How do wages affect the economy

For earlier years, we use the trend in hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory workers in the goods-producing sectors and assume that the hourly pay of all production and nonsupervisory workers followed that trend before To account for health care coverage and other benefits that workers receive in addition to wages and salaries, we use data from Table 7. From these two sources, we get a measure of total economywide wages and salaries, employer payments for employee health insurance, and all other nonhealth, nonwage compensation.

For employer payments for employee health insurance, we construct a health-specific deflator consistent with the CPI-U-RS. To do this, we use the ratio of the price index for health goods and services from Table 2. This ratio gives us a relative measure of how much faster health-related goods and services have risen since than overall inflation.

We then deflate employer payments to employee health insurance by this health-specific deflator. Combining the inflation-adjusted measures of wages and salaries, employer payments for employee health insurance, and all other benefits gives us a measure of total compensation. Failing to understand the role of these data adjustments in highlighting the failure of productivity growth to redound to the benefit of typical workers has led many to focus on inappropriate measures of both productivity and pay, and this has led them to come to wrong conclusions.

The common alternative approach is to u se the nonfarm business NFB sector productivity and costs data series to plot the real output per hour and real hourly compensation indices the NFB series includes productivity and unit labor costs as well as the output, hours, and compensation data on which those ratios are calculated. Figure A Using publicly available pay and productivity data obscures rising inequality : Nonfarm business productivity and hourly compensation, — Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics nonfarm business sector productivity and costs data.

Specifically, in this graph, there is a gap between productivity and pay but the overwhelming share of it is a statistical artifact of using different price deflators for the two series.

Below, we walk through how this chart can be adjusted in steps to make the figure that shows the inequality driving the wedge between productivity and pay. Our first adjustment to the NFB-based graph is to broaden our productivity measure from the nonfarm business sector to encompass the entire economy.

This measure of economywide productivity is calculated by using the unpublished but available upon request total economy productivity TEP series tracked by the BLS. Because sectors outside the nonfarm business sector government, in particular tend to see slower productivity growth, this first adjustment Figure B slightly reduces the pace of productivity growth since Figure B Broadening our measure of productivity from the nonfarm business sector to the total economy reduces productivity growth : Nonfarm business productivity, total economy productivity, and hourly compensation,— Our second adjustment to the productivity data Figure C corrects for the influence of depreciation—converting the series from a gross measure of productivity to a net measure.

We do this by multiplying the TEP productivity index in each year by the ratio of gross to net domestic product. Figure C Accounting for depreciation further reduces measured productivity growth : Nonfarm business productivity, total economy productivity, and hourly compensation, — Note: All four lines are indices set to in To generate net productivity growth, real output per hour for the total economy is multiplied by the ratio of net domestic product to gross domestic product in all years to account for depreciation.

Our final adjustment to productivity is to replace the output deflator used to inflation-adjust the BLS productivity measures with a consumption deflator. To do this, we retrieve nominal values of productivity by reflating the productivity index by the net domestic product deflator. The results are shown in Figure D. Note: All five lines are indices set to in The first adjustment we make to the NFB pay series or average real hourly compensation is to replace it with a measure of hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory workers.

Rising inequality drives a large wedge between growth in average pay and pay for the vast majority and, by definition, one can never fully examine what has happened to trends in inequality by looking at averages huge gains at the top pull the average upward. Figure E shows that the effect of this adjustment is dramatic.

This is in contrast with inequality arising when more and more of income generated economywide accrues to the owners of capital and less and less to the labor force overall.

While there has been a significant shift of income away from labor and toward capital in recent decades, this shift has had a far smaller effect on the pay — productivity gap than has rising inequality within wage earner s. This can be seen in the figures below—the gap between average hourly compensation and the effective total economy productivity line is far smaller than the gap between nonsupervisory hourly wages and effective total economy productivity. Wage inequality has grown radically since Probably the starkest representation of this radical growth in wage inequality can be seen in the stratospheric rise in the ratio of the pay of CEOs and other top corporate executives relative to typical workers in their industry.

Figure E Comparing productivity to typical worker pay reveals the extent of inequality hidden by average pay trends : Nonfarm business productivity, total economy productivity, hourly compensation, and nonsupervisory wages — Note: All six lines are indices set to in Our second pay adjustment accounts for trends in nonwage compensation.

If the value of health care and other nonwage benefits provided by employers grew more rapidly than wages, then looking only at hourly earnings could disguise how rising productivity may have boosted living standards for the vast majority.

As Figure F shows, o nce we account for the value of benefits including the effect of rapid inflation in health care , one sees that the overall trends are not materially changed. Perhaps surprisingly , the era that saw measures of total compensation rise noticeably faster than wages is the era before Note: All seven lines are indices set to in The ratio of economywide compensation to wage and salary income is multiplied by the average hourly earnings line to yield a measure of total compensation, not just wages, for nonsupervisory workers.

However, since researchers and analysts may still be interested in factors that account for various parts of the wedge between our measure of pay and other measures of productivity, we decompose these gaps further. To be clear, this portion was the large majority of the gap. And when we wanted to assess something specific to the rise in inequality associated with this gap like in this paper , we focused only on the portion of the gap that was indeed associated with rising inequality. Graham White does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Industry, arguing that currently business has limited ability to afford wages increases , wants the increase capped at 1. There is more than one. Indeed, wages are certainly a cost. This is the cost of employing a person in terms of the value of the goods and services a business would produce. This depends on two things. The second is the productivity of the worker — how much the worker produces over a given time. The real cost of employing a person over time depends on how these two things change.

If productivity is growing, then the real wage can grow without an increase in the real cost of labour for business. The first is that productivity also depends on investment. Changes in technology that allow for greater productivity are often embodied in the new plant and equipment that firms invest in.

Yet what governs investment? This is an age-old question in economics, and perhaps one of the least agreed areas within the profession.

But any stab at this question would conceivably point to the expected rate of return on the investment relative to the so-called cost of capital.

Weller J. Andrew Hoerner Robert S. Shepherd Ellen Houston Lawrence E. Wood Heather Boushey Richard B. Krueger David T. Burkam Valerie E. Lee Robert G. Danner G. Piehl Stefan F. Rueben Arloc Sherman Joseph H. Guttentag Arindrajit Dube Whitney C. Cauthen Nancy J. Altman Susan Helper Gregory D. Squires Virginia P. Reno Rebecca M. Blank Andrew Nicholas Owen E. Bishop Ken Jacobs Elizabeth J.

Drake Terence P. Ballantyne Marco Basile Matthew M. Baker Paul E.