1.1% over 7 years is probably less than 0.1% a year, after compounding. If your boss gave you a 0.1% raise every year, I’m sure you’d be dancing in the streets.
0.1% is flat in my book. I’ve already posted the productivity gains over the period, which are much higher.
Wait I forget. Do we WANT foreign investment or did we not want those diry furiners buying up America?
Foreign investment like building auto plants and manufacturing facilities ,which create jobs are desired. Selling our infrastructure and real estate is not the same thing.
On the other hand, we’re making a good living with the old shell game. We convince the foreigners (like the Japanese a few years ago) to buy at the top, and buy back the real estate when the bottom falls out of the market. And profit!
xtisme, I don’t believe schools encourage students to receive free or reduced lunch to get discounted telecommunication services. New Mexico has one of the highest percentages of students receiving free or reduced lunch, and I am sure it is because of income. It is unfortunate to see such a cynical spin on a program for needy children.
I’m sorry, but I disagree. I do IT work for the schools…and I know they DO try and spin the numbers to get them higher up on the eRate totem pole (as well as other reasons).
As I said…my son gets free lunch and free breakfast. Why do you suppose that is? I assure you I am far from poor…by any yardstick.
-XT
We?
Well, at least your son will eat a school lunch. My son only likes Pizza Hut day. 
More or less 0.1%. From the link in Fear Itself’s post. Wages over 2000-07 for all workers men and women rose 3%, 1.1% and 4.7%, respectively. That’s 0.45%, 0.17%, and 0.7% per year. (2007 data only take the first half of the year into account, for those following along at home.) If you measure from 2003 instead of 2007 the yearly rates are -0.25%, 0.02% and -0.04%. So over the latter four and a half years, adjusting for inflation, the work force as a whole received a one quarter percent “lower” (it’s the opposite of a raise) per year. Men did better than women; their wages grew by two hundreths of one percent. The cockles of my heart are getting toasty.
From 2003q3 to 2007q2 the ECI, which Shodan seems to prefer as an index of this type of thing(?), rose 0.1%. That’s an average rate of 0.02% per year. Over the same period production increased 5% or 1.3% per year. Of course, productivity rose like bread in a warm oven between 2000 and 2003. If we start our tally in 2000 instead of 2003 so that increase is accounted for we have ECI up 5.1% versus productivity up 19.8%. The yearly rates are 0.07% and 2.8%, respectively.
In other words, since 2000 or 2003, whichever you want to take as your starting point, wages have been more or less flat after adjustment (I consider 0.2% to be pretty damned close to flat, and 0.02% is… well… even more flatterer.) In the same time period ECI grew at a rate of 1.3% until late 2003 and then settled in at a more leisurely 0.02%.
What growth rate, exactly, would you characterize as “flat”? If I get a raise measured in hundreths of percents, will you forgive me if I am not overjoyed at my newfound wealth?
Bob Brinker, whom I consider to be very rational, is not forecasting an economic downturn. Why might we be hearing all this bad news?
Election year? Check.
Republican incumbent? Check.
Cue MSM to poormouth the economy.
Thanks for the math. I was lazy. When I was doing salary administration, we didn’t give raises of .1% etc to people, since it was just about 0 and a tiny raise was insulting. Kind of like leaving a penny tip instead of no tip at all.
Republican incumbent pushing a stimulus package. Check. The downturn is real - what is in dispute is if it will officially qualify as a recession.