"Slow," as you can appreciate, is a relative term. 4 percent is pretty good for economic growth, not so good as a rate of profit.
Go to our "Datazone," then to National Data, then to "Hourly Wage Decile Cutoffs," then to "All." Then check the first few deciles over the most recent three years in the chart.
>>>>>>>>>
"Unemployment remained low in the fourth quarter of 1999, leading to
employment and wage gains for low-wage workers. While nominal wages grew
faster than inflation in 1999, growth was slower for most workers last year
relative to earlier in the recovery, implying that wage-push inflation is
not an imminent threat. To gain a better sense of longer-term trends, this
installment of QWES also examines wage inequality over the entire business
cycle, revealing the growing gap between the top and middle of the wage
scale."
>>>>>
The gap refers to relative positions of top and bottom. This could get worse, even if the bottom is growing in real absolute terms. Two different metrics.
>>>>>
and then there's this: ""Note, however, that wage growth was slower than
average for the lower-wage workers. In fact, the wages of
high-school-educated Hispanic workers actually fell in real terms. Only
those with college degrees experienced faster than average growth. "
>>>>>>>
Same point. Slower than 'average' doesn't mean zero absolute increase.
The broader context for this was some careless yakking by persons who shall go nameless, as opposed to having many names, to the effect that wages had been squeezed more than ever, or something to that effect, whereas the reality is nearly the opposite.
>>>>>
help me out here maxhunkhoney. i'm a stupid mindless yut who listens to bad
music an' all and i need the guidance of my elders. i'm not taking rb's
position that econ is slack. i don't think it's as tight as biz press wants
to make it out to be, but...
>>>>>>>
now now. you're not a yut. You are merely musically confused. This can be easily remedied with counseling. Forget about the foo-fighting goo-goo biscuits et al. and settle down with some Blonde On Blonde. Or if you need to be up try Axis: Bold as Love. If you want to put your brain on suspend for a while, ZZ Top.
>>>>
are ya talking the comparison between peak of last business cylce, 1989,
with 1999, table 5?
>>>
No I wasn't referring to cycles. Only the fact that there have been real wages gains across the board for the past couple of years, something new in recent history. As cycles go this one is long but otherwise not all that special in terms of investment, GDP, aggregate wages, but unusual in terms of the generality of wage gains, very low unemployment, low accompanying inflation, and some quarters with out-of-sight real growth rates.
>>>>
okay. in 10th decile the wage is almost entirely controlled by employers.
they dictate it since very few people who take low wage jobs feel they have
the bargaining power to demand more or would know how to demand it if they
did. this decile is largely populated by students working full-time, second
income earners, retired people, and anarchists who want copy privileges at
kinkos. those marginally attached to the labor force, as they say. yes? the
rise is a rise that's a result of the business cycle would that be fair to
say? .>>>>>>>
I think the bottom has lots of service workers of the more traditional sort, tho I'm not the expert on that. I don't think you can attribute it to the business cycle. By rights this one should have tanked by now. Something novel is going on, though I wouldn't necessarily explain it in terms of globalization and technology. I don't even remember what I was arguing with RB about.
mbs