Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Stagnant Wages



http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=151131&id=U6RATE,MEHOINUSA672N&scale=Right,Left&range=Max,18+years&cosd=1994-01-01,1994-01-01&coed=2013-11-01,2012-01-01&line_color=%23ff0000,%23006600&link_values=false,false&line_style=Solid,Solid&mark_type=NONE,NONE&mw=4,4&lw=1,1&ost=-99999,-99999&oet=99999,99999&mma=0,0&fml=10-a,a&fq=Monthly,Annual&fam=avg,avg&fgst=lin,lin&transformation=lin,lin&vintage_date=2013-12-11,2013-12-11&revision_date=2013-12-11,2013-12-11
Tough to hide all the data.  This is an example.  Note: U-6 inverted right scale. 

Regular reader (face it plural is pushing it) will notice right away that for the super-majority the way to earn more is to work more.  That's the wonder of median as opposed to average.  That and of course the increasingly dishonest use of U-3 instead of U-6 for gauging employment conditions. 

As Stagflationary Mark quipped when I showed him this graph earlier, "As for your chart, real median household income can't stay at 1995 levels forever!"  



3 comments:

John Doug said...

Fewe jobs and more competition for them. Not a good
time to be a corporate serf.

Stagflationary Mark said...

As Stagflationary Mark quipped when I showed him this graph earlier, "As for your chart, real median household income can't stay at 1995 levels forever!"

That's right! Bound to go up and/or down from here over the long-term based on all that volatility! Sigh.

So we've got that goin' for us, which is nice.

Rob Dawg said...

Too many noses. Not enough grindstones.