Are US wages currently rising at the fastest pace in decades?












26















The President of the USA Donald Trump, told during his "State of the Union address" speech on 5th February 2019, that




[...] wages in America are rising at the fastest pace in decades




Source : at about 46min on this video from Youtube.



Note that this other Q&A (from 2016) might be relevant :



Are wages stagnent over the past 40 years in the USA? .



Can this statement be considered true, and with which context (as affirmations derived from statistics are often oversimplified) ?










share|improve this question




















  • 1





    How fast has inflation risen during the measured time period?

    – dotancohen
    8 hours ago






  • 1





    I point out that the time span measured by "decades" has to go back at least one decade and possibly at least two decades, and must go back less than one century. So the claim will be true or false depending on whether wages (however defined) are rising faster (according to some measurement) than they have at any time since 2009, or possibly at any time since 1919.

    – M. A. Golding
    7 hours ago






  • 2





    @Pac0 You got downvoted because you are trying to rationalize pure propaganda made by the Trump Administration. If Trump said that 40% of all Americans were illegals would you post a thread asking if that is legitimate too?

    – BDillan
    3 hours ago


















26















The President of the USA Donald Trump, told during his "State of the Union address" speech on 5th February 2019, that




[...] wages in America are rising at the fastest pace in decades




Source : at about 46min on this video from Youtube.



Note that this other Q&A (from 2016) might be relevant :



Are wages stagnent over the past 40 years in the USA? .



Can this statement be considered true, and with which context (as affirmations derived from statistics are often oversimplified) ?










share|improve this question




















  • 1





    How fast has inflation risen during the measured time period?

    – dotancohen
    8 hours ago






  • 1





    I point out that the time span measured by "decades" has to go back at least one decade and possibly at least two decades, and must go back less than one century. So the claim will be true or false depending on whether wages (however defined) are rising faster (according to some measurement) than they have at any time since 2009, or possibly at any time since 1919.

    – M. A. Golding
    7 hours ago






  • 2





    @Pac0 You got downvoted because you are trying to rationalize pure propaganda made by the Trump Administration. If Trump said that 40% of all Americans were illegals would you post a thread asking if that is legitimate too?

    – BDillan
    3 hours ago
















26












26








26


1






The President of the USA Donald Trump, told during his "State of the Union address" speech on 5th February 2019, that




[...] wages in America are rising at the fastest pace in decades




Source : at about 46min on this video from Youtube.



Note that this other Q&A (from 2016) might be relevant :



Are wages stagnent over the past 40 years in the USA? .



Can this statement be considered true, and with which context (as affirmations derived from statistics are often oversimplified) ?










share|improve this question
















The President of the USA Donald Trump, told during his "State of the Union address" speech on 5th February 2019, that




[...] wages in America are rising at the fastest pace in decades




Source : at about 46min on this video from Youtube.



Note that this other Q&A (from 2016) might be relevant :



Are wages stagnent over the past 40 years in the USA? .



Can this statement be considered true, and with which context (as affirmations derived from statistics are often oversimplified) ?







united-states politics economics employment






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 5 hours ago









M. Stern

1053




1053










asked 12 hours ago









Pac0Pac0

285312




285312








  • 1





    How fast has inflation risen during the measured time period?

    – dotancohen
    8 hours ago






  • 1





    I point out that the time span measured by "decades" has to go back at least one decade and possibly at least two decades, and must go back less than one century. So the claim will be true or false depending on whether wages (however defined) are rising faster (according to some measurement) than they have at any time since 2009, or possibly at any time since 1919.

    – M. A. Golding
    7 hours ago






  • 2





    @Pac0 You got downvoted because you are trying to rationalize pure propaganda made by the Trump Administration. If Trump said that 40% of all Americans were illegals would you post a thread asking if that is legitimate too?

    – BDillan
    3 hours ago
















  • 1





    How fast has inflation risen during the measured time period?

    – dotancohen
    8 hours ago






  • 1





    I point out that the time span measured by "decades" has to go back at least one decade and possibly at least two decades, and must go back less than one century. So the claim will be true or false depending on whether wages (however defined) are rising faster (according to some measurement) than they have at any time since 2009, or possibly at any time since 1919.

    – M. A. Golding
    7 hours ago






  • 2





    @Pac0 You got downvoted because you are trying to rationalize pure propaganda made by the Trump Administration. If Trump said that 40% of all Americans were illegals would you post a thread asking if that is legitimate too?

    – BDillan
    3 hours ago










1




1





How fast has inflation risen during the measured time period?

– dotancohen
8 hours ago





How fast has inflation risen during the measured time period?

– dotancohen
8 hours ago




1




1





I point out that the time span measured by "decades" has to go back at least one decade and possibly at least two decades, and must go back less than one century. So the claim will be true or false depending on whether wages (however defined) are rising faster (according to some measurement) than they have at any time since 2009, or possibly at any time since 1919.

– M. A. Golding
7 hours ago





I point out that the time span measured by "decades" has to go back at least one decade and possibly at least two decades, and must go back less than one century. So the claim will be true or false depending on whether wages (however defined) are rising faster (according to some measurement) than they have at any time since 2009, or possibly at any time since 1919.

– M. A. Golding
7 hours ago




2




2





@Pac0 You got downvoted because you are trying to rationalize pure propaganda made by the Trump Administration. If Trump said that 40% of all Americans were illegals would you post a thread asking if that is legitimate too?

– BDillan
3 hours ago







@Pac0 You got downvoted because you are trying to rationalize pure propaganda made by the Trump Administration. If Trump said that 40% of all Americans were illegals would you post a thread asking if that is legitimate too?

– BDillan
3 hours ago












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















29














It's a vague claim because it doesn't specify over what interval (monthly or yearly), real versus nominal, hourly wages or weekly wages.



However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 11 January 2019 that:




Real average hourly earnings for all employees increased 0.5 percent from November to December




and




Real average weekly earnings increased 0.7 percent over the month




These are not annualized, so the numbers would need to be multiplied by 12 for an annualized rate.



Year over year (Dec. 2017 to Dec. 2018), the report says that real hourly wages increased 1.1% and weekly wages increased 1.2%.



According to this BLS link there was a peak year-over-year real hourly earnings increase of 4.8% in July 2008-2009.



Similarly, there was a peak year-over-year real weekly earnings increase of 3.2% in July 2008-2009.



So the claim is false at least on the basis of year-over-year, real wages, both hourly and weekly.






share|improve this answer





















  • 3





    @Trilarion employers tend not to lower nominal hourly wages, so in a deflationary period (2% deflation in that case) the real wages increase more than otherwise would be expected.

    – DavePhD
    9 hours ago








  • 3





    @Trilarion right, the wage statistics don't consider all the people who aren't working, just those who are.

    – DavePhD
    9 hours ago






  • 1





    One could define the median real income of all people who want to work as the thing to look at. Who knows what "wages in America" really means.

    – Trilarion
    9 hours ago








  • 13





    "the numbers would need to be multiplied by 12 for an annualized rate." um, no. That gets close, but the right annualization is closer to (1+X)^12-1 than X*12. Admittedly at 0.5% it is only off by 0.17% annual. -- less nit picky, you might want to mention that single-month recent data is often subject to correction for a fairly long period after it is released.

    – Yakk
    8 hours ago








  • 2





    Even just the simple .7 x 12 multiplication, you end up with 6.3%, which is greater than the 4.8% number from July 2008. Wouldn't that make the claim true if you squint just the right way? I mean, clearly that's some weird cherry picking and the claim wouldn't hold up to real analysis (it's a huge assumption that one month is typical for a whole year period), but for the data samples shared in this answer, the conclusion seems wrong.

    – Joel Coehoorn
    7 hours ago





















21














Politifact.com fact-checked Trumps SotU speech and came to the conclusion that wages do indeed rise in the United States:




One common measurement of wages is median usual weekly real earnings for full-time wage and salary workers 16 years and older, an inflation-adjusted figure.



