average and the amount of taxes that average pays, it’s no wonder that to raise a family there has to be two wage earners.

I suspect that’s an after-tax figure, and what it doesn’t take into account is benefits like retirement plans, medical coverage, etc.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on November 20, 2006 at 09:44 am

I suspect that’s an after-tax figure, and what it doesn’t take into account is benefits like retirement plans, medical coverage, etc.

Ok, but the point is still taxes are too high and wages are too low.

I’m not saying the government has or should have a role in increasing wages - other than simply allowing people to keep their money.

freerepublicans.com on November 20, 2006 at 09:51 am
Rob
Rob
19179 comments
Send a private message

Ok, but the point is still taxes are too high and wages are too low.

I’m not saying the government has or should have a role in increasing wages - other than simply allowing people to keep their money.

I agree that taxes are too high.  Wages are a product of the market.

But you’re saying that you don’t favor government intervention in raising wages....but you favor it in creating jobs?  As though that were even possible beyond lower taxes and regulations to create a business-friendly environment?


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on November 20, 2006 at 10:00 am

But you’re saying that you don’t favor government intervention in raising wages....but you favor it in creating jobs?

Government can’t create jobs, it can only stop jobs from being created.

freerepublicans.com on November 20, 2006 at 03:04 pm

Government can’t create jobs, it can only stop jobs from being created.

Every now and then you say something that sounds conservative, but then you say something like this:

taxes are too high and wages are too low.

Taxes are created by the govt, but wages are created by market forces, so the two don’t belong in the same sentence.  Wages are right where they ought to be.  As more value is created, they will go up.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on November 20, 2006 at 04:00 pm
Avatar for WOOF

They choose to tell us this news after the election.  Wonder why?

As recently as this past October, weekly pay adjusted for inflation was below where it was when President Bush took office in 2001.

Not a strong repub vote getter.

WOOF on November 20, 2006 at 08:14 pm

So, WOOF, are you really suggesting that Bush is the Dark Lord and his very appearance at the Oval Office deflated wages?

Or are you just an idiot?

(Anybody with an actual brain would have started the comparison in 2002.)

Carrick on November 20, 2006 at 08:18 pm

Woof: We have already covered this; total compensation is up significantly, due to non-wage benefits.  I know you are a hate-filled leftie who is constitutionally unable to give the President credit for anything.  Unfortunately, the truth is not your friend here.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on November 20, 2006 at 09:03 pm
Avatar for WOOF

The IDIOTs at the CSM picked the year.

Give B the credit and C the blame.

WOOF on November 20, 2006 at 09:04 pm

You passed on the meaningless numbers.  That counts for something.

Even without going into an in depth like R108 has suggested, it’s obviously a moronic comparison.  Why are you parroting nonsense, unless you just don’t know better?

Carrick on November 20, 2006 at 09:14 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses. Confirm your email address here.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.