What charts like this ignore is that this can still have the highest end collecting far more in raw dollars off a smaller percentage. Someone making 30K gets a 10% raise it’s $3,000 but someone making 100K only has to get a 3% raise for the same raw value gain.
I’m not sure what the percentiles of the sample here are but that could play a big role too. If there are 90 people making 30K and 10 people making 100K you have quite a skew in the field where you would end up with some portion of those lower paid workers in the top quintile.
Unfortunately such charts get trotted out as policy making tools to say ‘no need for wage adjustment, look at how great they’re doing!’ and things go along as before.
The full report is interesting. I was going to argue about minimum wage increases, but the report already accounted for that by highlighting significant wage growth for the lowest percentile in states that still followed federal minimum wage.
Still, it’d be nice to know what the absolute values are. % are less impactful with lower numbers.
What does it matter if those making more also get raises? It’s still good that people making less got raises, it’s not a zero-sum game.
The problem with looking at things from a percentage stance is it can mask a growing disparity in income.
Try throwing these into a compounded interest calculator.
30,000 @ 10% 100,000 @ 5% Compounded annually
Now eventually the lower starting point surpasses the higher one, but it takes about 25 years of consistent gains of double the higher starting one. That’s all assuming zero contributions to the principal over time, but someone starting off with more likely also has more loose cash to put into an investment. This is where the often mentioned part of giving breaks to the wealthy does nothing because they just invest it where the poor spend it on needs comes in.
Wages and investments aren’t a perfect match, but math is math. An interesting side note, if the higher starting pay where to put in $1000 / month which is way less than the difference between 100K and 30K per year, the end result is that they now have more than the lower starting one at the end of 50 years.
I think it would have been good to not only have the absolute numbers, but also the numbers for changes in wealth and debt too.
Does it outpace inflation of grocery, housing, and fuel costs?
Yes. The numbers in the report are based on real wages; i.e., inflation adjusted wages.
The report states the bottom 10% are still unable to make ends meet, but their wage growth has still significantly exceeded inflation.
Lol
Of course not.
Wage rates remain insufficient for individuals and families working to make ends meet. Nowhere can a worker at the 10th percentile of the wage distribution earn enough to meet a basic family budget.
Inflation is reported relative to annual, and compounded over the last 4 years equals roughly 20% — meaning those lower wage workers are still 8% worse off. That’s only if you believe inflation figures are accurate, too. I do not because the cheapest items at my grocery store are still 50+% up from what they were 4 years ago; most governments do not include big ticket items either (where the majority of expenses go) and continuously alter how they report statistics — it’s all a deceptive smoke and mirrors game designed to make it look like the political and economic system isn’t failing; that “the economy” and “the people” are better off today than they were last decade.
