Interesting economic statistics
You know, sometimes I start out to write a post for the weblog, and I take a couple links from here, and a couple from there, glue them together with some funny anecdotes (usually told at my expense), post it, and then I obsessively reload the page until someone comments on it. In other words, I like to be original on my weblog, and when I have the time I like to put some effort into my posts.
Sometimes, however, I start out with a post. Like this one. I crib a link from one person, and then start writing. Write write write. I find a few more links, and write some more. Revise. Shuffle paragraphs. Google some, find more links. Put on the final touches. And when I’m all done, I look at my post, and then I look at the original link I found, and I find that everything I’ve said is actually copied from the original link, only I’ve rephrased everything in my own words. Usually when that happens I delete my post in disgust and just do a quick mini-post of the original link.
In this case, I started out by reading Philip Greenspun’s ideas on how immigration affects income distribution statistics, and I zeroed in on one interesting link: the Jesus link in the next paragraph. I wound up building up my post from there, and after all of the edits, reshuffling, and revising, I went through the final edit, and almost everything I wrote wound up (unintentionally) mirroring his post. I even wound up deleting the links I added and was only cribbing links from his post, without even realizing it. I mean, honestly, just go read his post because it’s better researched and has more links. If you’re still interested in what I wrote you can keep reading:
Expressed as a simple ratio of wealth, the rich haven’t gotten any richer since the time of Jesus. This doesn’t surprise me, but the fact that there hasn’t been much variation over that time frame does surprise me.
Okay, I’ll buy it: I love me some good contrarian facts. The rich are always richer than the poor by some static amount, which was probably printed in the original paper that I’m too lazy to go read. But then how does one explain that real wages, adjusted for inflation, have declined over 16 percent from their peak in 1972?
The real wages statistic is one that I’ve heard for a long time. It always seemed surprising to me. Contrary to what that statistic predicts, my friends and family members have larger household incomes now than they did in the 70s, even adjusting for inflation. They also have bigger homes, safer, more fuel efficient cars, ipods, and automatic dishwashers. My digital camera is far more convenient to use than film cameras of the 70s, even if film was free and you got the pictures back instantly.
If everything is better now than it was then, why do the numbers suggest we should all be broke and miserable? Well, keep in mind that chart shows average weekly wages (in 1982 dollars). Think of that as an amount you get per job. Some people hold more than one job, right? And if you have multiple jobs, or a spouse/partner that works outside the home, your household income goes up.
Another interesting idea comes from Philip Greenspun. He has a simple explanation for the discrepancy: immigration.
One thing that nobody seemed to consider was the effect of immigration. If a bunch of folks show up here with limited education and poor English skills we wouldn’t expect them to earn high wages. It might not be an indication of unfairness if real wages have stagnated. It might simply mean that immigrants are arriving in huge numbers. The natives are experiencing income growth but they are disappearing in the statistics under the tide of immigration.
Go check it out, it’s pretty interesting.