Again Forbes.
https://forbeswealthblog.ca/2018/06/are-the-posted-inflation-rates-a-lie/
I don’t care where it comes from if the argument is that sloppy. You post links to articles without showing how the data there proves your assertions.
I repeat: To you, does the fact that it starts at 3% and ends at about 3% mean that wages are stagnant?
Read the articles?
Or am I supposed to read them to you and explain them?
I am not just posting random numbers. They are articles with data. Explanations.
Your replies are empty. No cites. No data.
Again. I am done with this. I will take a peek to see if this subject is discussed somewhere else on the site. Probably is. Maybe Great Debates. And if I have time I will post there. Or start a new thread.
I read the articles but it’s far too easy to just post a link and say: “The link proves it”. It’s like starting a thread and just posting a link. I’m asking you to cite the precise parts which support your assertions instead of just posting a link because the articles may not prove your assertions even if they’re related to them.
I haven’t made assertions concerning trade, I’m questioning your assertions that: “Wages have been stagnant for a long time. Inflation has eaten those wages up badly.” and that “More new jobs are of low wage and quality.” Your links may be related to that but that doesn’t mean they establish those assertions.
Again, I’d like to know if you think that the fact that it starts at 3% and ends at 3% proves wages have been stagnant. If you don’t, I’m not sure what the point of posting that link was. Do you or not think that it proves wages have been stagnant?
Kedikat, I mean no disrepsect, but your wave of links is just silly. Two are blogs, some aren’t about Canada, and one about labor market performance doesn’t address any of your previous claims. None really have anything to do with international trade.
Sigh… Copy and pasted from the Bank of Canada act.
Minister’s directive
(2) If, notwithstanding the consultations provided for in subsection (1), there should emerge a difference of opinion between the Minister and the Bank concerning the monetary policy to be followed, the Minister may, after consultation with the Governor and with the approval of the Governor in Council, give to the Governor a written directive concerning monetary policy, in specific terms and applicable for a specified period, and the Bank shall comply with that directive.
“and the Bank shall comply with that directive.” Final say of what the Bank of Canada does is with the Minister.
A couple of you complain that I am just posting links. You are not posting even links to information. Just nay saying. Easy for you to do. No need to search for information and provide links so that people reading the posts can verify anything. I am providing information, you are providing empty criticism.
Another link.
A snarky one I admit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Average real hourly wage: https://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/average_real_hourly_wage.png
Real median wages, hourly and weekly: https://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/real_median_hourly_weekly_12m.png
Average hourly wage of employees in Canada from 2000 to 2019: Canada: average hourly wage of all employees 2022 | Statista
Here, since they’re charts rather than articles, I’m not sure how I can break it down to show how it supports high wages except to say that the part of the line on the left is lower than the part on the line on the right.
None of which is to say that everything’s perfect and the State should do nothing. I personally would like to see UBI.
The second link to real median wage per hour would be a raise of $0.77 cents over 15 years. Forty hours a week, $30 dollars. Fifty two weeks, $1560. 9.21% increase.
Over the past 15 years have a lot of people seen just a $1560 dollar a year increase in their expenses? Just a cost increase of 9.21%? At just 1% inflation per year it blows past that. The Bank of Canada inflation calculator.
https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/
So sorry, another uninformative, useless link.
Shows a basket of items costing $100 dollars in 1998 would cost $133 dollars in 2012 ( the range of the wage graph ) and they would like to use very favorable figures. A 33% increase in cost. Versus a 9.21% increase in wages.
Hmmm. I was just saying wages were stagnant. I have seen information pointing out we are losing ground. But I backed off of that.
Thanks for the link.
You think it shows a loss of ground?
C’mon, man.
It’s real median wages. That qualifier indicates that the effects of inflation are taken into account in the statistic. You can also see on both sides that it’s given in 2012 dollars.
I may be off in the numbers depending on definition of “real” median wages. But at that amount, over 15 years, 9.21% can be knocked down quite a bit in reality. Maybe the other way too, but less likely. The Bank of Canada calculator puts a 2.07% annual rate of inflation.
2.07% annual inflation over 15 years would wipe out a 9.21% raise total in 15 years.
Interesting. You can use the Bank of Canada inflation calculator in reverse too.
