Talk:Real wages

Misleading graphs

I would like to see a graph considering worldwide real wage, longer then 1964. Perhaps one also factoring employment benefits for comparison. This article otherwise seems to give a misleading impression of things getting worst for the average worker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J1812 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like it was written by a 14-year old British schoolboy writing a report about some topic assigned to him. -- Cogent 04:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the article is quite good. It is important that slightly hard to understand economic concepts are explained clearly. If you think it is writen in a poor way - improve it. Wright123 19:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-completly unsourced as well.

Replaced by real compensation per hour. Now we have a true picture.EasternClock (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-- I was intrigued about chart showing real wages going down in the US so I did the calculations myself using the wages from http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html and the consumer price index from ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt. I can't post the chart due to being a new user, but overall the trend was upward. Anyone know where the chart in the article from the blog post got their data? John215 (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---The ellipses at the end of the caption seem to border way more on editorial than factual, I haven't done enough research to check the rest of the article but I think that's a bit over the top. Patthew (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#Productivity_chart for problems with the productivity vs. real wages chart. Also: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/25/wage-stagnation-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ Barnhorst (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biased, ignores real total compensation matching productivity gains

Article is very biased, only argues that things have got worse for the average worker, which ignores the fact that real total compensation has roughly matched productivity gains. 131.111.184.91 (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources and concrete suggestions for improvement to the article. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have included a source about measurement error. More could certainly be done. Perhaps some from this source:https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/25/wage-stagnation-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ ?Barnhorst (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since 2008, Nonfarm Business Sector: Real Compensation Per Hour has had an average annual growth rate 0.2 percentage points less than the annual growth rate of real hourly wage for all private workers: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=oiS6. soibangla (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical nonsense?

The first sentence (and much of the rest) mathematically sounds like nonsense:

Real wages are wages adjusted for inflation, or, equivalently, wages in terms of the amount of goods and services that can be bought.

Inflation includes a time dimension, whereas an "amount of goods" does not. Hence the two cannot be equivalent. And this conceptual error continues in the subsequent statements. Comments please? 81.131.172.24 (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not an error at all. What inflation measures over time is the amount of goods and services that a nominal dollar can buy. 107.213.194.59 (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of goods have to brought at a moment in time. Therefore, if Stating the wage in terms of the amount of goods and services that can be bought - the at a moment in time is implied. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"it tells one side of the story"

says Avatar317

so if it's disputable then present the other side of the story. soibangla (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how sourcing works in Wikipedia. Think tanks are NOT RS's. Note that at WP:RSP there are no think-tanks listed; that's because they fall under Self-Published Sources WP:SPS. Biased sources like think-tanks are NOT academic sources. Their goal is to advocate for their policy positions, and they do this by generating and publishing "research" which supports their positions. They don't objectively report on a situation; they publish only information/research which supports their position(s); they'll never publish research with findings contrary to their policy position; using such sources DIRECTLY risks UNDUEly WP:UNDUE representing their positions in OPINION situations, rather than taking their position in proper balance with others as presented by Independent Sources WP:IS. And they are practically never valid for statements of fact about causes they advocate for or against; it doesn't matter what political lean they have, this is true for conservative as well as liberal think-tanks. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 01:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then present what, say, AEI says by contrast. soibangla (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my reply? Discussions don't work if you just repeat what you previously said and ignore what others say. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 01:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I read what you wrote. I continue to disagree with it and emphasized my position. maybe others can opine here. soibangla (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]