Raise your hand if your wages have risen 22%.

[madfloridian]

Or if you think the economy is doing just fine. Andres Oppenheimer thinks so.

I am no economist, nor do I ever write about such issues. But this op ed column today hit me right between the eyes. What's that you say? 6000 people applied for 300 jobs at a WalMart?

Someone's spinning, and I am not even knowledgeable enough to spin on economics.

Hillary, don't succumb to anti-trade lobby

A recent study by the Center for Trade Policy Studies, which supports free trade, says that contrary to the daily claims by several Democratic presidential hopefuls and cable television isolationist-xenophobic crusaders, there is no statistical evidence to support the myth that free trade is killing the U.S. middle-class.

• Today's U.S. economy is at near-full employment, with 16.5 million more workers than a decade ago, the center's study says.

• After more than a decade of NAFTA, the average compensation to U.S. workers, including wages and benefits, increased by 22 percent. Claims that there has been a decline in U.S. real wages in recent decades are misleading because they don't take into account benefits, which have become a growing portion of workers' total compensation packages, it says.

Then Oppenheimer adds the talking point that is getting old very quickly.

Trade accounts for only 3 percent of U.S. dislocated workers' job losses. The vast majority of U.S. displaced workers lost their jobs because of technological advances, it says.

I really want to talk to the people who have been getting 22% raises in compensation. Speak up.

[eyesroll]

1. I wonder what the *median* increase was.

I bet it's a lot less than 22%....but the CEO's whose income has increased several hundred percent skew the average (which I'm assuming is "mean" here) figures.

[madfloridian]

3. But he uses the term "U. S. workers".

Which does not appear to include the CEOs

[Lasher]

8. Oh but you can rest assured that it does. n/t

[sandnsea]

benefits - look at the benefits

Wages and benefits. Benefits are health care premiums. Which have increased. So they're taking a real money benefit to the investor class and pretending it's a benefit to workers.

[Lasher]

18. Pensions are benefits

How are those lucrative pension benefits workin' for ya? Are you glad the defined benefits pension plans have been replaced with 401(k) savings plans? Do you wish you had a chance of getting the same company pension as someone who retired 20 or even 5 years ago?

[MADem]

2. Not me! I'm living on less than half what I used to make! nt

[SoCalDem]

43. In 1996, my husband made $1500 a week with a company car & free gas

Now he makes considerably less, but is happier with the company he works for, and he always gets a nice bonus, so some is made up for...but he's making about $450 a week less..

and of course everything has gone up a lot in 12 years..

[MADem]

52. Well, I retired!

I find I don't need to be throwing money around so much, now. I'm careful, so I do OK.

I am considerably happier not having to do those twelve to sixteen hour days, often seven days a week.

[Lasher]

4. This is just so pathetic.

I don't really know where to start so for once I won't.

[maddiejoan]

5. I was laid off in August.

So --not me.

[sandnsea]

6. Health care skyrockets benefiting the investors

causing premiums (health benefit) to skyrocket - and that's an increase in US worker compensation.

God these people are real pieces of work.

[ixion]

7. up? hardly. I just took a pay cut...

the job market, while not entirely anemic, is not a friendly place these days.

[aikoaiko]

9. about 20-22% since 1999 at the same job

[madfloridian]

12. That's great.

Good for you.

[aikoaiko]

23. And yet, I still feel underappreciated. I imagine 22% is close to inflation over 10 years.

[TahitiNut]

47. If your productivity and skills are increasing as well, you're NOT being compensated ....

... commensurate to the VALUE of your work, all other things being equal. Inflation (as I noted below) over the ten years ending in 2006 and 2007 has been 28% and 30% respectively. Thus, a 22% increase in TEN years is actually a DECREASE in compensation.

Employees, especially in their 20s and 30s, should (on average) see their wages increase due to their increased productivity due to skills and experience. Indeed, this is what often DELUDES 20-somethings and 30-somethings into thinking "the economcy is good because I'm earning more." Well, they SHOULD earn more, even in a receding economy.

[RebelOne]

72. Considering I get a 2% raise each year and I have been

at this job for almost 11 years, you could say my salary has risen by 22%, but so have living expenses. So I'm not any richer than I was 11 years ago.

