Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

After Six Years of Growth, Wages Are Still Stagnant

By Bonddad , The Bonddad Blog. Posted July 24, 2007.


The Corporate Right sees Americans' economic anxiety as part of their "liberal media" conspiracy theory. The truth is that people are hurting because, with the exception of those at the top, they haven't had a raise in a long time.
Advertisement

The Right Wing Noise Machine econ division has continued to tell us that this is the greatest expansion since sliced bread. However, the underlying statistics indicate otherwise. Job growth is still the weakest of the last 60 years. And most importantly, wage growth is still lagging. This is the central reason why the economy continues to poll poorly. How would you feel if you hadn't had a raise in 7 years?

Let's start with information from the Federal Reserve. Their latest report on consumer finances was published in 2005, titled the Survey of Consumer finances. It stated:

The survey shows that, over the 2001-04 period, the median value of real (inflation-adjusted) family income before taxes continued to trend up, rising 1.6%, whereas the mean value fell 2.3 percent….These results stand in contract ot the strong and broad gains seen for the period 1998 and 2001 surveys and to the smaller but similarly broad gains between the 1995 and 1998 surveys.

The Federal Reserve is not the only source that indicates wages have been stagnant. The Census Bureau keeps track of median and mean incomes. The last year they have computations for is 2005. Median income in 2005 dollars was $46,569 in 2001 and $46,326 in 2006. Mean income in 2005 dollars was $64,191 in 2001 and $63,344 in 2005. Notice that after adjusting for inflation, mean and median income statistics are lower in 2005 than in 2001. These are not healthy developments.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics also keeps track of wages in the form of average hourly earnings of production workers. These figures have to be adjusted for inflation. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research this expansion started in November 2001 when the wages was $14.72. This figure was $17.38 in June of 2007 for an increase of 18.07%. Over the same period the inflation level increased from 177.4 to 208.352 for an increase of 17.44%. That means that since this expansion began, wages have increase .63%. From a practical perspective, this means wages have basically stood still.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis issues the personal income figures every month. The problem with this statistic is it is a macro-level statistic. This means it includes the top 10%, which has disproportionately gained income during this expansion:

Those earlier barons disappeared by the 1920s and, constrained by the Depression and by the greater government oversight and high income tax rates that followed, no one really took their place. Then, starting in the late 1970s, as the constraints receded, new tycoons gradually emerged, and now their concentrated wealth has made the early years of the 21st century truly another Gilded Age.

Only twice before over the last century has 5 percent of the national income gone to families in the upper one-one-hundredth of a percent of the income distribution — currently, the almost 15,000 families with incomes of $9.5 million or more a year, according to an analysis of tax returns by the economists Emmanuel Saez at the University of California, Berkeley and Thomas Piketty at the Paris School of Economics.

Such concentration at the very top occurred in 1915 and 1916, as the Gilded Age was ending, and again briefly in the late 1920s, before the stock market crash. Now it is back, and Mr. Weill is prominent among the new titans. His net worth exceeds $1 billion, not counting the $500 million he says he has already given away, in the open-handed style of Andrew Carnegie and the other great philanthropists of the earlier age.

This same observation was made in the latest Foreign Affairs article titled A New Deal For Globalization:

The astonishing skewness of U.S. income growth is evident in the analysis of other measures as well. The growth in total income reported on tax returns has been extremely concentrated in recent years: the share of national income accounted for by the top one percent of income earners reached 21.8% in 2005 -- a level not seen since 1928. In addition to high labor earnings, income growth is driven by corporate profits, which are at a nearly 50-year highs as a share of national income and which accrue mainly to those with high labor earnings.

If Bill Gates enters a room with 100 people who all make minimum wage, then the average and median income of the room is still impressive.

The short version is simple. Wages aren't increasing. That explains why 6 in 10 people think the country is on the wrong track. How would you feel if you hadn't had an increase in your salary in the last 7 years?


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: economy, wages


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
This is the Key Issue. The Capital/Labor relationship is always at the very core of all else.
Posted by: yellow on Jul 25, 2007 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cheapening labor is the very basis of the far right's political strategy. This is at the core of all of their war mongering, theocratic demigoguery, destruction of basic freedoms formerly taken for granted, and rending of the social safety net. The reduction of wages and salaries of those below the median annual income is at the core of the expansion of incomes at the very top, unprecedented corporate profit rates, the bloating of the financial markets, and the unprecedented rallying of the stock market and its high volume of trades. All this is supported by slave labor not only abroad but here at home.

