No! You don't say. Someone twisting facts and numbers to meet their agenda? Kinda sounds like that whole 'climate change' 'warming oceans' (did you see the latest proven wrong numbers on that one) etc. etc.

I haven't read the article but if he lays it out the way you did is he really lying or just saying if you look at effective income it's not so bad because govt. assistance is compensating for the failure of wages to increase? At least among poor people.

On the climate change/ocean warmings, you did see their numbers still supported that the oceans are warming at the rate that is expected do to climate change. There just not rising faster than expected. I half wonder if they didn't do it intentionally to get all the climate change deniers to jump on it and basically support that climate change is real. Are there really any climate change deniers out there?

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

So an economist did a study on income, came to a conclusion on income that I believe you agree was correct. But your accusing him of lying cause it doesn't support your position on wages? Explain exactly what he lied about? Seems you don't like the fact that he studied income and not wages. I think you agree there is no income stagnation only wage stagnation. Which from what your saying is supported by his work, and not denied by the author? Can you please explain what exactly he lied about?

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

What you said. He's not *really* lying, but he's using weasel words to reframe the argument to say that things aren't the way they seem and things aren't that bad. The limiting case for his argument is if wages fell behind so much that assistance became 100% of income ("hey, income is keeping up with inflation! Ain't that great?").

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Basically he's saying that wage stagnation is wrong because income is rising (due to federal/state assistance). Yeah, great. "The sky is not blue, because grass is green."

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Can you provide a link? Most economists agree that wage stagnation is not evenly distributed across all workers (i.e. knowledge workers are experiencing wage growth... whereas workers with limited skills are not). That said, there also likely is some truth that government assistance does help to any wage stagnation to the point that real incomes are keeping up with inflation (if not exceeding it). Of course, hard to say more until I see and read the link...

---

In search of the righteous life... we all fall down

I'm not sure what the problem is, with respect to the study and findings. I haven't read the article yet, but clearly wages and income are two different things. Wages can remain stagnant or decrease, while income remains steady or increases. The question becomes, if wages are stagnant but income is increasing due to government handouts, is that a desirable or sustainable scenario? If I was a small government Republican, that would really bother me, both because I wouldn't be happy with wage stagnation in a healthy free market economy, and because I wouldn't be happy with the government subsidizing incomes to that extent, potentially decreasing the pressure on citizens to contribute to the work force.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

So to support his claim of no income stagnation (note he doesn't use *wage* stagnation), he includes income that is typically associated with low wages. Those transfers are increasing. For him, needing federal/state assistance is just as good as improving wages.


I actually think this article shows why the middle class is so pissed these days and have been for some time. The middle class is in a somewhat stagnant situation. However they are getting nailed with more and more expenses, health care and college tuition are two examples. These expenses are a fairly large chunk out of their income. At the same time they see the "Poor" getting more income and benefits and the "Rich" getting a decent raise.



It's exactly this situation that swept Trump into office, not racism, sexism etc., but this.


I ran some back of the napkin calculations a few years ago shortly after the ACA passed. Add up all the potential benefits available and you're looking at 35-40K worth of income and you have to do nothing for it. In the mean time you got a guy that is making $20-$25 an hour and ends up paying health care costs, for all his food, dental etc etc and he's essentially living on less than the person on federal and state aid.

The guy that goes to work each day and isn't well educated or lucky enough to get a union gig is getting borked...again this is how we got trump.

This situation continues to get worse as health care and educational cost skyrocket out of control. They can't afford the bucks to pay for their education to try and get a better job and they aren't gaining enough in wages to cover the increasing expense costs.

~Matt

Actually no studies were contradicted. Arguably, Samuelson's approach -- income over wage growth -- is dealing with the broader reality. As far as I can tell Samuelson's major sin is that he did not keep to a progressive mood that those wage studies, evidently, are crucial in reinforcing. That's an embarrassingly Trump-like standard for claiming someone is "lying".

