That is exactly what I'm talking about when I say people quote articles written by economic illiterates.
Mark Zandi is not exactly an economic illiterate, but lets take a look at what you have to say:
Just take a simple broad measure like per capita income:
In 1979 it was $9146, In 2003 it was $31,632
Ok now you are comparing apples and oranges. The statistics in the article looked at the differences in pay between, for example, 35-44 y.o. male workers over that time period, NOT per capita income (what do you mean by per captia income?). Why is there a discrepancy? I'm not sure, but I bet I could write my Masters thesis on it.
Back in 1982 (the labor force participation rate for women was still rising although not as sharply as it did in the 60s and 70s, but so was the number of households headed by women) the median for the US household was $24,000 and in 2005 it was $58,500.The CPI calculator yields: $24,400 in 1982 is $49,204.56 in 2005.
So 15.9% rise in real median household income since 1982. That seems to support the author's thesis, given the rise of two income households and the equalization of women's pay.
As for the erosion of those high paying manufacturing jobs, I have one, I'm officially a manufacturer of photographic prints. My base hourly rate is 6.4 times what it was in 1979, the year I started doing what I do now.
You are not a laborer, you are a capitalist and an entrepreneur. I wonder what the average hourly wage of a manufacturing worker is now compared to 1979, in real terms? |