[jtrockville]

10. "Benefits" + skyrocketing CEO compensation = big "average" increase

Health insurance costs have skyrocketed (with no real benefit, I might add). This is considered to be part of our "compensation".

Also, CEO compensation is skyrocketing, so even if most of us earn less than before, put just one CEO into the mix and the average can turn into a huge positive.

[sandnsea]

17. Exactly

The cost of benefits goes up and they pretend that's an increase in compensation to the worker. Unreal.

[dmallind]

20. not much impact on median though

There are too few CEOs and bigwigs to dramatically skew the median, which is far more often used in income analyses than mean. If he's using mean then it's an issue, but even then a very small one. There really are few of the obscene incomes compared to the 150MM+ US workforce. I remember discussions of exorbitant executive pay at NWA a few years ago, and the union rep confidently claimed on the Radio that CEO Anderson's pay alone could cover their demands. I was somewhat skeptical, and found out that even taken his entire income would give each worker less than 1% increase in salary alone. Now you can certainly argue, and with some merit, that that would be a better use of the money, but it doesn't mean that executive pay is going to be a source of meaningful largesse to workers no matter how extreme a scenario we could come up with.

[TahitiNut]

45. The article clearly states "the AVERAGE compensation to U.S. workers"

It's the typical "mythical average" ... where HUGE increases at the high end mask the overwhelming number of decreases at the bottom.

[dmallind]

68. Read my post again. Brain still not addled.... NT

lhhkj

[RDANGELO]

28. That's trickle down economics.

All the real new wealth is going to the top. Whoever gets the Dem nomination needs to drive this home. NO MORE TRICKLE DOWN SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS.

[NewJeffCT]

50. An example of increased compensation from benefits

I explained this below, but I'll expand a bit here:

In 1997, Bob is paying $100 per month out of pocket for his health insurance. His employer is paying $400 per month for Bob's health insurance. The total is $500 per month, of which Bob pays 20% and his employer pays 80%. Bob is receiving a benefit from his employer of $400 per month, or $4,800 per year.

In 2007, Bob is now paying $350 per month out of pocket for his health insurance, or more than triple his 1997 amount. However, his employer is now paying $650 per month towards Bob’s health insurance, or 65% of the $1,000 total cost. Bob’s “benefit” is $650 per month now, or $7,800 per year. His increase in "compensation" is $3,000 from 1997. (his employer put $4,800 towards his health insurance in 1997 and is now putting $7,800)

However, he is now paying $350 per month out of pocket, or $4,200 per year. That is an increase of $3,000 out of pocket, $4,2000 now versus $1,200 in 1997.

So, basically even though his compensation has increased $3,000, he is basically netting an increase of 0 in 10 years.

[onehandle]

11. I'm making much more than 22% more since NAFTA.

However, between many bad 401k years, surging living costs, and one layoff for a few months it's barely keeping up.

Income ain't just salary and "benefits."

Oppenheimer probably doesn't know how much a gallon of milk is.

[noamnety]

13. I'm having nothing but pay cuts here.

Same work, same hours as last year. So far they've taken away the stipend for running our school's website (that's now a volunteer service I perform), so that's over a thousand lost. I now teach more than full time hours without compensation (last year we were compensated for that.) Another thousand plus down the drain.

Now they are looking to give me another pay cut to fund other people's health care here, even though I get my health care through my spouse (and pay for it). Looks like I got another thousand or so in pay cuts coming due to that.

I suspect there's a few million of us taking pay hits though the work hasn't changed, getting laid off or fired, or getting hours cut. And then there's one guy at the top whose compensation has gone up by a few billion dollars, so on average, yeah, I could believe it went up 22%. It's kinda like how if I consume 30,000 calories in one glorious day of binging on cheesecake and snickerdoodles and 14 other homeless people go without any food on that day, on average, all 15 of us are well fed.

[lazyriver]

14. I wish I had a link or some piece of info to support this but

I don't. I heard it on talk radio during my drive back from visiting my parents at Thanksgiving. I caught the tail end of the discussion but one of the people was shooting down the claim that wages had increased by over 20% in the last 10 years. His point was the people producing these statistics were taking the rising cost of health insurance into account. Even though there are actually LESS benefits being offered today, the tremendous increases in health insurance are being used to make the value of the total benefit package appear to be 20% higher than a decade ago. He also said the statistic is even more misleading than it might initially appear because health insurance has increased far more than 20% in ten years. Since they claim the net increase in employee compensation is only 20-22%, that must mean other benefits and/or wages have gone down considerably.

