Skip to main content

The FRED® Blog

Have earnings kept up with growth?

Recent policy discussions have focused on wage growth and whether it’s been “too sluggish.” In this post we argue this is a feature of the trend and not the cycle.

Before looking at the actual statistics, it’s worth noting that it’s not totally obvious how we should define wages—because wage dynamics change so much over the distribution. Low, medium, and high wages have grown at different rates and at different times. From a macroeconomic perspective, however, it makes some sense to measure the average wage. The effect of so doing is that we put more weight on the higher earners than the average person, a result of a positively skewed wage distribution. (Recall the definition of skewness: Here, it means the top tail can pull up the mean past the average person’s wage, the median wage.) Still, with macroeconomic aggregates, using the average makes sense. We often look at GDP per capita, and average wages are equivalent to wages per capita. Now that we’ve decided what moment of the distribution to study, we have to choose what constitutes wages: total compensation including benefits or strictly labor income. Here, we focus on strictly wages and salaries rather than on other benefits: Labor income is more directly linked to economic motivations, whereas other side benefits are often the result of tax distortions. There are two good sources for these data: The BLS uses survey data to provide an estimate of wages and salaries, and the BEA creates a measure of wage and salary income while putting together the national income and product accounts.

In the top graph, we plot the BLS and BEA measures of labor income as the red and blue lines, respectively, and look at this relative to GDP (the green line). We normalize all of these series to be 100 in 1982, at the trough of the recession and when the BLS data become available. It’s immediately apparent that the GDP figure is now higher than wages, meaning that it has grown faster since the 1980s. This observation, which isn’t new, is related to a large literature about how the labor share of output has (or has not) diminished. We see the separation in 2015, but this is not a result of developments during the Great Recession. In the bottom graph, we plot these series in growth rates: year-over-year percentages. Notice that through the first decade of the 2000s, GDP growth was almost always faster than wage income growth. Both plummeted in the Great Recession, but since then have been growing at about the same pace. The decline in wages as a fraction of GDP is not a result of a sluggish recovery from the Great Recession, but rather from effects predating it.

How these graphs were created: For the top graph, search for “compensation of employees: wage and salary,” “total wages and salaries,” and GDP. Add each series as a separate line. Then choose the units to be “Index (scale value to 100 for chosen period)” and choose the observation date of 1982-11-01 (the 1982 recession trough when all three series are available). For the bottom graph, follow the same process to show all three series but, instead of choosing an index scale, make the units “Percent Change from Year Ago.”

Suggested by David Wiczer.

View on FRED, series used in this post: A576RC1, BA06RC1A027NBEA, GDP

Books or toys?

Raising children is perhaps the most rewarding activity. Yet, it’s also very time consuming. Although there aren’t good substitutes for parental time, there are good complements: Two of the most obvious and traditional are books and toys.

We can’t expect FRED to provide the relative values of buying books or toys for your children, but FRED can inform us about the relative costs. The graph shows the U.S. consumer price indexes for books and for toys. It is interesting (and clear) that they have behaved diametrically differently over time. To better appreciate these differences, we use the left axis for the price of books and the right axis for the price of toys. Both series are normalized so they are both equal to 100 in December 1979, which allows us to compare the relative price changes.

There were some differences in earlier years, but the key point of departure is December 1996. The cost of a toy today is only one third of the cost in December 1996, and the cost of a book today is almost three times the cost in December 1996. Roughly speaking, in terms of toys, books cost nine times more today than 20 years ago.

How to create this graph: FRED allows you to use keywords to search for time series. Use “consumer price toys usa” and select “Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Toys” (series ID CUSR0000SERE01). Then use “consumer price books usa” and select “Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Educational Books and Supplies” (series ID CUSR0000SEEA). For both series, under the “Units” menu, select “Index (Scale value to 100 for chosen period”) and choose the observation date 1979-12-01. Finally, for the price of toys, select the right axis.

Suggested by Alexander Monge-Naranjo and his 9-year old son, Gabriel Monge

View on FRED, series used in this post: CUSR0000SEEA, CUSR0000SERE01

Subscribe to the FRED newsletter

Follow us

Twitter logo Google Plus logo Facebook logo YouTube logo LinkedIn logo
Back to Top