During Trump’s presidency, this figure has risen from $351 to $355, an increase of 1.1 percent over the better part of two years.




But they also pointed out that this trend already started during the Obama era. Wages are on a steady raise since 2014, and that rate of increase didn't really change much after Trump moved into the White House. You can see the numbers on this chart from the Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis.



us median wage 2010 - 2018




But the current wage increase began in earnest in the second half of 2014, when Obama was still more than two years away from leaving the White House. Overall, wages increased by 7.5 percent over that period, from $330 to $355.




Further, there was a similar rise from 1998 to 2002 where the median weekly wage increased from $314 to $341:



us median wage 1998-2002



This was an increase of 8.5% over 4 years compared to the 1.1% over 2 years Trump is boasting about.



Now one might be able to find some truth in Trump's statement by cherry-picking the data or finding different ways to measure wage increases, but generally speaking the claim "fastest raise in wages since decades" is dubious.






share|improve this answer





















  • 5





    It also pointed out a complete falsehood in the claim "Wages are indeed rising, but they began their upward trajectory under President Barack Obama, and wages actually rose a bit faster under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush." (from your Politifact link, emphasis mine). So unless you define "decades" as a single decade, it seems like they are actually refuting his claim. (you pointed out that wages rise, but never mentioned the rate, a main part of the claim)

    – JMac
    11 hours ago






  • 10





    This measure is quite problematic for multiple reasons: 1. It doesn't take into account the wages of non-full-time employees. 2. It doesn't take into account transitions from full to part time. 3. Price index computation is a political procedure, e.g. in deciding what to count and how much weight to assign different items. Finally, not a problem per se, but - if wages fall for a prolonged period of time, then rise somewhat, they might be rising at the fastest pace in decades but the reason could be a localized "bounce back" from the long descent.

    – einpoklum
    11 hours ago






  • 4





    This answer doesn't have the most recent data.

    – DavePhD
    11 hours ago






  • 1





    @einpoklum "if wages fall for a prolonged period of time, then rise somewhat, they might be rising at the fastest pace in decades but the reason could be a localized "bounce back" from the long descent." Donald Trump didn't say anything about the reason, at least in the quote given in the question. While being true, it might not be relevant here.

    – Trilarion
    9 hours ago






  • 1





    @Oddthinking I expanded the answer to also include the wage increase from 1998 to 2002.

    – Philipp
    9 hours ago



















17














No.



As vague as the claim is, there does not appear to be any angle to take in which it is true.



Looking at the decades:




Wages in the United States increased 4.20 percent in November of 2018 over the same month in the previous year. Wage Growth in the United States averaged 6.21 percent from 1960 until 2018, reaching an all time high of 13.78 percent in January of 1979 and a record low of -5.88 percent in March of 2009.



enter image description here



enter image description here



United States Wages and Salaries Growth Copyright ©2019 TRADING ECONOMICS



In the United States, wage growth refers to the yearly change in wages and salaries disbursements from government, manufacturing and service industries. This page provides the latest reported value for - United States Wages and Salaries Growth - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news. United States Wages and Salaries Growth - actual data, historical chart and calendar of releases - was last updated on February of 2019.




Note that the above is addressing the "rising fastest pace" "in decades".



If you really want to give some credit to a somewhat rosy looking statistic, perhaps Trump had some absolute numbers like these in mind:




United States Average Hourly Wages in Manufacturing –– Wages in Manufacturing in the United States decreased to 21.86 USD/Hour in January from 21.91 USD/Hour in December of 2018. Wages in Manufacturing in the United States averaged 9.33 USD/Hour from 1950 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 21.91 USD/Hour in December of 2018 and a record low of 1.27 USD/Hour in February of 1950.



enter image description hereenter image description here




But that is, of course, quite different.



Looking at the exact claim, we see it is not right either way.




U. S. workers see fastest wage growth in a decade, but inflation takes a toll Washington Post, Heather Long, October 31, 2018.



U.S. workers are seeing the largest nominal wage increase in a decade, the Labor Department reported Wednesday, as companies compete harder for employees than they did in recent years.



Wages rose 2.9 percent from September 2017 to September 2018, according to the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index for civilian workers, a widely watched measure of pay that does not take inflation into account.



That is the biggest increase — not adjusted for inflation — since the year that ended in September 2008.



Prices have risen significantly in the past year, especially for gas and rent. Adjusted for inflation, workers’ wages grew 0.6 percent over the year, making the increase the largest since 2016, according to the Labor Department.



Sluggish pay growth has been one of the biggest problems in this recovery, but employers are finally having to hike wages at a more normal level typically seen during good economic times. Unemployment is at a 49-year low and there are more job openings than unemployed Americans, which forces companies to fight for available workers.



“Wages are grinding higher as the labor market continues to tighten,” said Justin Weidner, an economist at Deutsche Bank. “Wage growth is likely to be over 3 percent again soon.”



On Friday, the Labor Department will release the other most-watched wage metric: average hourly earnings. Many economists expect that will be above 3 percent for the first time since April 2009.
[…]

Wage growth has been steadily rising in the past year, according to the Employment Cost Index. From September 2016 to September 2017, wages and salaries rose 2.5 percent, the Labor Department said.



Some have argued that companies were holding off on increasing wages because they were having to put more money toward benefits, but the Employment Cost Index also tracks benefits costs, and those have not risen as much as wages. Benefits grew 2.6 percent in the year ending September 2018 vs. 2.4 percent in the prior year.



President Trump has taken credit for the strong economy and frequently likes to tout low unemployment and solid job growth when he is on the campaign trail ahead of the midterm elections. Economists say his policies deserve some credit for triggering faster growth, but unemployment has been falling steadily for eight years and wages have been inching higher.



“It’s not about the tax cuts. This is about the gradual tightening in the labor market finally forcing employers to pay more,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. “There’s no question the trend is rising, but we are not exploding. We are still in a phase of gradual, incremental creep.”



Trump campaigned heavily on bringing back blue-collar jobs. While manufacturing and other blue-collar professions are seeing some of the fastest job growth since the mid-1980s, pay is not rising. Most of the wage growth in the Employment Cost Index is coming from service-sector jobs. Pay in the “goods-producing sector” has actually slowed in the past year, notes Michael Pearce, senior U.S. economist at Capital Economics.

[…]

“Putting food on the table is a constant struggle. I was going to school to be a dental assistant, but I was in a car crash, resulting in nerve damage to my hand,” said Morales, who is 28. “I do the best I can with what I have. Costs keep going up, but my wages haven’t kept pace.”




Business Insider: Here's why wages in America have been going nowhere, 2018




Pew research Center: For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades, 2018.
enter image description here




Forbes: Real Wage Growth Is Actually Falling, 2018




Nominal Wage Tracker –– Slow wage growth is a key sign of how far the U.S. economy remains from a full recovery. Economic Policy Institute, Feb 1, 2019



On some fronts, the economy is steadily healing from the Great Recession. The unemployment rate is down, and the pace of monthly job growth is reversing some of the damage inflicted by the downturn. But the economy remains far from fully recovered.



A crucial measure of how far from full recovery the economy remains is the growth of nominal wages (wages unadjusted for inflation). Nominal wage growth since the recovery officially began in mid-2009 has been low and flat. This isn’t surprising–the weak labor market of the last seven years has put enormous downward pressure on wages. Employers don’t have to offer big wage increases to get and keep the workers they need. And this remains true even as a jobs recovery has consistently forged ahead in recent years.



Nominal wage growth has been far below target in the recovery
Year-over-year change in private-sector nominal average hourly earnings, 2007–2019



enter image description hereenter image description hereenter image description here




Summary



There was a single small bump in wages, well below policy targets, over almost one decade, for a subset of "wages". As the starting point for this statistic was chosen to coincide with the start of the ongoing banking and financial crisis, this is misleading, on top of being blatantly false for the plural of 'decades'.






share|improve this answer

































    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    29














    It's a vague claim because it doesn't specify over what interval (monthly or yearly), real versus nominal, hourly wages or weekly wages.



