RSS Feeds Feeds: Articles | Issues
Articles About TAP Subscribe Donate
TAPPED  |  Beat the Press

Remember Me
Forgot your password?

The symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.


 


Dean Baker's commentary on economic reporting

Leonhardt Gets it Wrong on Wages

Real wages have followed an unusual pattern in this downturn, but NYT columnist David Leonhardt misses much of the picture in his column today. Leonhardt tells readers that most workers are seeing their real wages rise in this downturn. That is not quite right.

The real story of real wages is that hourly wages were falling sharply in the spring/summer of 2008, largely as the result of the rising price of oil and other commodities. Nominal hourly wages were rising at close to a 3.5 percent annual rate, with inflation rising at a rate of 5-6 percent. However, as readers of BTP know, real hourly wages reversed course and rose sharply after the Lehman crisis turned the recession into a free fall. While nominal wage growth continued on its path through the fall, prices fell at a double-digit annual pace in the last three months of 2008.

The story then reversed in 2009. Inflation has advanced at close to a 3.5 percent annual rate thus far this year. Nominal wage growth has fallen sharply. The nominal hourly wage is now rising at an annual rate of between 1-2 percent. (Monthly numbers are erratic, which makes it difficult to pin down the growth rate more precisely.) For 2009, real wages have unambiguously been falling and are likely to continue to fall as modest increases in commodity prices are not offset by nominal wage growth.

So how does Leonhardt get the story so wrong? Most importantly he uses year over year data. This includes the large fall in prices at the end of last year, which still outweighs the impact of falling real wages through 2009. Using year over year data, we can say that real wages have risen in the last year. We will not be able to say that four months from now.

Leonhardt also uses weekly rather than hourly data. This adds to the error in the measurement, since hours are also erratic month to month, and the random movements in reported hours can easily swamp the actual movement in the hourly wage. Finally, he misreads a recent data release, the June employment cost index. This release showed an insignificant rise in the rate of compensation growth between the first and second quarter. The increase is completely driven by a modest rise in the rate of reported compensation growth in the public sector, with the private sector showing no increase at all.

In short, there is no good wage story for most workers at this point. There was good news last fall when gas prices were tumbling, but that's history now.

--Dean Baker



COMMENTS

It looks to me like inflation came back in only a few categories, and some of what was listed as inflation isn't really inflation. First most of it seems to be in commodities most, and there it is normalizing to the price levels of about 18-24 months ago before the absurdities of Summer 2008. Second there was a lot in new vehicle sales, but that isn't entirely inflation because people are getting additional value from their new car purchases. To me it doesn't look like the parts of the CPI that went up more than wages are likely to stick to their track over the last quarter and are likely to either stay flat or track with overall inflation in the future.

I also think the weekly data is important for a different reason- it shows where hours are being cut rather than workers. And it looks clearly from the weekly data like when the job losses started declining significantly the number of hours worked per week had a similar trajectory.

I appreciate Dean's explanation. My rule of thumb when reading the NYT is that --if the topic is workers or unions, they always misrepresent it--at the very least with slanted word choices. The NYT's anti-working class, anti-union bias is persistent and for most of the writers, no doubt, an unconscious or unexamined one. for most, I'm sure their class privilege has clouded their judgment and what they consider 'knowledge' or 'objective facts.'

Leonhardt got something wrong. Call me shocked.

Post a comment


Renew your print subscription or e-subscription.
Get an e-subscription for $14.95.
Give the gift of political insight. Send The American Prospect to a friend.
Change your email address or street address.
YES! I want to receive The American Prospect
— the essential source for progressive ideas.
Explore The American Prospect's award-winning investigative journalism and provocative essays in a free trial issue. Continue receiving The American Prospect at only $19.95 for a one-year subscription - a savings of 60% off the newsstand price!
First Name
Last Name
Address 1
Address 2
City
State
ZIP     
Email

Should you decide not to continue receiving the magazine after the initial free issue, simply write "cancel" on the invoice and you will not be billed.

© 2010 by The American Prospect, Inc.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Permissions and Reprints