Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: anachronist who wrote (51077)	1/25/2006 1:53:40 AM
From: GraceZ	Respond to of 110194

I wonder what the average hourly wage of a manufacturing worker is now compared to 1979, in real terms? Higher. But if you look at the difference between total compensation and average weekly earnings you can see that a part of the gain is in non-cash compensation, things like union negotiated healthcare benefits and employer pension contributions. If you look at the total employment compensation index for manufacturing workers, it starts in 1979 at 60.1 by 2005 it is 180.7. If we plug 60.1 into the CPI calculator, we can see that it should be 161.09 or about 11% lower to have just remained equal. No loss to inflation there. economagic.com We can do similar tests with machine operators and assemblers but since they didn't start breaking the data out for these until 1985, we have to start there. In 1985 the index is 87 and 174.9 in 2005, when CPI would have them equal at 157.34. Same with precision, production, craft: 1985 has them at 89.0 in 1985 to 175.6 in 2005. Now look at production and goods production data that uses weekly average salaries: economagic.com In 1979 average for a goods production job was $269.84 and in 2005 it is $712.58 and the CPI calculator pumps out $723.29. The difference between the two measures in is non cash compensation. The number of people employed in manufacturing is higher than in 1979, not by much, but the number is higher. More people are employed in manufacturing than ever before, plus more women are employed in high paying manufacturing jobs than in the year that the article cites. So why do people say manufacturing jobs are declining? Because the percentage of people in the work force employed in manufacturing has declined. What has also declined is the percentage of high paying jobs that reside in manufacturing. A much higher percentage of high paying jobs reside in the service sector than did in 1979, like those in information technology, investment banking and the capital markets (you know the ones you need a college degree for). Now what do you suppose happened to your guys, the ones supposedly losing ground? Muscle manufacturing jobs declined as more and more manufacturing switched to depend less on muscle and more on capital equipment, brains and education rather than training. I'm surprised you couldn't make the connection, you stated that woman gained and men were losing. If the average compensation went up and the number of jobs increased then what happened is they lost share of the highest paying jobs to women. Losing share doesn't mean that the overall standard of living is declining, it may mean someone's personal standard of living is declining but certainly it isn't occurring on a macro level. Some of my married women friends make so much more than their husbands that the husband is the one who stays home to be the primary care giver when they kids are young. As most women with kids can tell you, taking a few years off to raise the kids seriously reduces your expected lifetime earnings. I remember spending a couple days back in 1982 riding around in a strip mine in Wyoming with a gal who drove one of those giant mining trucks that are so huge you only ever see them in quarries and mines. You know the ones that have tires taller than the tallest guy? The cab was pretty comfy, air conditioned and the gear shifting was controlled by a computer. They were so easy to drive that even a woman could do it.