[dmallind]

15. In more than a decade? Heck mine have gone up way more than that

Actually he's not completely wrong - but he is not using the right data on real income for one. Sure benefits should be included - but then you have to look at real benefits not just the nominal dollars spent on them. If your employer is paying $500 more a month for your healthcare than they did 10 years ago, but you, as is most likely, have worse coverage and higher copays etc, then that's because healthcare inflation is through the roof, not because your real income has gone up. Actually it's gone down. He's mixing real and nominal egregiously here.

But yes - we have more people working, and for higher incomes, than ten years ago (but hey which direction SHOULD it go?). The income gap is growing alarmingly, and unemployment and poverty are both up from recent lows while still being historically decent, and I think that's at the heart of a lot of the malaise.

[tridim]

16. My wages have dropped about 60% since 2000.

Of course I'm in IT, where it's common to be treated like a slave.

[noamnety]

19. "16.5 million more workers than a decade ago,"

In that time, the US population has grown by 32.5 million people.

[dmallind]

21. In all fairness though

that's about right - the US workforce, taking into account retirees, shildren and non-workers by choice, is about half the population or actually just a bit less. The current number IIRC is about 146MM

[TahitiNut]

24. Wrong! As even a short visit to the BLS site shows ...

... the Employment-Population Ratio has been between 62% and 64.7% over the last 10 years.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS12300000

[dmallind]

26. WRONG!!!! Read your own link before you get snotty about "short visits"

Your link specifically includes population 16 and older only - the WORKING AGE population. I specifically included kids in my about half number, and I would be flabbergasted to hear they were not included in population numbers. Only if that 32% population growth ignored kids would it be comparable

"Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

Total employment, at 146.0 million, was about unchanged in October. The
employment-population ratio--62.7 percent--was little changed in October but
was down from its recent peak of 63.4 percent in December. The civilian labor
force, at 153.3 million in October, and the labor force participation rate, at
65.9 percent, were essentially unchanged from September. (See table A-1.)"


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Total employment at 146Million is 63.4% of the WHOLE population?

I welcome correction - but not antagonistic correction aimed at someone with whom you disagree rather than in an attempt to improve accuracy, and factually incorrect (on your own cut and paste!) at that.

[TahitiNut]

42. What's wrong was your claim "in all fairness" that job growth has kept pace with population growth.

That's just plain wrong, whether you take the stratified (16+) population growth or whole population growth. Rather than deal with wet-finger-in-the-air guesstimates, I offered the official statistics AND the charts I've maintained as I've watched this over the last 10-12 years, including all the "adjustments" to the underlying models.

It's imperative that folks understand that Cheney/Bush have DECIMATED the working class people in this country. Even "in all fairness"!!!

After SEVEN years of this, I just have no patience with folks who carry water, even inadvertently, for Cheney/Bush and mask the atrocities against working class Americans.

[dmallind]

66. Bullshit - 32M population growth, 16.5M job growth is about par

You can stumble about all you want trying to cover up your laughable error in your rush to "correct" me but you pure and simple conflated population and working age population so why not just admit it. I was absolutely incontrovertibly right that job growth and population grpwth have been very closely correlated, and you just saw what you that was an opening to prove that my brain is "addled", but forgot to read your own data. I don't expect you to admit it - I know that's not possible - just be a bit more careful before you "correct" me again.

I KNOW Bush and Cheney have decimated the economy, and I'm more than willing to point out how, but pure job growth numbers, at least partly in Clinton's tenure at that, are not the best way to demonstrate this by a long shot.

[TahitiNut]

75. Wrong.

Again, I've done the numbers and PRESENTED the numbers AND the charts here. Your denialism is pathetic.

[TahitiNut]

29. In October 1997, 67.1% of the population formed 136,633,000 people in the civilian labor force.

As the population increased, the labor force participation rate fell until October 2007 when 65.9% of the population formed 153,253,000 people in the civilian labor force.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln

[dmallind]

31. WORKING AGE population

Read your own data before you jump in trying to prove me wrong. Or do you think the population of the US in 1997 was not much over 200 million?

