[chuecafresss]

IMO, it comes from the fact that those numbers are national averages, which is all fine and dandy if you live somewhere that inflation (read; cost of living) is at or below the national average.

Problem is that big businesses base wage off of national average, and most of those numbers only come from big buisnes. So if you are getting paid the national average in places like New York, Atlanta, Chicago, Seattle, etc... you aren't making a living wage.

Not that I am for a living wage. I'm just saying that it is in these places that complaints get most recognition. Thus, while perception and reality may not be seeing eye to eye, they are both the same in areas with the loudest voice.

[bactrimtab]

REAL costs!

[Kayacterype]

So, if cost of health care benefits goes up then the cost of compensation goes up? So really it has nothing to do with wages, just costs.

[WournGona]

What's reflected is the rich getting richer, and more evidence of the disappearance of the middle class.

While home foreclosures remain at a staggering level, the flip-side is that it creates a windfall for those secure enough to take advantage.

[Coededgeme]

Originally posted by Japher
So, if cost of health care benefits goes up then the cost of compensation goes up? So really it has nothing to do with wages, just costs. Well, it has to do with wages in so far they're part of the costs, but otherwise yes.

For wages growth better check tables A & B here: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.nr0.htm (only aggregate, not hourly numbers)

And for what's happening on the income side, check this: http://bea.gov/bea/newsrel/pinewsrelease.htm

[esenesesinas]

Since you're in the upper crust, you are off setting that average to the upside so you would only care about income.

[JulieSmithdccd]

uh, yeah. Pretty much how I interpret it.

[Cogebrego]

I'm not so sure. I think it is more likely that middle income people get the vast majority of their income from wages alone.

[vintsqyuid]

Originally posted by pchang
Does it really matter where your money comes from? What is the real difference between wages, investment returns, rent, etc. to one's ability to spend?

Are you saying that lower income people have no other source of income than wages (like savings account interest, tax credits, WIC, etc.)? YES. HOw many people in the lower ends get Investment returns? I mean, when the hell did they get money to invest?

Many of them might get tax credits back, but then that is ususally alump sum. And these [people increasingly have large debts they have to service, which they do by borrowing anyways, so there are no savings.

[HoniSoniproca]

Originally posted by DanS
A lot, given that a good chunk of those people are pensioners who may have set aside a small nest egg otherwise. Please. First of all, "a small nest egg" is not going to keep up with inflation PLUS rising health care prices, even when you get social security. Those sorts of people are exactly the type that will find the current economic situation hazardous to their pocket books. The lucky ones have set pensions, and many of them will probably see their pensions scrapped or cut back.

[elossenen]

Yeah it's less than 50%. That's ****in' sick!

[Pipindula]

There's no hidden meaning. It means exactly what it says.

[NutChusty]

Can a few rich people really throw off the aggregate averages by that much?

[opelonafqe]

There's been no indication of significant wage growth since 1970.

[zU8KbeIU]

Since 1970, wages and salary have increased an average of 6.9% per annum.

[GreesyBeeva]

What exactly is a proper value? Without that all this is meaningless, no?

[duexjepevef]

Is your figure absolute and nominal values?

[delnisfernan]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Is your figure absolute and nominal values? Yes, nominal. Corrected for inflation would be lower.

[rassedgesse]

Dan, please stop quoting Kidicious.

[megasprut]

Just go on with your irrelevent stats.