    However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 11 January 2019 that:




    Real average hourly earnings for all employees increased 0.5 percent from November to December




    and




    Real average weekly earnings increased 0.7 percent over the month




    These are not annualized, so the numbers would need to be multiplied by 12 for an annualized rate.



    Year over year (Dec. 2017 to Dec. 2018), the report says that real hourly wages increased 1.1% and weekly wages increased 1.2%.



    According to this BLS link there was a peak year-over-year real hourly earnings increase of 4.8% in July 2008-2009.



    Similarly, there was a peak year-over-year real weekly earnings increase of 3.2% in July 2008-2009.



    So the claim is false at least on the basis of year-over-year, real wages, both hourly and weekly.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 3





      @Trilarion employers tend not to lower nominal hourly wages, so in a deflationary period (2% deflation in that case) the real wages increase more than otherwise would be expected.

      – DavePhD
      9 hours ago








    • 3





      @Trilarion right, the wage statistics don't consider all the people who aren't working, just those who are.

      – DavePhD
      9 hours ago






    • 1





      One could define the median real income of all people who want to work as the thing to look at. Who knows what "wages in America" really means.

      – Trilarion
      9 hours ago








    • 13





      "the numbers would need to be multiplied by 12 for an annualized rate." um, no. That gets close, but the right annualization is closer to (1+X)^12-1 than X*12. Admittedly at 0.5% it is only off by 0.17% annual. -- less nit picky, you might want to mention that single-month recent data is often subject to correction for a fairly long period after it is released.

      – Yakk
      8 hours ago








    • 2





      Even just the simple .7 x 12 multiplication, you end up with 6.3%, which is greater than the 4.8% number from July 2008. Wouldn't that make the claim true if you squint just the right way? I mean, clearly that's some weird cherry picking and the claim wouldn't hold up to real analysis (it's a huge assumption that one month is typical for a whole year period), but for the data samples shared in this answer, the conclusion seems wrong.

      – Joel Coehoorn
      7 hours ago


















    29














    It's a vague claim because it doesn't specify over what interval (monthly or yearly), real versus nominal, hourly wages or weekly wages.



    However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 11 January 2019 that:




    Real average hourly earnings for all employees increased 0.5 percent from November to December




    and




    Real average weekly earnings increased 0.7 percent over the month




    These are not annualized, so the numbers would need to be multiplied by 12 for an annualized rate.



    Year over year (Dec. 2017 to Dec. 2018), the report says that real hourly wages increased 1.1% and weekly wages increased 1.2%.



    According to this BLS link there was a peak year-over-year real hourly earnings increase of 4.8% in July 2008-2009.



    Similarly, there was a peak year-over-year real weekly earnings increase of 3.2% in July 2008-2009.



    So the claim is false at least on the basis of year-over-year, real wages, both hourly and weekly.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 3





      @Trilarion employers tend not to lower nominal hourly wages, so in a deflationary period (2% deflation in that case) the real wages increase more than otherwise would be expected.

      – DavePhD
      9 hours ago








    • 3





      @Trilarion right, the wage statistics don't consider all the people who aren't working, just those who are.

      – DavePhD
      9 hours ago






    • 1





      One could define the median real income of all people who want to work as the thing to look at. Who knows what "wages in America" really means.

      – Trilarion
      9 hours ago








    • 13





      "the numbers would need to be multiplied by 12 for an annualized rate." um, no. That gets close, but the right annualization is closer to (1+X)^12-1 than X*12. Admittedly at 0.5% it is only off by 0.17% annual. -- less nit picky, you might want to mention that single-month recent data is often subject to correction for a fairly long period after it is released.

      – Yakk
      8 hours ago








    • 2





      Even just the simple .7 x 12 multiplication, you end up with 6.3%, which is greater than the 4.8% number from July 2008. Wouldn't that make the claim true if you squint just the right way? I mean, clearly that's some weird cherry picking and the claim wouldn't hold up to real analysis (it's a huge assumption that one month is typical for a whole year period), but for the data samples shared in this answer, the conclusion seems wrong.

      – Joel Coehoorn
      7 hours ago
















    29












    29








    29







    It's a vague claim because it doesn't specify over what interval (monthly or yearly), real versus nominal, hourly wages or weekly wages.



    However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 11 January 2019 that:




    Real average hourly earnings for all employees increased 0.5 percent from November to December




    and




    Real average weekly earnings increased 0.7 percent over the month




    These are not annualized, so the numbers would need to be multiplied by 12 for an annualized rate.



    Year over year (Dec. 2017 to Dec. 2018), the report says that real hourly wages increased 1.1% and weekly wages increased 1.2%.



    According to this BLS link there was a peak year-over-year real hourly earnings increase of 4.8% in July 2008-2009.



    Similarly, there was a peak year-over-year real weekly earnings increase of 3.2% in July 2008-2009.



    So the claim is false at least on the basis of year-over-year, real wages, both hourly and weekly.






    share|improve this answer















    It's a vague claim because it doesn't specify over what interval (monthly or yearly), real versus nominal, hourly wages or weekly wages.



    However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 11 January 2019 that:




    Real average hourly earnings for all employees increased 0.5 percent from November to December




    and




    Real average weekly earnings increased 0.7 percent over the month




    These are not annualized, so the numbers would need to be multiplied by 12 for an annualized rate.



    Year over year (Dec. 2017 to Dec. 2018), the report says that real hourly wages increased 1.1% and weekly wages increased 1.2%.



    According to this BLS link there was a peak year-over-year real hourly earnings increase of 4.8% in July 2008-2009.



    Similarly, there was a peak year-over-year real weekly earnings increase of 3.2% in July 2008-2009.



    So the claim is false at least on the basis of year-over-year, real wages, both hourly and weekly.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 10 hours ago

























    answered 11 hours ago









    DavePhDDavePhD

    77.6k19329357




    77.6k19329357








    • 3





      @Trilarion employers tend not to lower nominal hourly wages, so in a deflationary period (2% deflation in that case) the real wages increase more than otherwise would be expected.

      – DavePhD
      9 hours ago








    • 3





      @Trilarion right, the wage statistics don't consider all the people who aren't working, just those who are.

      – DavePhD
      9 hours ago






    • 1





      One could define the median real income of all people who want to work as the thing to look at. Who knows what "wages in America" really means.

      – Trilarion
      9 hours ago








    • 13





      "the numbers would need to be multiplied by 12 for an annualized rate." um, no. That gets close, but the right annualization is closer to (1+X)^12-1 than X*12. Admittedly at 0.5% it is only off by 0.17% annual. -- less nit picky, you might want to mention that single-month recent data is often subject to correction for a fairly long period after it is released.

      – Yakk
      8 hours ago








    • 2





      Even just the simple .7 x 12 multiplication, you end up with 6.3%, which is greater than the 4.8% number from July 2008. Wouldn't that make the claim true if you squint just the right way? I mean, clearly that's some weird cherry picking and the claim wouldn't hold up to real analysis (it's a huge assumption that one month is typical for a whole year period), but for the data samples shared in this answer, the conclusion seems wrong.

      – Joel Coehoorn
      7 hours ago
















    • 3





      @Trilarion employers tend not to lower nominal hourly wages, so in a deflationary period (2% deflation in that case) the real wages increase more than otherwise would be expected.

      – DavePhD
      9 hours ago








    • 3





      @Trilarion right, the wage statistics don't consider all the people who aren't working, just those who are.

      – DavePhD
      9 hours ago






    • 1





      One could define the median real income of all people who want to work as the thing to look at. Who knows what "wages in America" really means.