[TahitiNut]

41. The FACT remains that the # employed has NOT kept up with population growth.

Indeed, during the entire Cheney/Bush regime, no monthly employment increase has YET been at or above the AVERAGE year-over-year rate of monthly employment increase for the prior FIFTY years. This is not only due to people in the workforce uanable to becmoe employed, it's also due to people "leaving the wrokforce" (discouraged workers, moving in with other family, caretakers, health issues, spouse at home, etc.). Even more, the employment compensation has NOT kept up with inflation, ESPECIALLY for the "lower 90%" (e.g. excluding CEOs and executives.)

Compare the rates during Cheney/Bush (and Bush/Quayle) to the Clinton/Gore years in this chart ...


Cheney/Bush have (literally) DECIMATED the working class people in this country.

This chart shows it in NUMBERS of working people ...

[dmallind]

67. The FACT remains that over a decade it has

You're forgetting we had some of those good years earlier in that decade before Bushco got a hold of the economy.

Again let's look at the numbers you confused in your rush to "prove" my brain is "addled".

Population growth (ALL repeat ALL the population) - 32+M in 10 years

Job growth - 16.5M in 10 years - most of them under a real president.

Ratio of one to the other: let's make it conservative and go 50%


Population of the US: 301+ million

Employed: 146 million

Ratio of one to the other - obviously a bit LESS than 50%

It's THAT simple. Yes Bush is a disaster, but no my brain is not addled despite how much you want it to be, and you lose credibility trying to make EVERYTHING be as bad as possible - isn't it much better to use accurate data so that you are credible when it matters?

[TahitiNut]

74. No, it hasn't! I've provided the numbers AND the charts.

So, pull your wet finger out of the air. I've done the numbers.

[TahitiNut]

22. Inflation, in a similar period (1996-2006) was 28% ... for a net LOSS of 6%.

It's fucking INSANE that people swallow this neocon GARBAGE!

On edit: Inflation from 1997 to 2007 - $10,000 in 1997 bought as much as $13,017.82 in 2007 ... a 30% increase!
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

Insofar as employment, FEWER people are employed, PER CAPITA, than mere population increases would warrant by more then TEN MILLLION workers!

[Johonny]

25. because they don't take into account benefits

So it's good news that the cost of my benefits have risen at such a rate that they've totally eaten up most of my 22 percent increase?

[rucky]

27. ROFL! Good one, wisenheimer!

[Giant Robot]

30. No I'd much rather hear all the voices of people

Who are making less now than they did last year, or ten years ago. Doesn't matter. Who's with me?

[Kajsa]

32. No, but my cost of living expenses have.

Actually, housing has risen over 70% in the last fifteen years, here.

[hfojvt]

33. one of the funny things about that

Is that they talk about how "benefits" are an increasing proportion of compensation.

For example, in 2003 our health insurance rates were $271.76 per month for a single person and in 2008, they will be $515.43 per month. So, right there, my compensation has gone up by 12% in just 5 years. Unless, you count the fact that this 'increase' in compensation only reflects the increased costs in providing the SAME benefit. The 'real' value of my benefits package has not increased at all.

[Xenotime]

34. No. Pay cuts are being discussed.

[NewJeffCT]

35. a 22% increase in over 10 years actually sucks

that is about a 2% per year increase. Basically, it means compensation increases have not kept up with inflation.

Especially when you consider that just the cost of gasoline has more than doubled in that time and people are paying more out-of-pocket for health insurance, if they have it.

Example of "increase" compensation.

In 1997, Bob pays $100/month out of pocket for his health insurance, while his company pays $400/month, or 80%. Bob has a $400/month benefit from his company.

In 2007, Bob is now paying $350/month out of pocket for health insurance, while is company is paying $650/month. Bob's "benefit" has increased over 50%, but he is paying 3 1/2 times more out of pocket.

[SarahB]

39. That was my thought on the subject.

I just needed an accountant to break down the math. :)

2% increase a year + mass increase in cost of living for basics (housing, food, gas) = CRAP! :nuke:

[TahitiNut]

44. Correct. It falls behind inflation ESPECIALLY if CEOs (etc.) are excluded.

The abominable multi-million dollar employee compensation increases of CEOs and their ilk make HUGE distortions to the "averages" cited.

