So according to this article, the only time we saw non-stagnant wages (adjusted for inflation) was in the 60s and 70s and later during the dot-com bubble.
I wasn’t born until 1972, but I remember the 90s being a time where it was pretty easy to land a job in tech (even with my no experience). Even now, with my experience it’s relatively easy for me to land a six figure project management job in tech.
The challenge is finding one that is sustainable long term. My clients tend to be the sort of places where people stick around 10, 20 years or more. But most of the actual work is done by contractors, outside consulting firms (like mine) or offshore resources.
Not even close. The whole point of being paid in stock is to have most of your compensation taxed at a lower rate than your employees’ labor is taxed at.
Me too and it was the same situation. The problem was that the dot com bubble was a rather unique event. I didn’t have all that much experience at the time and yet I could make my resume active on Monster.com or Dice.com and the phone would literally be ringing within minutes and would not stop for days each one with better promises. Most of them were bullshit but I did make more even in absolute terms than I have to this day off of a couple of them. That is completely different than opportunities for most people in their mid-20’s today.
Unfortunately, many of my coworkers in several industries with little skills jumped ship from stable jobs to ephemeral dot com opportunities only to have them blow up in their face when their new companies inevitably folded just as fast as they were conceived (I tried to warn them to no avail). I thought I was doing much better by focusing only only famous and established companies but even I got burned through layoffs. I was fortunate and wise enough to make it through the post 9/11 downturn in the market because of my focus on basic and scalable skills but it was still not all rosy.
I am thankful that my position today is with one of the longest lasting and most respected companies in the world but I only got that through right place at the right time type luck. I learned a long time ago to value stability over a slightly quicker buck. My skills are varied and solid enough that I don’t have to worry that much even if I do get cut from my current position. Few people have that leverage. However, that is what it takes in today’s job market especially for the higher paying positions.
From the mid-70s to the mid-90s, times were extremely tough (lower real hourly wages, lower real personal income until around 1985). But it’s not the case that wages have been stagnant over the last several decades generally. Part of the overall income growth is likely due to workers simply working more hours per week than in the past. But up until 2000 or so, the average US resident was seeing increases in their real personal income. The current period of stagnation is a somewhat recent phenomenon.
Some posts ignore what the main income inequality claim is. Wages have decreased as a share of GDP. The division of the “pie” is different today than 35 years ago, with a larger piece of pie going to shareholders and a smaller piece going to wage earners. (And when looking for wage graphs, remember to look for median wages NOT “average” wages.)
So if real wages have increased, but just not as a share of GDP, what’s the complaint? For one thing, with rising standard of living (smart-phones, etc.) higher wages are needed to “stay even.”
Why do I get a feeling that the creator of that chart cherry picked indices until he got two he wanted?
1974 was a terrible year to compare to anything. That spike was from the oil crisis. I’ll take wages against inflation myself as a better metric.
It’s pretty clear from the data already presented that real wages have not rise for the past 15 years. I doubt too many people feel either richer or poorer depending on their share of the GDP. However the productivity increases which increase the GDP have gone to the rich, as we’ve seen.