      – Trilarion
      9 hours ago








    • 13





      "the numbers would need to be multiplied by 12 for an annualized rate." um, no. That gets close, but the right annualization is closer to (1+X)^12-1 than X*12. Admittedly at 0.5% it is only off by 0.17% annual. -- less nit picky, you might want to mention that single-month recent data is often subject to correction for a fairly long period after it is released.

      – Yakk
      8 hours ago








    • 2





      Even just the simple .7 x 12 multiplication, you end up with 6.3%, which is greater than the 4.8% number from July 2008. Wouldn't that make the claim true if you squint just the right way? I mean, clearly that's some weird cherry picking and the claim wouldn't hold up to real analysis (it's a huge assumption that one month is typical for a whole year period), but for the data samples shared in this answer, the conclusion seems wrong.

      – Joel Coehoorn
      7 hours ago










    3




    3





    @Trilarion employers tend not to lower nominal hourly wages, so in a deflationary period (2% deflation in that case) the real wages increase more than otherwise would be expected.

    – DavePhD
    9 hours ago







    @Trilarion employers tend not to lower nominal hourly wages, so in a deflationary period (2% deflation in that case) the real wages increase more than otherwise would be expected.

    – DavePhD
    9 hours ago






    3




    3





    @Trilarion right, the wage statistics don't consider all the people who aren't working, just those who are.

    – DavePhD
    9 hours ago





    @Trilarion right, the wage statistics don't consider all the people who aren't working, just those who are.

    – DavePhD
    9 hours ago




    1




    1





    One could define the median real income of all people who want to work as the thing to look at. Who knows what "wages in America" really means.

    – Trilarion
    9 hours ago







    One could define the median real income of all people who want to work as the thing to look at. Who knows what "wages in America" really means.

    – Trilarion
    9 hours ago






    13




    13





    "the numbers would need to be multiplied by 12 for an annualized rate." um, no. That gets close, but the right annualization is closer to (1+X)^12-1 than X*12. Admittedly at 0.5% it is only off by 0.17% annual. -- less nit picky, you might want to mention that single-month recent data is often subject to correction for a fairly long period after it is released.

    – Yakk
    8 hours ago







    "the numbers would need to be multiplied by 12 for an annualized rate." um, no. That gets close, but the right annualization is closer to (1+X)^12-1 than X*12. Admittedly at 0.5% it is only off by 0.17% annual. -- less nit picky, you might want to mention that single-month recent data is often subject to correction for a fairly long period after it is released.

    – Yakk
    8 hours ago






    2




    2





    Even just the simple .7 x 12 multiplication, you end up with 6.3%, which is greater than the 4.8% number from July 2008. Wouldn't that make the claim true if you squint just the right way? I mean, clearly that's some weird cherry picking and the claim wouldn't hold up to real analysis (it's a huge assumption that one month is typical for a whole year period), but for the data samples shared in this answer, the conclusion seems wrong.

    – Joel Coehoorn
    7 hours ago







    Even just the simple .7 x 12 multiplication, you end up with 6.3%, which is greater than the 4.8% number from July 2008. Wouldn't that make the claim true if you squint just the right way? I mean, clearly that's some weird cherry picking and the claim wouldn't hold up to real analysis (it's a huge assumption that one month is typical for a whole year period), but for the data samples shared in this answer, the conclusion seems wrong.

    – Joel Coehoorn
    7 hours ago













    21














    Politifact.com fact-checked Trumps SotU speech and came to the conclusion that wages do indeed rise in the United States:




    One common measurement of wages is median usual weekly real earnings for full-time wage and salary workers 16 years and older, an inflation-adjusted figure.



    During Trump’s presidency, this figure has risen from $351 to $355, an increase of 1.1 percent over the better part of two years.




    But they also pointed out that this trend already started during the Obama era. Wages are on a steady raise since 2014, and that rate of increase didn't really change much after Trump moved into the White House. You can see the numbers on this chart from the Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis.



    us median wage 2010 - 2018




    But the current wage increase began in earnest in the second half of 2014, when Obama was still more than two years away from leaving the White House. Overall, wages increased by 7.5 percent over that period, from $330 to $355.




    Further, there was a similar rise from 1998 to 2002 where the median weekly wage increased from $314 to $341:



    us median wage 1998-2002



    This was an increase of 8.5% over 4 years compared to the 1.1% over 2 years Trump is boasting about.



    Now one might be able to find some truth in Trump's statement by cherry-picking the data or finding different ways to measure wage increases, but generally speaking the claim "fastest raise in wages since decades" is dubious.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 5





      It also pointed out a complete falsehood in the claim "Wages are indeed rising, but they began their upward trajectory under President Barack Obama, and wages actually rose a bit faster under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush." (from your Politifact link, emphasis mine). So unless you define "decades" as a single decade, it seems like they are actually refuting his claim. (you pointed out that wages rise, but never mentioned the rate, a main part of the claim)

      – JMac
      11 hours ago






    • 10





      This measure is quite problematic for multiple reasons: 1. It doesn't take into account the wages of non-full-time employees. 2. It doesn't take into account transitions from full to part time. 3. Price index computation is a political procedure, e.g. in deciding what to count and how much weight to assign different items. Finally, not a problem per se, but - if wages fall for a prolonged period of time, then rise somewhat, they might be rising at the fastest pace in decades but the reason could be a localized "bounce back" from the long descent.

      – einpoklum
      11 hours ago






    • 4





      This answer doesn't have the most recent data.

      – DavePhD
      11 hours ago






    • 1





      @einpoklum "if wages fall for a prolonged period of time, then rise somewhat, they might be rising at the fastest pace in decades but the reason could be a localized "bounce back" from the long descent." Donald Trump didn't say anything about the reason, at least in the quote given in the question. While being true, it might not be relevant here.

      – Trilarion
      9 hours ago






    • 1





      @Oddthinking I expanded the answer to also include the wage increase from 1998 to 2002.

      – Philipp
      9 hours ago
















    21














    Politifact.com fact-checked Trumps SotU speech and came to the conclusion that wages do indeed rise in the United States:




    One common measurement of wages is median usual weekly real earnings for full-time wage and salary workers 16 years and older, an inflation-adjusted figure.



    During Trump’s presidency, this figure has risen from $351 to $355, an increase of 1.1 percent over the better part of two years.




    But they also pointed out that this trend already started during the Obama era. Wages are on a steady raise since 2014, and that rate of increase didn't really change much after Trump moved into the White House. You can see the numbers on this chart from the Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis.



    us median wage 2010 - 2018




    But the current wage increase began in earnest in the second half of 2014, when Obama was still more than two years away from leaving the White House. Overall, wages increased by 7.5 percent over that period, from $330 to $355.




    Further, there was a similar rise from 1998 to 2002 where the median weekly wage increased from $314 to $341:



    us median wage 1998-2002



    This was an increase of 8.5% over 4 years compared to the 1.1% over 2 years Trump is boasting about.



    Now one might be able to find some truth in Trump's statement by cherry-picking the data or finding different ways to measure wage increases, but generally speaking the claim "fastest raise in wages since decades" is dubious.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 5





      It also pointed out a complete falsehood in the claim "Wages are indeed rising, but they began their upward trajectory under President Barack Obama, and wages actually rose a bit faster under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush." (from your Politifact link, emphasis mine). So unless you define "decades" as a single decade, it seems like they are actually refuting his claim. (you pointed out that wages rise, but never mentioned the rate, a main part of the claim)

      – JMac
      11 hours ago






    • 10





      This measure is quite problematic for multiple reasons: 1. It doesn't take into account the wages of non-full-time employees. 2. It doesn't take into account transitions from full to part time. 3. Price index computation is a political procedure, e.g. in deciding what to count and how much weight to assign different items. Finally, not a problem per se, but - if wages fall for a prolonged period of time, then rise somewhat, they might be rising at the fastest pace in decades but the reason could be a localized "bounce back" from the long descent.

      – einpoklum
      11 hours ago






    • 4





      This answer doesn't have the most recent data.

