Re: Not always joking, it seems

In article <fpee2m$100v$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Matthias Warkus <Warkus@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Karl M. Syring schrieb:
> > On 16 Feb., 09:16, Matthias Warkus <War...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > wrote:
> >> Willie.Moo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 schrieb:
> >>
> >>> Today, we do not hear pundits speak of too cheap to meter - instead
we
> >>> hear pundits say this is the first generation of Americans that will
> >>> not live better than their parents.
> >> Note this has been said about the last two generations already.
> >> "Generation X" came out in 1989, after all.
> > 
> > I admit, It was true in 1989 so it is the second generation getting
> > screwed.
> 
> It seems that you can torture the statistics any way you like on this 
> issue. Conventional wisdom has it that US real wages have been more or 
> less declinining since the 1960s, without ever really picking up in 
> between, but the German Federation of Labour Unions, of all things, 
> maintains they have gone up 30.6 % between 1980 and 2000.

I don't know where your "conventional wisdom" is coming from, but the 
U.S. Statistical Abstract shows per capita money income in constant 
(i.e. inflation adjusted) dollars roughly doubling from 1967 to 2005.

Using 2005 dollars, the 1980 figure is 17,473, the 2006 figure is 
25,036, so by that measure the Federation is understating the growth.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditures_poverty_w
ealth.html

I don't know what definition of "US real wages" is being used, but I 
don't think any plausible definition is going to show them declining 
over a period when real per capita income has doubled.

-- 
 http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
 Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
 Published by Baen, in bookstores now