Not Your Father's Pay: Why Wages Today Are Weaker »

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 10

• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  TechnologyExpert

  May 25, 2007, 2:12 p.m.

  In 2004, the median income for a man in his 30s, a good predictor of his lifetime earnings, was $35,010, the study says, 12% less than for men in their 30s in 1974 -- their fathers' generation -- adjusted for inflation. A decade ago, median income for men in their 30s was $32,901, 5% higher than 30 years earlier. Ms. Sawhill said she isn't sure why men's wages have stagnated. "It seems there's been some slowdown in economic growth, it's possible that the movement of women into the labor force has affected male earnings, and it's possible that men are not working as hard as they used to."

  The study suggests that absolute mobility -- the rate at which an entire generation's lot improves relative to previous generations -- has declined. But within a particular generation, individuals can still get ahead if relative mobility, the rate at which the rich and poor trade places, remains high. Poor fathers may have rich sons, and vice versa.
• 
  Avg rating: (+2/-1 1)

  ameliog

  May 25, 2007, 6:29 p.m.

  Fallout from the miracle that is our economy.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  texangelwings

  May 26, 2007, 9:09 a.m.

  "Ms. Sawhill said she isn't sure why men's wages have stagnated."; maybe it has something to do with all the high paying manufacturing jobs that have been outsourced to other countries? (the loss in small appliance mfg., linen mills, steel, electronic, etc.)?

  Salaries are only as good as the companies willingness to pay a living wage. The days of working 40 years for a company and being given that gold watch, are gone. I think it is called scrooge, when it comes to paying the people who actually do the labor/work.
• 
  Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

  evelyna

  May 26, 2007, 11:38 a.m.

  What about inflation. Your money is worth less than it was.

  After people pay their car and gas there is little money left over for anything.

  Greed killed the economy. If you need a copy of a report from a bank they want $50.00. Where is this money going. I can get a copy at an office supply store for a nickel. Labor would be about 5 minutes.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  doppich

  May 26, 2007, 12:38 p.m.

  I would generally expect the WSJ to hide this generational loss in wages by using an "average" wage computation. I am pleased and surprised that they used the more appropriate "median." I suspect the cause of the drop is that the growing national income pie is no longer shared among labor, management and capital. The two latter groups seize any increase for themselves, thanks to the weakening of the labor movement from offshoring and the competition from 20,000,000 illegals.
• 
  Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

  DoseASpinoza

  May 28, 2007, 1:02 p.m.

  Productivity = unpaid work hours (overtime). Companies are getting better at squeezing more work out of their workers.
• 
  Avg rating: (+11/-0 11)

  Raiderwall

  May 28, 2007, 2:07 p.m.

  I agree with OS2x. Bush is a christofascist. If they had their way there would be a Department of school prayer and intelligent design.

  I disagree with Bush being better than Gore or Kerry. If Gore had been president

  he'd have Bin Laden's stuffed head over the mantel by now. Bush has us trapped in a situation where you're damned no matter what you do.

  As far as pure conservative politics goes, that, like pure liberalism, or pure socialism, only works on paper. In the real world you've got to be pragmatic, and adjust to circumstances.

  Bush is a rigid ideologue. His actions are based on his internal beliefs rather than real world events. It's why he's a bad president. His decisions are based on what he thinks should be happening rather than on what is happening.

All 10 comments are shown.