      – DavePhD
      11 hours ago






    • 1





      @einpoklum "if wages fall for a prolonged period of time, then rise somewhat, they might be rising at the fastest pace in decades but the reason could be a localized "bounce back" from the long descent." Donald Trump didn't say anything about the reason, at least in the quote given in the question. While being true, it might not be relevant here.

      – Trilarion
      9 hours ago






    • 1





      @Oddthinking I expanded the answer to also include the wage increase from 1998 to 2002.

      – Philipp
      9 hours ago














    21












    21








    21







    Politifact.com fact-checked Trumps SotU speech and came to the conclusion that wages do indeed rise in the United States:




    One common measurement of wages is median usual weekly real earnings for full-time wage and salary workers 16 years and older, an inflation-adjusted figure.



    During Trump’s presidency, this figure has risen from $351 to $355, an increase of 1.1 percent over the better part of two years.




    But they also pointed out that this trend already started during the Obama era. Wages are on a steady raise since 2014, and that rate of increase didn't really change much after Trump moved into the White House. You can see the numbers on this chart from the Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis.



    us median wage 2010 - 2018




    But the current wage increase began in earnest in the second half of 2014, when Obama was still more than two years away from leaving the White House. Overall, wages increased by 7.5 percent over that period, from $330 to $355.




    Further, there was a similar rise from 1998 to 2002 where the median weekly wage increased from $314 to $341:



    us median wage 1998-2002



    This was an increase of 8.5% over 4 years compared to the 1.1% over 2 years Trump is boasting about.



    Now one might be able to find some truth in Trump's statement by cherry-picking the data or finding different ways to measure wage increases, but generally speaking the claim "fastest raise in wages since decades" is dubious.






    share|improve this answer















    Politifact.com fact-checked Trumps SotU speech and came to the conclusion that wages do indeed rise in the United States:




    One common measurement of wages is median usual weekly real earnings for full-time wage and salary workers 16 years and older, an inflation-adjusted figure.



    During Trump’s presidency, this figure has risen from $351 to $355, an increase of 1.1 percent over the better part of two years.




    But they also pointed out that this trend already started during the Obama era. Wages are on a steady raise since 2014, and that rate of increase didn't really change much after Trump moved into the White House. You can see the numbers on this chart from the Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis.



    us median wage 2010 - 2018




    But the current wage increase began in earnest in the second half of 2014, when Obama was still more than two years away from leaving the White House. Overall, wages increased by 7.5 percent over that period, from $330 to $355.




    Further, there was a similar rise from 1998 to 2002 where the median weekly wage increased from $314 to $341:



    us median wage 1998-2002



    This was an increase of 8.5% over 4 years compared to the 1.1% over 2 years Trump is boasting about.



    Now one might be able to find some truth in Trump's statement by cherry-picking the data or finding different ways to measure wage increases, but generally speaking the claim "fastest raise in wages since decades" is dubious.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 9 hours ago

























    answered 11 hours ago









    PhilippPhilipp

    731618




    731618








    • 5





      It also pointed out a complete falsehood in the claim "Wages are indeed rising, but they began their upward trajectory under President Barack Obama, and wages actually rose a bit faster under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush." (from your Politifact link, emphasis mine). So unless you define "decades" as a single decade, it seems like they are actually refuting his claim. (you pointed out that wages rise, but never mentioned the rate, a main part of the claim)

      – JMac
      11 hours ago






    • 10





      This measure is quite problematic for multiple reasons: 1. It doesn't take into account the wages of non-full-time employees. 2. It doesn't take into account transitions from full to part time. 3. Price index computation is a political procedure, e.g. in deciding what to count and how much weight to assign different items. Finally, not a problem per se, but - if wages fall for a prolonged period of time, then rise somewhat, they might be rising at the fastest pace in decades but the reason could be a localized "bounce back" from the long descent.

      – einpoklum
      11 hours ago






    • 4





      This answer doesn't have the most recent data.

      – DavePhD
      11 hours ago






    • 1





      @einpoklum "if wages fall for a prolonged period of time, then rise somewhat, they might be rising at the fastest pace in decades but the reason could be a localized "bounce back" from the long descent." Donald Trump didn't say anything about the reason, at least in the quote given in the question. While being true, it might not be relevant here.

      – Trilarion
      9 hours ago






    • 1





      @Oddthinking I expanded the answer to also include the wage increase from 1998 to 2002.

      – Philipp
      9 hours ago














    • 5





      It also pointed out a complete falsehood in the claim "Wages are indeed rising, but they began their upward trajectory under President Barack Obama, and wages actually rose a bit faster under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush." (from your Politifact link, emphasis mine). So unless you define "decades" as a single decade, it seems like they are actually refuting his claim. (you pointed out that wages rise, but never mentioned the rate, a main part of the claim)

      – JMac
      11 hours ago






    • 10





      This measure is quite problematic for multiple reasons: 1. It doesn't take into account the wages of non-full-time employees. 2. It doesn't take into account transitions from full to part time. 3. Price index computation is a political procedure, e.g. in deciding what to count and how much weight to assign different items. Finally, not a problem per se, but - if wages fall for a prolonged period of time, then rise somewhat, they might be rising at the fastest pace in decades but the reason could be a localized "bounce back" from the long descent.

      – einpoklum
      11 hours ago






    • 4





      This answer doesn't have the most recent data.

      – DavePhD
      11 hours ago






    • 1





      @einpoklum "if wages fall for a prolonged period of time, then rise somewhat, they might be rising at the fastest pace in decades but the reason could be a localized "bounce back" from the long descent." Donald Trump didn't say anything about the reason, at least in the quote given in the question. While being true, it might not be relevant here.

      – Trilarion
      9 hours ago






    • 1





      @Oddthinking I expanded the answer to also include the wage increase from 1998 to 2002.

      – Philipp
      9 hours ago








    5




    5





    It also pointed out a complete falsehood in the claim "Wages are indeed rising, but they began their upward trajectory under President Barack Obama, and wages actually rose a bit faster under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush." (from your Politifact link, emphasis mine). So unless you define "decades" as a single decade, it seems like they are actually refuting his claim. (you pointed out that wages rise, but never mentioned the rate, a main part of the claim)

    – JMac
    11 hours ago





    It also pointed out a complete falsehood in the claim "Wages are indeed rising, but they began their upward trajectory under President Barack Obama, and wages actually rose a bit faster under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush." (from your Politifact link, emphasis mine). So unless you define "decades" as a single decade, it seems like they are actually refuting his claim. (you pointed out that wages rise, but never mentioned the rate, a main part of the claim)

    – JMac
    11 hours ago




    10




    10





    This measure is quite problematic for multiple reasons: 1. It doesn't take into account the wages of non-full-time employees. 2. It doesn't take into account transitions from full to part time. 3. Price index computation is a political procedure, e.g. in deciding what to count and how much weight to assign different items. Finally, not a problem per se, but - if wages fall for a prolonged period of time, then rise somewhat, they might be rising at the fastest pace in decades but the reason could be a localized "bounce back" from the long descent.

    – einpoklum
    11 hours ago





    This measure is quite problematic for multiple reasons: 1. It doesn't take into account the wages of non-full-time employees. 2. It doesn't take into account transitions from full to part time. 3. Price index computation is a political procedure, e.g. in deciding what to count and how much weight to assign different items. Finally, not a problem per se, but - if wages fall for a prolonged period of time, then rise somewhat, they might be rising at the fastest pace in decades but the reason could be a localized "bounce back" from the long descent.

    – einpoklum
    11 hours ago




    4




    4





    This answer doesn't have the most recent data.

    – DavePhD
    11 hours ago





    This answer doesn't have the most recent data.

