Skip to main content

The flurry of posts earlier this month on middle class decline (me, Lane Kenworthy, Matthew Yglesias, Kevin Drum) made me think some more about what the best way is to show what's happened since the peak of real wages in the early 1970s. While in my opinion there is no perfect measure, there are a lot of choices to be made, and I argue below why real wages for production and non-supervisory workers, with an adjustment for non-wage compensation, is the best single measure.

Choice 1: Household/family vs. individual

While we all live in households or families, over the past 40 years, there has been a decline in persons per household (see Kenworthy) and an increase in incomes per household as women's labor force participation has increased. The decline in persons per household means that a household needs less income than in the past to have a fixed per capita income. The increase in incomes per household has meant that households have had higher real income even as real individual income has fallen, as pointed out by commenter peggy_Boston in the comments thread of Drum's article. To my mind, this is partly causal; that is, because real wages have fallen, families have had to have more incomes in order to maintain their living standards. Indeed, falling real wages have forced families to run up high levels of debt, with non-mortgage debt reaching 1/3 of family income by 2005. Therefore, I think individual data is the right choice here.

Choice 2: Median income vs. production and non-supervisory workers' income

The median (middle value, with an equal number of observations above and below it)  has big advantages over the arithmetic mean in trying to show the typical situation in a distribution of values. It is especially useful for income distributions, where the presence of very high incomes means that the mean is much higher than the median. In fact, the literature on "decoupling" (see Kenworthy above) demonstrates just how much this is the case. But I think that "production and non-supervisory workers" captures our intuition about who is in the middle class even better than the median does. This series, in Table B-47 of the Economic Report of the President, is an average of the earnings of employed persons in private (non-government), non-agricultural jobs. It includes about 80% of the private workforce and 64% of the total non-agricultural workforce. Despite being an average, its exclusion of supervisory workers means that virtually all of the extremely high values that distort the mean of the entire workforce are eliminated. It is, essentially, the mean income of the bottom 80% of private workers. The biggest drawback to this dataset is that it does not include non-supervisory government workers, but I think that is outweighed by its broader coverage of the middle class than the pure median income (or middle quintile, as in Kenworthy's post).

For the counterargument, that changes in composition of production & non-supervisory workers can cause distortions that the median wage is not subject to, see Dean Baker (p. 9).

Choice 3: Weekly vs. hourly

Baker mentions hourly earnings rates in some cases. As I discussed in the comments section of my March 11 post, the decline in hours worked per week (from 36.9 hours in 1972 to 33.6 hours in 2011) suggests to me that we need weekly, not hourly, wages.

Choice 4: Which inflation data to believe?

Shortly after President Clinton's first election, I predicted to my students that, because his message of middle-class stagnation ("It's the economy, stupid") was dependent on how inflation was measured, that conservatives would soon attack the official Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation data. The issue is, if inflation is overstated, then the decline in real wages reported by the BLS could be overstated or even non-existent. Conversely, if BLS data understates inflation, then real wages have fallen even faster than shown in Table B-47.

Unfortunately, I did not publish this prediction, so you'll have to take my word for it that I predicted the attack on inflation data that culminated in the Boskin Commission in 1995. I always took this to be a political attack rather than a scientific one. My attitude has always been that trade theory (i.e., the Stolper-Samuelson Theorem; see Ronald Rogowski's great book Commerce and Coalitions for an explanation of this topic, which I intend to discuss in a later post) predicts that real wages in a relatively labor-scarce country like the United States will fall as trade expands, and the data shows that real wages indeed fell: so what reason do we have to question the data? In the end, though, the Commission concluded that inflation was being overstated by about 1.1 percentage points a year, and the BLS was mandated to adjust its methodology.

Barry Ritholtz takes an even more jaundiced view of the Boskin Commission than I do. Paul Krugman, on the other hand, is not convinced that inflation is now significantly underreported, citing the work of the Billion Prices Project. For the moment, I do not see reason enough to toss out the BLS data, despite the possibility that the Boskin Commission may have introduced distortions into it.

Choice 5: Wages vs. compensation

Martin Feldstein and other economists argue that it is not sufficient to look at wages alone, because the non-wage share of compensation has been growing over the past few decades. As I posted before, total employee compensation includes everyone from the CEO to the janitor, so it overlooks the fact that the top 1% have made almost all the gains from decades of economic growth. Nevertheless, it is clearly true that non-wage compensation has grown faster than wages, as we will see below. In fact, Yglesias suggests that the 2000s actually saw real compensation growth at the median, but it was all in the form of health insurance benefits. Of course, there is some debate over how much value actually comes from extra employer payments for health insurance, as Baker's paper (p. 10) details

A different way to factor in compensation that I had seen before on the Economic Policy Institute's website was explained to me in an email by Jared Bernstein and is documented in the footnote of his blog post here. It takes the ratio of total compensation to total wages, both of which are in National Income and Product Accounts Table 1.12 (you can set it to a wider range of years, as I did). Whereas he applies it to median wages, I apply it to Table B-47 and get the following results:

Year          Weekly Real Earnings     Comp/Wages     Weekly Compensation
                  (1982-84 dollars)                                     (1982-84 dollars)

1972          $341.83                         1.14                   $388.01
1975          $314.75                         1.16                   $366.63
1980          $290.86                         1.20                   $348.93
1985          $285.34                         1.22                   $347.10
1990          $271.12                         1.21                   $328.99
1995          $267.07                         1.22                   $326.23
2000          $284.79                         1.20                   $341.49
2005          $284.99                         1.24                   $352.87
2010          $297.67                         1.24                   $370.28
2011          $294.78                         1.24                   $365.77

Note: Last two columns rounded from spreadsheet calculations

Sources: Economic Report of the President 2012, Table B-47, National Income and Product Accounts, Table 1.12, and author's calculations

 By this measure, compensation in 2011 for most workers was still almost 6% below its 1972 peak. The advantage of this adjustment over Feldstein's procedure is it strips out the wage inequality of the compensation data, although there is still some overstatement based on inequalities in non-wage compensation. Still, I think this gives us our most accurate picture of what's happening to the bottom 80% of workers.

That is not to say that this is a perfect measure even with those caveats. It matters what is happening at the top, too. If high wage earners were seeing their income fall faster than middle-class workers, then inequality would be falling and we would probably object less to what would then look like the much-vaunted "shared sacrifice." But of course, as Kenworthy notes, the share of the top 1% more than doubled from 1979 to 2007, from 8% to 17%. With inequality rising as it is, we now seem to be in danger of a consequent sharp shift of political power to the 1%, as MIT economist Daron Acemoglu told Think Progress' Pat Garofolo.

I look forward to your comments, especially if I've gotten something wrong.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  How has this happened? (3+ / 0-)

    They have managed to make almost everyone believe that things were just fine as they stole the American dream from them.  

    People are asleep and it shows in voter participation which has decreased after the 60s although it seems to be coming back now.

    Compared to other countries we almost do not participate in politics.

    I doubt this erosion in income has happened in many other countries.  Our 99% has gone down while every other country's 99% has advanced.

    Our inequality is getting worse, where else is this happening?

    I hope the OWS movement wakes up the 99%.

    Great diary, I'm going to keep an eye on you.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 06:17:06 PM PDT

    •  People Asleep, Dems Dissing Warnings as Whining (5+ / 0-)

      The Democrats became our 2nd conservative party in the 70's.

      It's been so long since there's been a rational or liberal mainstream voice that OCCUPY itself has put out a few rightwing proposals that will drive the 99% farther down.

      Wanna know where the concept of "99%" comes from? Reagan, Bush I and Clinton. Clinton on steroids. Family financial net worth:
      Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 06:54:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Many reasons (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greengemini, Shockwave, Egalitare

      Thanks for reading.

      As you can see from the inequality article you link, the U.S. is not alone in seeing increasing inequality. Australia, Germany, and others also are following down our path, even after taxes and transfers.

      I'm not sure I know a comprehensive explanation, as a lot of factors seem to contribute. Obviously, trade/globalization plays a role, but there's money in politics that's gotten worse over time, the overrepresentation of agricultural states in the Senate and Electoral College, etc. This is something I am still working on.

      Absolutely we need people to get more active in politics.

    •  Other countries were not the highest wage (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shockwave

      country we were.

      So yeah

      I doubt this erosion in income has happened in many other countries
      Because no other country was the high wage country we once were.

      FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 09:39:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Incomes can decrease whatever your income level is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roger Fox

        The 1% has done rather well in the last 30 years.  Everybody else has not done as well as the people in most countries when it comes to economic improvement.

        Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

        by Shockwave on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 10:08:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  bad link (?) (0+ / 0-)

    I can't get the Economic Report of the President to work.

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 06:38:38 PM PDT

  •  Good stuff TnR (0+ / 0-)

    On inflation, by 1965 the US started to see individual quarters having a trade deficit, by 1975, whole years. I have long felt that expanded trade would help apply downward wage pressure.

    In the immediate post WW2 era Europe and Japan got food, manufactured goods from the US. Once economies were back on their feet, we crept towards the global economy.

    SO yeah a decline of real wages would throttle back inflation. Is inflation way higher than the official numbers, maybe, but I dont buy into it much as inflation is probably not the key player in the economy that it once was. (Whip inflation Now).

    As a side note the 2010 Census report, released info last year that showed a male working full time yr round earned 47k in 2010, in adjusted dollars- 49k in 1973.

    I would settle for stagnent wages, except for increased GINI, wealth and income disparity while overall lack of tax progrssivity increased. Being the highest wage country in the world is a tuff nut while globally  trading.

    That said, the lack of US investment in emerging tech, and the resulting US jobs makes it way easier to move those jobs overseas, regardless of the skill and educational level of Us workers.

    Now that the Us is no longer the high wage country we once were, we can take advantage of that as the price of oil drives shipping costs up.

    FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 09:37:19 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site