As a liberal, Samuelson can’t talk about wage stagnation, because then he’d have to explain the root causes: millions of legal and illegal immigrants depressing wage rates, the outsourcing of good-paying American jobs to low-wage countries, and the killing off of American manufacturing by allowing Chinese imports—benefiting from China’s currency manipulation—to flood the United States. The last few presidents were more than willing to allow it, while the current one is trying to fix it. It's that simple.

haven't read the article, but is he talking real dollars? as i understand it, however much wages OR income have increased in recent years, they're still outpaced by inflation, especially in some key areas. inflation in education costs, for instance, have been off the charts.

anyway, as i always say, "real dollars or GTFO."

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

Robert Samuelson isn’t an economist. He’s a journalist with an undergraduate degree in Government.

Is he saying wage stagnation is wrong, or are you implying it because he says income is rising? BIG DIFFERENCE. You can't accuse him of lying if you don't like the way some may misinterpret his results.
From what you have said, it seems his report supports wages are going down, but wealth redistribution is working and those on the bottom are getting more so there income is increasing.

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

In his (Samuelson's) defense, he didn't run the study (the CBO did). He simply reported on said study. Are you saying he is unqualified to report on the CBO study because he does not have a degree in Economics? Seems like a high bar that would render most journalists irrelevant

---

In search of the righteous life... we all fall down

I finally got around to reading the article and some of the CBO study itself. I must agree that the study is solid and the biggest issue people seem to have is that it goes against a common narrative that is being pushed. As my Grad school professor would always say... "follow the data... wherever it takes you!" I know it is hard when the facts don't provide the confirmation bias we all seek. Yet, it is those times when one needs to step back and reassess one's positions

---

In search of the righteous life... we all fall down

Except that's not what Samuelson did. He used the CBO study which showed that *when transfers were included* (thus "income"), income rose across all quintiles, thereby disproving the generally-held belief that wage stagnation was occurring. Which it is, and which isn't disproved.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

No. I’m simply saying he’s not an economist.

This thread title is “Economist lying ...” It appears that not only was he not lying, he’s not an economist.

From Samuelson's article... "Unless you’ve been hibernating in the Himalayas, you must know of the recent surge in economic inequality. It’s not just that the rich are getting richer. The rest of us — say politicians, pundits and scholars — are stagnating. The top 1 percent have grabbed most income gains, while average Americans are stuck in the mud."


Please note how he does NOT use the term "wages". You are accusing him of conflating wages with income, but his article clearly avoids using the term "wages" and/or "wage stagnation". The title also clearly states... "The Myth of Stagnant Incomes". Again, you seem to be accusing him of trying to disprove wage stagnation... but he never argues wages or wage stagnation. Instead, he states (quite convincingly) that incomes have gained.

As I said before, I know it is hard when the facts don't provide the confirmation bias we all seek. Confirmation bias is powerful and it takes hard work not to buy into narratives -- especially if they align with one's own personal politics. That said, always follow and trust data... it never lies.

---

In search of the righteous life... we all fall down

Agree on both points...

---

In search of the righteous life... we all fall down

Do a Google search on "wage stagnation" and on "income stagnation." The former has about 3.8 million hits, and the latter about 26,000 hits.

Everyone not hibernating in the Himalayas has heard about the former, but he's talking about the latter. Perhaps he's just setting up a straw man argument just to shoot it down? Those who don't get transfers (most in the middle class, I would guess) don't care about the measure of income growth, because their income is primarily in the form of wages, which have stagnated (and which Samuelson and the CBO don't dispute).

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I did a Google search on "Kim Kardashian" and got 332 million hits... your search on "wage stagnation" got 3.8 million hits! Everyone not hibernating in the Himalayas has heard about her, but you are talking about the latter. See... I can do non sequiturs also. Friendly piece of advice... stop digging.

---

In search of the righteous life... we all fall down