    – DavePhD
    11 hours ago




    1




    1





    @einpoklum "if wages fall for a prolonged period of time, then rise somewhat, they might be rising at the fastest pace in decades but the reason could be a localized "bounce back" from the long descent." Donald Trump didn't say anything about the reason, at least in the quote given in the question. While being true, it might not be relevant here.

    – Trilarion
    9 hours ago





    @einpoklum "if wages fall for a prolonged period of time, then rise somewhat, they might be rising at the fastest pace in decades but the reason could be a localized "bounce back" from the long descent." Donald Trump didn't say anything about the reason, at least in the quote given in the question. While being true, it might not be relevant here.

    – Trilarion
    9 hours ago




    1




    1





    @Oddthinking I expanded the answer to also include the wage increase from 1998 to 2002.

    – Philipp
    9 hours ago





    @Oddthinking I expanded the answer to also include the wage increase from 1998 to 2002.

    – Philipp
    9 hours ago











    17














    No.



    As vague as the claim is, there does not appear to be any angle to take in which it is true.



    Looking at the decades:




    Wages in the United States increased 4.20 percent in November of 2018 over the same month in the previous year. Wage Growth in the United States averaged 6.21 percent from 1960 until 2018, reaching an all time high of 13.78 percent in January of 1979 and a record low of -5.88 percent in March of 2009.



    enter image description here



    enter image description here



    United States Wages and Salaries Growth Copyright ©2019 TRADING ECONOMICS



    In the United States, wage growth refers to the yearly change in wages and salaries disbursements from government, manufacturing and service industries. This page provides the latest reported value for - United States Wages and Salaries Growth - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news. United States Wages and Salaries Growth - actual data, historical chart and calendar of releases - was last updated on February of 2019.




    Note that the above is addressing the "rising fastest pace" "in decades".



    If you really want to give some credit to a somewhat rosy looking statistic, perhaps Trump had some absolute numbers like these in mind:




    United States Average Hourly Wages in Manufacturing –– Wages in Manufacturing in the United States decreased to 21.86 USD/Hour in January from 21.91 USD/Hour in December of 2018. Wages in Manufacturing in the United States averaged 9.33 USD/Hour from 1950 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 21.91 USD/Hour in December of 2018 and a record low of 1.27 USD/Hour in February of 1950.



    enter image description hereenter image description here




    But that is, of course, quite different.



    Looking at the exact claim, we see it is not right either way.




    U. S. workers see fastest wage growth in a decade, but inflation takes a toll Washington Post, Heather Long, October 31, 2018.



    U.S. workers are seeing the largest nominal wage increase in a decade, the Labor Department reported Wednesday, as companies compete harder for employees than they did in recent years.



    Wages rose 2.9 percent from September 2017 to September 2018, according to the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index for civilian workers, a widely watched measure of pay that does not take inflation into account.



    That is the biggest increase — not adjusted for inflation — since the year that ended in September 2008.



    Prices have risen significantly in the past year, especially for gas and rent. Adjusted for inflation, workers’ wages grew 0.6 percent over the year, making the increase the largest since 2016, according to the Labor Department.



    Sluggish pay growth has been one of the biggest problems in this recovery, but employers are finally having to hike wages at a more normal level typically seen during good economic times. Unemployment is at a 49-year low and there are more job openings than unemployed Americans, which forces companies to fight for available workers.



    “Wages are grinding higher as the labor market continues to tighten,” said Justin Weidner, an economist at Deutsche Bank. “Wage growth is likely to be over 3 percent again soon.”



    On Friday, the Labor Department will release the other most-watched wage metric: average hourly earnings. Many economists expect that will be above 3 percent for the first time since April 2009.
    […]

    Wage growth has been steadily rising in the past year, according to the Employment Cost Index. From September 2016 to September 2017, wages and salaries rose 2.5 percent, the Labor Department said.



    Some have argued that companies were holding off on increasing wages because they were having to put more money toward benefits, but the Employment Cost Index also tracks benefits costs, and those have not risen as much as wages. Benefits grew 2.6 percent in the year ending September 2018 vs. 2.4 percent in the prior year.



    President Trump has taken credit for the strong economy and frequently likes to tout low unemployment and solid job growth when he is on the campaign trail ahead of the midterm elections. Economists say his policies deserve some credit for triggering faster growth, but unemployment has been falling steadily for eight years and wages have been inching higher.



    “It’s not about the tax cuts. This is about the gradual tightening in the labor market finally forcing employers to pay more,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. “There’s no question the trend is rising, but we are not exploding. We are still in a phase of gradual, incremental creep.”



    Trump campaigned heavily on bringing back blue-collar jobs. While manufacturing and other blue-collar professions are seeing some of the fastest job growth since the mid-1980s, pay is not rising. Most of the wage growth in the Employment Cost Index is coming from service-sector jobs. Pay in the “goods-producing sector” has actually slowed in the past year, notes Michael Pearce, senior U.S. economist at Capital Economics.

    […]

    “Putting food on the table is a constant struggle. I was going to school to be a dental assistant, but I was in a car crash, resulting in nerve damage to my hand,” said Morales, who is 28. “I do the best I can with what I have. Costs keep going up, but my wages haven’t kept pace.”




    Business Insider: Here's why wages in America have been going nowhere, 2018




    Pew research Center: For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades, 2018.
    enter image description here




    Forbes: Real Wage Growth Is Actually Falling, 2018




    Nominal Wage Tracker –– Slow wage growth is a key sign of how far the U.S. economy remains from a full recovery. Economic Policy Institute, Feb 1, 2019



    On some fronts, the economy is steadily healing from the Great Recession. The unemployment rate is down, and the pace of monthly job growth is reversing some of the damage inflicted by the downturn. But the economy remains far from fully recovered.



    A crucial measure of how far from full recovery the economy remains is the growth of nominal wages (wages unadjusted for inflation). Nominal wage growth since the recovery officially began in mid-2009 has been low and flat. This isn’t surprising–the weak labor market of the last seven years has put enormous downward pressure on wages. Employers don’t have to offer big wage increases to get and keep the workers they need. And this remains true even as a jobs recovery has consistently forged ahead in recent years.



    Nominal wage growth has been far below target in the recovery
    Year-over-year change in private-sector nominal average hourly earnings, 2007–2019



    enter image description hereenter image description hereenter image description here




    Summary



    There was a single small bump in wages, well below policy targets, over almost one decade, for a subset of "wages". As the starting point for this statistic was chosen to coincide with the start of the ongoing banking and financial crisis, this is misleading, on top of being blatantly false for the plural of 'decades'.






    share|improve this answer






























      17














      No.



      As vague as the claim is, there does not appear to be any angle to take in which it is true.



      Looking at the decades:




      Wages in the United States increased 4.20 percent in November of 2018 over the same month in the previous year. Wage Growth in the United States averaged 6.21 percent from 1960 until 2018, reaching an all time high of 13.78 percent in January of 1979 and a record low of -5.88 percent in March of 2009.



      enter image description here



      enter image description here



      United States Wages and Salaries Growth Copyright ©2019 TRADING ECONOMICS



      In the United States, wage growth refers to the yearly change in wages and salaries disbursements from government, manufacturing and service industries. This page provides the latest reported value for - United States Wages and Salaries Growth - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news. United States Wages and Salaries Growth - actual data, historical chart and calendar of releases - was last updated on February of 2019.




      Note that the above is addressing the "rising fastest pace" "in decades".



      If you really want to give some credit to a somewhat rosy looking statistic, perhaps Trump had some absolute numbers like these in mind:




      United States Average Hourly Wages in Manufacturing –– Wages in Manufacturing in the United States decreased to 21.86 USD/Hour in January from 21.91 USD/Hour in December of 2018. Wages in Manufacturing in the United States averaged 9.33 USD/Hour from 1950 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 21.91 USD/Hour in December of 2018 and a record low of 1.27 USD/Hour in February of 1950.



      enter image description hereenter image description here




      But that is, of course, quite different.



      Looking at the exact claim, we see it is not right either way.




