Non-Supervisory Real Hourly and Weekly Wages
Andrew Samwick's meditation object for the week:
« Jeebus! This Is Humiliating! | Main | Economics of the Transhuman Condition »
Andrew Samwick's meditation object for the week:
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/106400/29154486
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Non-Supervisory Real Hourly and Weekly Wages:
Where is this graph from? Citation please. This IS the web you know.
Posted by: Andreas | May 16, 2008 at 01:29 PM
Where is this graph from? Citation please. This IS the web you know.
Posted by: Andreas | May 16, 2008 at 01:30 PM
Where is this graph from? Citation please. This IS the web you know.
Posted by: Andreas | May 16, 2008 at 01:30 PM
Andreas, the graph is from the web you don't know.
Posted by: jerry | May 16, 2008 at 02:08 PM
andreas, you only have to ask once!
it is a graph that samwick appears to have constructed from BLS data:
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/andrew-samwick/319/real-earnings-not-so-much
Posted by: howard | May 16, 2008 at 03:34 PM
I wish this had been done with proper axes.
[These are the proper axes: plotting average hourly wages and average weekly hours would be much more confusing.]
It's easy to assume that there's a fixed relationship between the weekly pay and hourly pay, but the way the axes are set up that doesn't hold.
There's no way for $700/week and $20/hour to match $500/week and $16/hour without assuming that higher weekly pay is primarily gained by more hours per week... which would be interesting in itself, and deserves not to be a hidden assumption.
Or someone just set up the axes in Excel to make a more interesting chart without worrying about their relationship. I know which I'd normally suspect. :-)
Posted by: Erik | May 16, 2008 at 05:58 PM
So, overtime was abolished in 2003. That's pretty clear in the data; I wonder why I hadn't heard that anywhere else?
Posted by: Tom Womack | May 17, 2008 at 12:37 AM