I put the 2012 wage in first and entered 2012 in the date.
Then 1998 in the lower date. It then returned the calculated 1998 wage.
1998 came out to $15.58.
Going forward I think I will use that Bank of Canada calculator to check figures on all these sites. It seems to show that the McLeans graph may be off from it’s inflation figures. Seeing as the Bank is the institution trying to manipulate inflation. I suppose a lot of information should be based on it’s figures.
Do you take this as meaning that the numbers on the MacLeans’ chart are unreliable? Any hypothesis as to why the numbers don’t appear to match up?
Also, please finally fucking answer my question about whether or not the fact that it starts at 3% and ends at about 3% means it’s stagnant.
This calculator also seems to match the Bank of Canada inflation figures. The inflation rate used is the official CPI. ( which I do feel is low ) The calculator is specifically for calculating wage gain or loss versus inflation rate as per CPI.
There are always discrepancies in data sources. Sometimes they help your argument sometimes hurt. I notice that their graph looks a lot like one in a PDF from the Canadian government. But the graph in the PDF starts at an earlier date, 1981 to 2011. Maybe a date glitch? I haven’t calculated the one in the PDF. Maybe they may have used a lower annual rate in the McLeans one.
That 3% thing is a weird representation of combined data. If you actually look at the wage data and went by the individual percentages at each data point, it would seem we should all be crazy rich by now. But overall it works out pretty flat. It’s a complicated example. Should have left it out. It calculates in a bunch of other stuff into that Wage Pressure figure. What might be pushing wages up or down.
I good way to tell if wages have stagnated is to look to how often minimum wage was raised to keep pace with inflation.
Measuring how well the economy is doing by how well affluent people’s wages are doing, isn’t very accurate, in my opinion.
We can all see that presidents and CEOs get yet MORE millions of dollar in bonuses, stock options and salaries, EVERY year. Mostly as a reward for keeping wages stagnant for minimum and lower wage workers.
Including those pay giant hikes for top earners, skews stats when in fact, the largest, lowest paid cohort actually saw zero increases over that time, in my opinion.
I good way to tell if wages have stagnated is to look to how often minimum wage was raised to keep pace with inflation.
Measuring how well the economy is doing by how well affluent people’s wages are doing, isn’t very accurate, in my opinion.
We can all see that presidents and CEOs get yet MORE millions of dollar in bonuses, stock options and salaries, EVERY year. Mostly as a reward for keeping wages stagnant for minimum and lower wage workers.
Including those pay giant hikes for top earners, skews stats when in fact, the largest, lowest paid cohort actually saw zero increases over that time, in my opinion.
There are “discrepancies” because they’re not about the same thing at all. MacLean’s numbers are about inflation adjusted wages in 2012 dollars across several years. The inflation calculator is about nominal dollars in any given year. Do you understand the distinction between nominal dollars and inflation adjusted dollars? Because it looks like you don’t if you think the BoC inflation calculator invalidates the MacLean’s numbers.
The BoC inflation calculator is telling you what the nominal price of something would be if there has been no real (inflation adjusted) increase or decrease in its price. The MacLean’s numbers are telling you what the real (inflation adjusted) wages have been over time. Aside from sharing the word “dollar”, they have fuck all to do with each other.
No, it’s not a weird representation of data. You just don’t seem to understand what it means. It’s telling you the increase in wages at each year.
No, even if you do by individual percentages of each data point, it doesn’t seem like we should all be crazy rich by now. An increase of a few percentage points each year doesn’t imply we should all be crazy rich nor that wages have been stagnant. That logical inference exists only in your head.
No, it’s not a complicated example, it’s an example you have difficulty understanding.
You don’t seem to understand the distinction between an increase in wages and an increase in the rate of increase in wages.
Increase =/= increase in the rate of increase.
Wages have increased, it’s the rate of increase that hasn’t increased.
That’s a false choice, of course. You don’t have to choose between the minimum wage (which is a legal fiat) and how affluent people’s wages are doing. Why the fuck would you posit a choice between only those two choices? The standard measure is to use the median wage, like in the example I gave.
And before you say: “The top earners distort the average!” I’ll repeat that it’s the median wage, not the average wage.