      U. S. workers see fastest wage growth in a decade, but inflation takes a toll Washington Post, Heather Long, October 31, 2018.



      U.S. workers are seeing the largest nominal wage increase in a decade, the Labor Department reported Wednesday, as companies compete harder for employees than they did in recent years.



      Wages rose 2.9 percent from September 2017 to September 2018, according to the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index for civilian workers, a widely watched measure of pay that does not take inflation into account.



      That is the biggest increase — not adjusted for inflation — since the year that ended in September 2008.



      Prices have risen significantly in the past year, especially for gas and rent. Adjusted for inflation, workers’ wages grew 0.6 percent over the year, making the increase the largest since 2016, according to the Labor Department.



      Sluggish pay growth has been one of the biggest problems in this recovery, but employers are finally having to hike wages at a more normal level typically seen during good economic times. Unemployment is at a 49-year low and there are more job openings than unemployed Americans, which forces companies to fight for available workers.



      “Wages are grinding higher as the labor market continues to tighten,” said Justin Weidner, an economist at Deutsche Bank. “Wage growth is likely to be over 3 percent again soon.”



      On Friday, the Labor Department will release the other most-watched wage metric: average hourly earnings. Many economists expect that will be above 3 percent for the first time since April 2009.
      […]

      Wage growth has been steadily rising in the past year, according to the Employment Cost Index. From September 2016 to September 2017, wages and salaries rose 2.5 percent, the Labor Department said.



      Some have argued that companies were holding off on increasing wages because they were having to put more money toward benefits, but the Employment Cost Index also tracks benefits costs, and those have not risen as much as wages. Benefits grew 2.6 percent in the year ending September 2018 vs. 2.4 percent in the prior year.



      President Trump has taken credit for the strong economy and frequently likes to tout low unemployment and solid job growth when he is on the campaign trail ahead of the midterm elections. Economists say his policies deserve some credit for triggering faster growth, but unemployment has been falling steadily for eight years and wages have been inching higher.



      “It’s not about the tax cuts. This is about the gradual tightening in the labor market finally forcing employers to pay more,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. “There’s no question the trend is rising, but we are not exploding. We are still in a phase of gradual, incremental creep.”



      Trump campaigned heavily on bringing back blue-collar jobs. While manufacturing and other blue-collar professions are seeing some of the fastest job growth since the mid-1980s, pay is not rising. Most of the wage growth in the Employment Cost Index is coming from service-sector jobs. Pay in the “goods-producing sector” has actually slowed in the past year, notes Michael Pearce, senior U.S. economist at Capital Economics.

      […]

      “Putting food on the table is a constant struggle. I was going to school to be a dental assistant, but I was in a car crash, resulting in nerve damage to my hand,” said Morales, who is 28. “I do the best I can with what I have. Costs keep going up, but my wages haven’t kept pace.”




      Business Insider: Here's why wages in America have been going nowhere, 2018




      Pew research Center: For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades, 2018.
      enter image description here




      Forbes: Real Wage Growth Is Actually Falling, 2018




      Nominal Wage Tracker –– Slow wage growth is a key sign of how far the U.S. economy remains from a full recovery. Economic Policy Institute, Feb 1, 2019



      On some fronts, the economy is steadily healing from the Great Recession. The unemployment rate is down, and the pace of monthly job growth is reversing some of the damage inflicted by the downturn. But the economy remains far from fully recovered.



      A crucial measure of how far from full recovery the economy remains is the growth of nominal wages (wages unadjusted for inflation). Nominal wage growth since the recovery officially began in mid-2009 has been low and flat. This isn’t surprising–the weak labor market of the last seven years has put enormous downward pressure on wages. Employers don’t have to offer big wage increases to get and keep the workers they need. And this remains true even as a jobs recovery has consistently forged ahead in recent years.



      Nominal wage growth has been far below target in the recovery
      Year-over-year change in private-sector nominal average hourly earnings, 2007–2019



      enter image description hereenter image description hereenter image description here




      Summary



      There was a single small bump in wages, well below policy targets, over almost one decade, for a subset of "wages". As the starting point for this statistic was chosen to coincide with the start of the ongoing banking and financial crisis, this is misleading, on top of being blatantly false for the plural of 'decades'.






      share|improve this answer




























        17












        17








        17







        No.



        As vague as the claim is, there does not appear to be any angle to take in which it is true.



        Looking at the decades:




        Wages in the United States increased 4.20 percent in November of 2018 over the same month in the previous year. Wage Growth in the United States averaged 6.21 percent from 1960 until 2018, reaching an all time high of 13.78 percent in January of 1979 and a record low of -5.88 percent in March of 2009.



        enter image description here



        enter image description here



        United States Wages and Salaries Growth Copyright ©2019 TRADING ECONOMICS



        In the United States, wage growth refers to the yearly change in wages and salaries disbursements from government, manufacturing and service industries. This page provides the latest reported value for - United States Wages and Salaries Growth - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news. United States Wages and Salaries Growth - actual data, historical chart and calendar of releases - was last updated on February of 2019.




        Note that the above is addressing the "rising fastest pace" "in decades".



        If you really want to give some credit to a somewhat rosy looking statistic, perhaps Trump had some absolute numbers like these in mind:




        United States Average Hourly Wages in Manufacturing –– Wages in Manufacturing in the United States decreased to 21.86 USD/Hour in January from 21.91 USD/Hour in December of 2018. Wages in Manufacturing in the United States averaged 9.33 USD/Hour from 1950 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 21.91 USD/Hour in December of 2018 and a record low of 1.27 USD/Hour in February of 1950.



        enter image description hereenter image description here




        But that is, of course, quite different.



        Looking at the exact claim, we see it is not right either way.




        U. S. workers see fastest wage growth in a decade, but inflation takes a toll Washington Post, Heather Long, October 31, 2018.



        U.S. workers are seeing the largest nominal wage increase in a decade, the Labor Department reported Wednesday, as companies compete harder for employees than they did in recent years.



        Wages rose 2.9 percent from September 2017 to September 2018, according to the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index for civilian workers, a widely watched measure of pay that does not take inflation into account.



        That is the biggest increase — not adjusted for inflation — since the year that ended in September 2008.



        Prices have risen significantly in the past year, especially for gas and rent. Adjusted for inflation, workers’ wages grew 0.6 percent over the year, making the increase the largest since 2016, according to the Labor Department.



        Sluggish pay growth has been one of the biggest problems in this recovery, but employers are finally having to hike wages at a more normal level typically seen during good economic times. Unemployment is at a 49-year low and there are more job openings than unemployed Americans, which forces companies to fight for available workers.



        “Wages are grinding higher as the labor market continues to tighten,” said Justin Weidner, an economist at Deutsche Bank. “Wage growth is likely to be over 3 percent again soon.”



        On Friday, the Labor Department will release the other most-watched wage metric: average hourly earnings. Many economists expect that will be above 3 percent for the first time since April 2009.
        […]

        Wage growth has been steadily rising in the past year, according to the Employment Cost Index. From September 2016 to September 2017, wages and salaries rose 2.5 percent, the Labor Department said.



        Some have argued that companies were holding off on increasing wages because they were having to put more money toward benefits, but the Employment Cost Index also tracks benefits costs, and those have not risen as much as wages. Benefits grew 2.6 percent in the year ending September 2018 vs. 2.4 percent in the prior year.



        President Trump has taken credit for the strong economy and frequently likes to tout low unemployment and solid job growth when he is on the campaign trail ahead of the midterm elections. Economists say his policies deserve some credit for triggering faster growth, but unemployment has been falling steadily for eight years and wages have been inching higher.



        “It’s not about the tax cuts. This is about the gradual tightening in the labor market finally forcing employers to pay more,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. “There’s no question the trend is rising, but we are not exploding. We are still in a phase of gradual, incremental creep.”



