[lbo-talk] Query BLS replacement data series

[Gar Lipow]

Yeah capitalists who take part of their compensation in nominal wages
usually get a tiny percentage. But there are hedge fund managers and
CEOS who get a lot more than half a million a year. It does not take
throwing a lot of million and two million dollar salaries into the mix
to skew the hourly wage upwords. We are never going to get a "perfect"
estimate of the working class hourly wage, nor do we need one. Non-sup
includes about 80% of the working class and skews a little low, cause
it excludes some of the higher paid members of the WC.  Sup skews a
little high, because it includes some capitalist profits that are
nominally taken in the form of wage labor.   The difference is about
16% per hour worked.  So maybe the all workers figure is better, even
with a tiny percent of capitalist profits skewing the numbers. That
Krugman thinks so is an argument for that view.

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Gar: "The reason I like non-sup is that supervisory includes
> Bill Gates."
>
> [WS:]  His compensation (as opposed to value of his stock holdings) is
> relatively "low," under $500k a couple of years ago, when I checked the SEC
> data.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Gar Lipow <gar.lipow at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Doug. The reason I like non-sup is that supervisory includes
>> Bill Gates. Neither is perfect. If Sup includes bill Gate, non-sup
>> excludes the "manager" of the local movie theater. Still I suspect if
>> you are trying to capture workers wages non-sup comes closer than Sup.
>> Am I wrong? Would i be better off using all workers?
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Nov 15, 2010, at 11:10 PM, Gar Lipow wrote:
>> >
>> >> I made extensive use of series: CEU0500000049  non-supervisory workers
>> >> average hourly wage in real dollars. Historical through current. That
>> >> database is discontinued. However the data is still maintain, because
>> >> the report to the President has that same data from the 60's through
>> >> 2009 for private industry. Anyone know the series Id that replaced it?
>> >> Or another way to find it. The standard BLS query screens I found
>> >> provide data only in nominal dollars, though perhaps I was looking at
>> >> the wrong screen.
>> >
>> > I've always just deflated the nominal wage by the CPI. The CEU prefix
>> means not seasonally adjusted, by the way. Here's the series code for the SA
>> one (the CES prefix means SA):
>> >
>> > CES0500000008
>> >
>> > They're now also reporting the average hourly wage for all employees (not
>> just nonsup ones). It's
>> >
>> > CES0500000003.
>> >
>> > The code for the CPI (SA) is:
>> >
>> > CUSR0000SA0.
>> >
>> > The BLS often uses the CPI-W (wage workers and clerical workers) to
>> deflate earnings. I don't think that's fair - why should the grunts have a
>> price index all their own? Why not for the whole society? (In practice the
>> difference isn't all that huge.) But that's the CPI-U (all urban consumers).
>> If you want the CPI-W, it's:
>> >
>> > CWSR0000SA0.
>> >
>> > Doug
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ___________________________________
>> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Facebook: Gar Lipow  Twitter: GarLipow
>> Grist Blog: http://www.grist.org/member/1598
>> Static page: http://www.nohairshirts.com
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

-- 
Facebook: Gar Lipow  Twitter: GarLipow
Grist Blog: http://www.grist.org/member/1598
Static page: http://www.nohairshirts.com