[Beaverhausen]

36. Is he adding up the increase every year? without factoring in the cost of living?

I know next to nothing about economics and should just stay out of this...

[dmallind]

37. In effect yes

He tries to cover up the real income question (what that income will buy you) by introducting benefits but he uses nominal benefit dollars (the actual cash spent). He's mixing real and nominal. Bad juju. People on the whole DO make more money tahn 10 years ago, but it buys them less.

[book_worm]

38. So how much have prices gone up in the same time period?

[hack89]

40. Sounds about right

for me (Rhode Island), my Dad (Seattle) and brother (North Carolina)

[damntexdem]

46. Mine has, mine has! Oh, wait ...

that's my waist size!!!!!!!! Damn!

[madfloridian]

77. LOL

:hi:

[MiniMe]

48. They are including benefits in that 22%. With insurance costs rising

like they are, I wouldn't be surprised if the insurance premiums alone rose by 22%. It would also include any matching 401k or pension contributions.

[magellan]

55. Hell, our health insurance rates went up 30% this year over last

And we haven't even used the damn thing.

AND we couldn't find a lower price elsewhere, so we had to increase our deductible to afford what we already had.

[slackmaster]

49. Not if you consider inflation

I'm about where I was in 1997.

[Javaman]

51. Do you mean raised as in going up or raised as in torn down?

My is the latter, dear. LOL

[Kahuna]

53. More than that!

I'm a contractor with no real bennies though.

[brentspeak]

54. "A recent study by the Center for Trade Policy Studies, which supports free trade..."

Well there's a reliable and unbiased source, Oppenheimer, you twit.

[leaninglib]

56. Most folks I know have seen their wages increase by a whole lot more

than 22% during the past decade.

[Lorien]

62. What do your friends do for a living? n/t

[alarimer]

57. I got less than 3% this last time

Not enough to keep up with the rising cost of gas.

[dbackjon]

58. In the past ten years?

Mine has gone up 275% - but then again, ten years ago I was fresh out of college working my first job, so the room for advancement was there.

But somehow, I still am behind....

[LoZoccolo]

59. Since NAFTA? Yeah, I've gotten that. n/t

[NMMNG]

60. 22%?

:rofl:

[Lorien]

61. My wages have fallen 60% since the Clinton years

thanks to outsourcing and ever tightening corporate purse strings. Most of my friends have seen either pay cuts, cuts in benefits, or stagnant wages. And unemployment? Many people who have filed for unemployment have simply fallen off the unemployment rolls without finding anything. There have been people here on DU who have been looking for work for two years and can't find a damn thing that pays a living wage.

[Generic Brad]

63. My wages have gone up around 75% since NAFTA went into effect

But I was working as a temp back then, so it's not as impressive as it sounds.

[madfloridian]

64. Our health insurance, home insurance, car insurance, real estate taxes...

have more than doubled in ten years. In fact I would say all of them have nearly quadrupled, with the real estate taxes maybe 3 times more. That is with no major illnesses, no car accidents, no traffic tickets...nothing. Oh, I forgot, we just go another note from State Farm that our car insurace is going up because of the hurricanes. :shrug:

We are retired, so no way to judge how salaries are going. But can you imagine what will happen to retirees if this escalation of everything continues? :shrug:

[midnight armadillo]

65. Hell, I'm at 40%!

Thanks to the ole second job, which is increasing my take home pay by about 40%. All of that extra income is towards eliminating debt and saving for a house...in 15 months we will be debt-free (except for student loans) and homeowners. And I expect houses to be nice and cheap when we're ready to buy.

[progressoid]

69. Ah, fun with numbers. It's easy to say 22% (if you include CEO's wages in the picture).

Hell, I'd love to be making what I made 8 or 10 years ago.

[kenfrequed]

70. Is there an opposite of raising your hand?

Other than not raising your han, that is?

[OnionPatch]

71. We (husband and I) keep getting modest raises every year, but......

they have not kept pace with rising costs of fuel and food. Not even close. We are worse off than before even with the raises we've received.

[underpants]

73. 20%

I got a new job a few months ago

[leftofthedial]

76. so if the capitalists can raise medical insurance rates high enough

they won't have to pay us anything AND they'll get to claim wages are going up




capitalism is antithetical to human life on this planet. period.