
The 1969 male worker median salary was $35,567 (in 2012 dollars). Today: $33,904 - ColinWright
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/the-new-main-street-consensus
======
spindritf
Women joined the workforce, supply went up, price went down. Toss in
globalization (trade), more immigration, automation, and it was inevitable.

~~~
wisty
Many countries have seen median salaries increase. It's not really a global
phenomenon.

~~~
thatthatis
You mean primarily the ones at the lower end of the spectrum who due to
globalization are rapidly converging on the salaries of higher end countries?

Or are you talking about a subset of developed/g8 nations?

------
SimonInman
"In 1969 the median salary for a male worker was $35,567 (in 2012 dollars).
Today it is $33,904. So for 44 years, while wages for the top 10 percent have
continued to climb, most Americans have been caught in a ”Great Stagnation,”
bringing into question the whole purpose of the American capitalist economy.
The notion that what benefited the establishment would benefit everyone, had
been thoroughly discredited."

I don't believe this analysis (which appears to be the central point of the
piece) is meaningful. What is the author trying to compare and why? A male
worker in 1969 could not buy a smartphone or a flat screen television. They
would pay far more for air travel. Does it really make sense to quote their
salary in 2012 dollars?

I would be interested to see the price of basic necessities over time. I would
imagine Walmart, etc, would have caused a fall in food prices; I am unsure of
other factors.

~~~
wisty
The CPI is meant to account for this.

It's weighted, and accounts for the changing quality of goods. The weighting
goes something like: Housing, Transportation, Food and Beverages, Recreation,
Apparel, Medical Care, Education and Communication, Other Goods and Services;
in order of importance.

The fact that an iPhone costs less this year than 5 years ago isn't a huge
issue for most people. Rising rents (or imputed rents), transport costs, food
costs, etc is more important.

So yes, in 1969 a flat screen TV (or whatever the equivalent was) would have
cost a lot. But food, housing, and so on was cheap. The CPI already accounts
for this. Now, the tin-foil brigade who think CPI is flawed typically argue
that basic necessities (housing, food) have gone up a lot more; which is the
point I think you are trying to make. And it's kind of valid.

You are also arguing the opposite point - that new products are often better
than old ones. The CPI aims to strike a balance - some stuff is more
expensive, and other things are cheaper.

But overall, CPI is a pretty valid way to compare how much bang consumers get
for their buck.

------
salient
Median salaries can't and don't show anything about inequality in salaries,
though. If the salaries of the "top 10 percent continued to grow", while the
"median salary" is roughly the same, then that means the salaries of the
bottom 80-90 percent have dropped by a lot more since 1969, and there have
been other charts showing this.

~~~
Sharlin
No; all else being equal, the median salary stays exactly the same independent
of how much the top 10 percent salaries grow. The _mean_ salary is another
matter entirely.

An example:

    
    
        1 2 4 6 7 8 9
              ^
    
        1 2 4 6 7 1000 100000
              ^
    

The median is 6 in both cases.

------
danielweber
Are benefits included? The article isn't coming up for me, but I'm betting
"no."

------
apiapi
Kaynes in the 30' thought we would work 4h per day in 2000' for the same level
of life because evolution of productivity. But because of marketing, we have
more needs (cell phone, internet, advanced technical material etc...) so we
need to continue to work 40-60 hours per week to live an average life.

If we decide to live with less, we will work less, so much less. It is a
society mindset. (but I want to keep internet!!)

