All right, this is a little bit of a vent, but also a specific claim about how things should be reported, so I’m putting it in P&E.
North Carolina is the only state without a budget–not because our legislature isn’t meeting, but because they’re dealing with more important issues like how to gerrymander to please Trump, and how to strip powers from the Democratic governor, and the like. But at last the two chambers have come to an agreement on a budget, and oh boy are they proud. They’re trumpeting average raises of 8% for teachers, the highest in the Southeast.
Except.
They’re the highest because we haven’t passed a budget since October 2023. Since 2023, inflation has increased 8.25%. The average teacher will see a pay cut under this proposal. Veteran teachers will see a pay cut of about 3% since October 2023.
As annoyed as I am with our dishonest legislature, I am at least as frustrated with reporters who repeat these happy raise claims without including inflation numbers for context.
My proposal is that any reporting on raises should always be accompanied by information on inflation, for context, and that a “raise” that doesn’t outstrip inflation should be more accurately labeled a pay cut.
Is there any reasonable disagreement with this proposal?
Only that the government can’t tell a reporter what to write, what to include and what not to include in a news story. Or in a news analysis or editorial.
If you mean that these strictures should be placed on the political machinery that is making hay out of this alleged raise, good luck with that too. It doesn’t sound like your state legislature is bound by any regulation to even have a state budget, if they can operate without one for 3 years. If I were doing reforms in your state, I might focus on that first. Bear in mind that I know nothing about the situation there except what you have posted in this thread.
This reminds me of a joke that, like most old jokes, can use different organizations to suit the needs of the teller:
At the XYZ Corporation company picnic, the HR Department played a softball game against the Public Relations staff, which the HR Department won handily. The game was reported thusly in the XYZ Corporation’s company newsletter: “The PR Department’s softball team had a successful season, finishing in second place. Meanwhile, the hapless HR Department finished next to last.”
I think that poster understands the OP perfectly; they just don’t think it’s a particularly good idea, possibly for strategic reasons.
Sorry I misunderstood. And I do agree that this should be standard practice, but I have no idea how to make it happen. As we all know from bitter experience, most news organizations have long since given up the idea of fair and accurate reporting in favor of what is profitable to them, however they calculate that. The only exceptions I know of are listener- and viewer-supported organizations like NPR and PBS. These organizations are not immune from influence, but there is less of it, or at least that’s what I believe to be true.
I mean, if you really want to go there, you end up with sentences like “Local man given 2% pay cut after securing $2/hr raise.”
Or “Employees of local shop receive a 3% pay cut, reducing wages from $18 an hour to $18 an hour.”
I understand the concept of inflation, but reporting on inflation as a “pay cut” really stretches definitions beyond common usage.
If I went to my employer and complained that I received a “pay cut” this year (I did not receive a raise) and demanded to know why, they would be confused. After I explained that “pay cut” means “lack of a raise equal to inflation” I would be laughed at.
We need a stronger understanding that wage stagnation against inflation has real impacts on real people. But re-branding any wage increase below inflation as a pay cut is not the way.
I would kill for an 8% raise over the last two years.
This last sentence is deeply sad. If your pay isn’t keeping up with inflation, that’s an effective pay cut, and we absolutely should acknowledge it. If our society’s wages aren’t keeping up with inflation, that should be the main topic of conversation.
That’s the wrong way to write it. Write, instead, “Legislative proposal offers raises that don’t keep up with inflation.” or “Teacher earning power decreases by 3% since 2023.” These are simple to understand and contextualize the raises.
Sure, I agree that as a society we neglect to understand how buying power and inflation impact the value of wages.
Sure, I agree. I just think that “earning power decreases” is a much more accurate and cromulent statement than “receives a pay cut” for all kinds of reasons.
My reasonable disagreement with your proposal is that my employer does not cut my pay every time inflation numbers come out. I don’t think that either a raise lower than inflation or an unchanged wage are accurately labeled a pay cut, outside of the most casual of conversation. My wage does not go up or down based on the fluctuating value of the dollar relative to goods and services. My wage is a fixed number, and the value of that wage changes over time.
I do agree that context-free crowing about raises is reporting that serves a particular message. But the language in your proposal leads to some pretty nonsensical sentences.
If your employer sells a product, and their charge for their product is tied to inflation, but their labor costs are not, then they’re profiting off of inflation, and that profit is coming out of your pay. How is that not a pay cut?
Maybe this is pedantry, so after this I’m not going to try to explain any more, particularly because I fundamentally agree with you (I think) that the ultimate outcome over time can feel like a pay cut.
I just think that asking reporters to report “man receives a raise” or “man’s salary stays the same” as “man receives a pay cut” is… not accurate use of language and leads to nonsense sentences like the ones in my first post.
With the language you suggest, a wage of $20/hr could be said to be increased or cut depending on market analysis. That way lies madness and confusion. Who is giving that ‘raise’ or ‘cut’?
‘Honey, I got a raise… to the exact same amount I’m making now!’
‘what a generous employer you have!’
‘Honey, I’m sorry to say… I just got a pay cut!’
‘Ok, let’s go over the budget… how much less are you making?’
‘None less.’
… like I said, maybe it’s pedantry, but I think your proposed language solution to the problem of lack of economic literacy in the media and public is a flawed one.
This is why economists have developed strict terminology when discussing inflation.
Terms like “constant dollars”, “real wages”, “purchasing power”, and “inflation-adjusted prices” all mean dollar (or other currency unit) values adjusted for inflation over some specified period.
They don’t just say “employees received a 3% pay cut”, they say “employees received a 3% reduction in real wages” or “the purchasing power of employees has fallen by 3%”. This disambiguates the effects of inflation from wages expressed in current dollars.
That sort of reporting is routine in the UK, normally stuff like ‘NHS nurses have been offered a 5% pay rise, but due to inflation the union claims this is a 3% cut in real terms and have rejected the offer’.
Normally this is only from the better news reporters, admittedly, and typically while trying to explain strike threats or action, but it’s pretty common to come across.