        Trump campaigned heavily on bringing back blue-collar jobs. While manufacturing and other blue-collar professions are seeing some of the fastest job growth since the mid-1980s, pay is not rising. Most of the wage growth in the Employment Cost Index is coming from service-sector jobs. Pay in the “goods-producing sector” has actually slowed in the past year, notes Michael Pearce, senior U.S. economist at Capital Economics.

        […]

        “Putting food on the table is a constant struggle. I was going to school to be a dental assistant, but I was in a car crash, resulting in nerve damage to my hand,” said Morales, who is 28. “I do the best I can with what I have. Costs keep going up, but my wages haven’t kept pace.”




        Business Insider: Here's why wages in America have been going nowhere, 2018




        Pew research Center: For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades, 2018.
        enter image description here




        Forbes: Real Wage Growth Is Actually Falling, 2018




        Nominal Wage Tracker –– Slow wage growth is a key sign of how far the U.S. economy remains from a full recovery. Economic Policy Institute, Feb 1, 2019



        On some fronts, the economy is steadily healing from the Great Recession. The unemployment rate is down, and the pace of monthly job growth is reversing some of the damage inflicted by the downturn. But the economy remains far from fully recovered.



        A crucial measure of how far from full recovery the economy remains is the growth of nominal wages (wages unadjusted for inflation). Nominal wage growth since the recovery officially began in mid-2009 has been low and flat. This isn’t surprising–the weak labor market of the last seven years has put enormous downward pressure on wages. Employers don’t have to offer big wage increases to get and keep the workers they need. And this remains true even as a jobs recovery has consistently forged ahead in recent years.



        Nominal wage growth has been far below target in the recovery
        Year-over-year change in private-sector nominal average hourly earnings, 2007–2019



        enter image description hereenter image description hereenter image description here




        Summary



        There was a single small bump in wages, well below policy targets, over almost one decade, for a subset of "wages". As the starting point for this statistic was chosen to coincide with the start of the ongoing banking and financial crisis, this is misleading, on top of being blatantly false for the plural of 'decades'.






        share|improve this answer















        No.



        As vague as the claim is, there does not appear to be any angle to take in which it is true.



        Looking at the decades:




        Wages in the United States increased 4.20 percent in November of 2018 over the same month in the previous year. Wage Growth in the United States averaged 6.21 percent from 1960 until 2018, reaching an all time high of 13.78 percent in January of 1979 and a record low of -5.88 percent in March of 2009.



        enter image description here



        enter image description here



        United States Wages and Salaries Growth Copyright ©2019 TRADING ECONOMICS



        In the United States, wage growth refers to the yearly change in wages and salaries disbursements from government, manufacturing and service industries. This page provides the latest reported value for - United States Wages and Salaries Growth - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news. United States Wages and Salaries Growth - actual data, historical chart and calendar of releases - was last updated on February of 2019.




        Note that the above is addressing the "rising fastest pace" "in decades".



        If you really want to give some credit to a somewhat rosy looking statistic, perhaps Trump had some absolute numbers like these in mind:




        United States Average Hourly Wages in Manufacturing –– Wages in Manufacturing in the United States decreased to 21.86 USD/Hour in January from 21.91 USD/Hour in December of 2018. Wages in Manufacturing in the United States averaged 9.33 USD/Hour from 1950 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 21.91 USD/Hour in December of 2018 and a record low of 1.27 USD/Hour in February of 1950.



        enter image description hereenter image description here




        But that is, of course, quite different.



        Looking at the exact claim, we see it is not right either way.




        U. S. workers see fastest wage growth in a decade, but inflation takes a toll Washington Post, Heather Long, October 31, 2018.



        U.S. workers are seeing the largest nominal wage increase in a decade, the Labor Department reported Wednesday, as companies compete harder for employees than they did in recent years.



        Wages rose 2.9 percent from September 2017 to September 2018, according to the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index for civilian workers, a widely watched measure of pay that does not take inflation into account.



        That is the biggest increase — not adjusted for inflation — since the year that ended in September 2008.



        Prices have risen significantly in the past year, especially for gas and rent. Adjusted for inflation, workers’ wages grew 0.6 percent over the year, making the increase the largest since 2016, according to the Labor Department.



        Sluggish pay growth has been one of the biggest problems in this recovery, but employers are finally having to hike wages at a more normal level typically seen during good economic times. Unemployment is at a 49-year low and there are more job openings than unemployed Americans, which forces companies to fight for available workers.



        “Wages are grinding higher as the labor market continues to tighten,” said Justin Weidner, an economist at Deutsche Bank. “Wage growth is likely to be over 3 percent again soon.”



        On Friday, the Labor Department will release the other most-watched wage metric: average hourly earnings. Many economists expect that will be above 3 percent for the first time since April 2009.
        […]

        Wage growth has been steadily rising in the past year, according to the Employment Cost Index. From September 2016 to September 2017, wages and salaries rose 2.5 percent, the Labor Department said.



        Some have argued that companies were holding off on increasing wages because they were having to put more money toward benefits, but the Employment Cost Index also tracks benefits costs, and those have not risen as much as wages. Benefits grew 2.6 percent in the year ending September 2018 vs. 2.4 percent in the prior year.



        President Trump has taken credit for the strong economy and frequently likes to tout low unemployment and solid job growth when he is on the campaign trail ahead of the midterm elections. Economists say his policies deserve some credit for triggering faster growth, but unemployment has been falling steadily for eight years and wages have been inching higher.



        “It’s not about the tax cuts. This is about the gradual tightening in the labor market finally forcing employers to pay more,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. “There’s no question the trend is rising, but we are not exploding. We are still in a phase of gradual, incremental creep.”



        Trump campaigned heavily on bringing back blue-collar jobs. While manufacturing and other blue-collar professions are seeing some of the fastest job growth since the mid-1980s, pay is not rising. Most of the wage growth in the Employment Cost Index is coming from service-sector jobs. Pay in the “goods-producing sector” has actually slowed in the past year, notes Michael Pearce, senior U.S. economist at Capital Economics.

        […]

        “Putting food on the table is a constant struggle. I was going to school to be a dental assistant, but I was in a car crash, resulting in nerve damage to my hand,” said Morales, who is 28. “I do the best I can with what I have. Costs keep going up, but my wages haven’t kept pace.”




        Business Insider: Here's why wages in America have been going nowhere, 2018




        Pew research Center: For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades, 2018.
        enter image description here




        Forbes: Real Wage Growth Is Actually Falling, 2018




        Nominal Wage Tracker –– Slow wage growth is a key sign of how far the U.S. economy remains from a full recovery. Economic Policy Institute, Feb 1, 2019



        On some fronts, the economy is steadily healing from the Great Recession. The unemployment rate is down, and the pace of monthly job growth is reversing some of the damage inflicted by the downturn. But the economy remains far from fully recovered.



        A crucial measure of how far from full recovery the economy remains is the growth of nominal wages (wages unadjusted for inflation). Nominal wage growth since the recovery officially began in mid-2009 has been low and flat. This isn’t surprising–the weak labor market of the last seven years has put enormous downward pressure on wages. Employers don’t have to offer big wage increases to get and keep the workers they need. And this remains true even as a jobs recovery has consistently forged ahead in recent years.



        Nominal wage growth has been far below target in the recovery
        Year-over-year change in private-sector nominal average hourly earnings, 2007–2019



        enter image description hereenter image description hereenter image description here




        Summary



        There was a single small bump in wages, well below policy targets, over almost one decade, for a subset of "wages". As the starting point for this statistic was chosen to coincide with the start of the ongoing banking and financial crisis, this is misleading, on top of being blatantly false for the plural of 'decades'.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 2 hours ago









        Oddthinking

        101k31421527




        101k31421527










        answered 9 hours ago









        LangLangCLangLangC

        14.1k46178




        14.1k46178















            Popular posts from this blog

            Callistus I

            Tabula Rosettana

            How to label and detect the document text images