It is true that an increasing amount of big corporate profit is gleaned abroad as was shown by the recent tax scandles involving big pharma and the failure of any of the big drug companies to pay even close to the 35% rate on global profits as agreed to back in 2001 as part of a profits repatriation deal(the worst offender was Pfizer paying only 2% on over $13 billion in global profits while Merke paid the highest at 19%). But the ability of big corporations to offshore production has depressed wages and destroyed union bargaining power. The strongest unions such as UAW are taking 50% pay cuts in order to keep jobs in the US as evidenced by the recent Delphi workers contract settlement with GM for a wage reduction from over $27/hr. to about $14/hr. Meanwhile Walmart, with its offshoring of suppliers for the last twenty years to China have put downward pressure on the wages of UFCW workers in various grocery chains nationwide whereever Walmart opens their SuperCenters. The general effect of all of this activity has lowered overall demand in the US economy. It has driven a business model based on cheap domestic labor affording only cheap imports and a globalization of the basis of corporate profit rather than predicating it on the strength of middle class incomes and effective domestic demand.

One of the misconceptions about all of this is that durable goods manufacturing has permanently left the US and that the total value of US based manufacturing production is a small fraction of what is once was never to return. This is actually false. In 2006, over $4.5 trillion in manufactured goods were produced in the US almost half of it by US subsidiaries of foreign firms like Japanese auto makers. The point is that durable goods manufacturing in the US is cheaper and "leaner" using fewer workers, more advanced technology and averaging much higher output per worker than previously. Today, wages are about 11% of the total overhead costs of domestic US manufacturing. A much greater share of the profits of this industry are accruing to capital despite the fact that average manufacturing wages are well above the national median.

Globalization isn't just about restructuring the economic division of labor to concentrate production where labor is cheapest. It is all about cheapening labor everywhere in the process. Offshoring is only a part of that process and not the whole process itself. Only a globally linked workers' and social justice movement can defeat the crushing of labor that has occured over the past three decades. This is basically a political task.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

President-Lifeaholics of America
Posted by: swinney on Jul 28, 2007 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BUSH ECONOVOMITS

JOBS
NET NEW JOBS PER MONTH

Clinton—237,000
Carter----218,000
Reagan---175,000
Bush II----70,000 (He brags on this-wow)

TOTAL STOCK MARKET GROWTH
PERCENT INCREASE PER YEAR

Clinton---41%
Bush I----21
Reagan---17
Carter------5
Bush II-----4 ( he calls this Zoom?)

How? Yes, much money has been made as the stocks climbed out of deep hole.
Example—Cisco zoomed from $75 to $15. Deep hole. Then, over six years it zoomed to $35.
S& P just recently reached it’s 2000 Level.
One-Half the Dow thousands just go back to 2000 level. Not Dow 30.
HOME COSTS

Average annual income to buy an average priced home
2000-3.2 years----2006—5.4 years
An increase of 68% over six years.
The next noise you hear will be Foreclosure Boom
INFLATION

Ignore gasoline—home prices—education prices—heath care prices
Everything is beautiful if you can control the numbers.

MONEY SUPPLY

M-3
Increase in each decade
1970—1207 Billion
1980---2266
1990---2612
2000---3693 (6 years)

Increase per year for each decade
1970—120
1980---226
1990---261
2000---615 (6 years) will hit 800?
Life is grand when Chairman and all Federal Reserve Officials are “Conservative” Republicans

Ok! So the Europeans can buy our goods now—
In 2000 it took $.83 to buy a Euro. Now it takes $1.37
3 course-set meal-lunch-London-$61.50--Nyc-$45
Four Seasons room--London-$1,000--Nyc-$465.

DEBT—

1980—Less than 1000 Billion (after 200 years)
1990---4,000 (12 years of Conservative Republicanism)
2000---5700
2007--- 8881 (7-10-07) wow! More Spend and Borrow let Kids Pay Tomorrow Conservatism

SPENDING

Clinton last budget 1.84 Trillion. Bush up to 2.9 with one budget to go.
Reagan increased Total Sending by 80%. Bush may tie LBJ at 60%.
Note how Heritage-AEI and all Conservatives count only one-half of the budget as their presidents responsibility. Watch them on Revenues. They will cheat. They will use correlations where there is no connection.
SAVINGS

Total National Savings has gone negative for first time since Conservative Big Crash

PROFITS

Corporate profits at all time high
Buy overseas at $.50 cent per hour labor and sell to suckers as tho $10 per hour labor
Keep minimum wage as low as possible.
Use two part time instead one full time
Do not pay Insurance.
Maximize Profits like good Christians.
Ever hear of optimizing profits?
Buy Washington. It is cheap.

INTEREST RATES

Republican Federal Reserve let Clinton end with a 6.5 % rate then few months later gave Bush a 1% rate. If this Federal Reserve is non-partisan I will shoot a 61 tomorrow.
Greenspan gave Clinton 13 significant rate hikes during campaign years.
Everything is beautiful if you are Mega-Rich.

Clarence Swinney
Political Research Historian since 1991 on Reagan-Clinton-Bush II administrations
Burlington nc
cwswinney@netzero.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]