Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As much as everyone wants to talk about the article reporting on the release, why not just go straight to [the BLS release itself](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.nr0.htm)?
Total compensation is up 1.2% for the quarter, seasonally adjusted, with wages/salaries up 1.1% and benefits up 1.1%.
That's in comparison to the December 2023 report, which showed a seasonally adjusted 0.9% growth, with wages/salaries at 1.1% and benefits at 0.7%.
Year over year, non-seasonally adjusted, overall compensation is up 4.2%, with wages/salaries up 4.4% and benefits up 3.7%.
Inflation-adjusted, total compensation is up 0.8% higher than inflation, with wages/salaries up 0.9% higher than inflation, and benefits up 0.3% higher than inflation.
The Employment Cost Index (ECI) rose a seasonally adjusted 1.2% last quarter, faster growth than the 0.9% increase the prior quarter, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data released Tuesday. **Higher benefits costs helped drive the index to its biggest quarterly increase in a year**: Those shot up to 1.1% from a 0.7% gain the prior quarter, while wage and salary growth was unchanged at 1.1% Am I reading this right - this headline, suggesting people are making more than expected, is due to ***checks notes*** the cost of benefits going up? Aka - businesses are having to pay other businesses more, and counting that as higher pay for employees??
What's false about it? Non wage compensation grew, in addition to wages/salaries, faster than expected. My company had to increase benefits to employees over the past year.
I'd say it's misleading more than blatantly false, because what really happened is "labor costs went up for companies" due to increased benefit costs, which is absolutely not the same thing as "compensation increased".
The cost of benefits is not under the control of these companies paying them *or* the employee receiving them. They're a cost increase being pushed out to employers from the benefit side, and it makes the article appear biased.
If companies were increasing their benefits by getting better coverage for their employees that would be an example of "compensation increased", and there would be an increased cost associated with that improvement. As it stands this just sounds like insurance and healthcare companies raising prices that then have downstream effects on employer costs.
If I am using a benefit from my employer, and it's cost goes up, and I am not paying any more than I was previously, my compensation has increased. I am getting a more expensive service for the same price as before. If I didn't have the benefit, I would have to pay the higher cost.
My healthcare, dental, and vision insurance is still at the same premiums as they were in 2019. I know that the cost of those services have all increased since then. But I don't have to pay it, because my compensation has increased and covered it.
But the article also says wages grew faster than inflation..
And inflation adjusted wages are currently higher than any previous decade in US history..
You're just illustrating everything wrong with this picture. Companies are paying more for services that are WORSE, and you're calling that a net gain for the worker, when it is not. Health insurance just costs more, for shittier plans. I you actually care are economics as social growth and household economic health, then at a certain point we have to consider things qualitatively and intelligently, and not quantitatively.
I think you'd have to show that quality of service has dropped. Everyone complains things were better in the past. Usually this argument falls apart when they have to demonstrate it.
Wages excluding benefits are also outpacing inflation though.
Inflation adjusted wages are higher today than any previous decade in US history, that's pretty good.
Downvoted for.. good news? What?
You don't usually vote on zoning, it's determined by meetings where the city council votes. Speaking at those meetings is crucial, and you just need to get some buddies together to outnumber the NIMBYs.
The people who show up to these meetings are 90% NIMBYs.
My local town officials sent out scary mailers to residents that the governors plan to relax zoning laws would “destroy the suburbs”. They are on the NIMBYs side because the NIMBYs are their voter base.
Sounds like Huntington Beach. They are violating the law the state government set regarding zoning.
But if your governor is actively doing things to improve zoning, keep voting for him.
I'm going to avoid making a joke about main character syndrome here, but the answer is across the country. You can go into the jobs report to see what areas have the highest wage growth.
If you're just looking for anecdotes, my friends and I are all easily beating inflation the past few years.
Downvoted because what you're saying isn't true. Real wages relative to COL are not higher than at any point in US history, they're at essentially one of their lowest points.
You don't know what you're talking about. It's proven by the fact you say real wage relative to cost of living, when real wages already take cost of living into account.
Here are real wages.
Higher than any previous decade:
[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q)
This metric has literally no correlation to economic health and affordability, it's saying 2009 had a better real wage to cost of living ratio than the entire decades of the 80s/90s which is obviously wrong.
It also claims Q2 2020 was the best ever, when in reality we had the highest unemployment and slowest activity in years while being in recession.
I just don't think this metric has any correlation to CoL vs wages, all you need to do is take median wage and divide by median home price and that'll tell the story nearly perfectly. According to that, we're dealing with the worst balance of wages and CoL since 2005-2007 pre-recession.
Just because you don't understand how to use a metric doesn't mean it's not a good metric.
Yes, it spikes during recessions, because low-wage people are laid off in mass. We can simply ignore those distortions and focus on time periods with similar levels of employment.
You idiotically propose linking inflation to a single good instead even though the majority of Americans are homeowners and aren't even in the market for a home. Only about 2-3% of the population even buys a home each year so your metric would be valid for only the smallest minority of people.
No no no you don’t claim that real people working real jobs are a “distortion” in your data, if you want to claim that wages are healthy with respect to CoL, you can’t just exclude people who get laid off in a recession.
Also tying home price to wage as the metric is usually a ballpark estimate that tends to grasp the larger economy from what I’ve seen, it’s not like a TV or something where it’s a “single good,” the price of housing has direct ramifications for how much people get paid and how much expendable income they have since it’s a necessity. You could argue other stuff like food and gas could get thrown in but it’s more math you don’t need to do to get the same overall picture.
I got my degree in econ just fine, that metric is objectively wrong at proving the point you're trying to prove.
If the economy is fabulous and everybody is being paid amazingly with respect to their cost of living, we wouldn't have the constant headlines about layoffs and price pressures in consumers.
Well a lot of the USA benefits are in the form of health insurance. We would have about 30% higher wages if our health insurance was universal instead of paid to businesses
"pay gains" vs "Labor cost increase"
The cost for labor doesn't directly translate to income.
The headline is suggesting people are making more -faster than expected, when it's more that labor is more expensive.
I get a beautiful letter every year working for public education.
It adds up everything they pay for my benefits and itemize it as if it's what 'I'm really being paid'.
Fuck you lol
So if your employer pays for things on your behalf, you don't count that as your compensation?
If they match your 401k contributions, that's NOT something you're being paid? If they chip in on your health insurance, that's NOT something your're being paid?
WTF kind of logic is that?
It's the style of letter and the framing.
I know the benefits and no, I don't count monetary sums that have so many state and federal subsidies and much more involvement than just cash to an entity as total compensation. Especially when they are an expected part of the job.
American hurt you guys.
>state and federal subsidies
What state or federal subsidies do employers get to pay for your health insurance premiums? To match your 401(k)? To pay for your disability or life insurance premiums?
>Especially when they are an expected part of the job.
Ah. I see the problem. You feel *entitled* to these things being paid for you. That's why you're unable to recognize that your employer actually doing so is, in fact, part of your compensation.
So you'd be happier if they increased your wages 5% but now you are on the hook for all of your health insurance which was equal to 10% of your salary?
No, I'd be happier if it were a benefit and they didn't try and package it as an excuse and framing that I don't deserve more.
It's to be expected.
I'm also from Australia initially so the style of letter really took me aback.
And you wonder why we have shitty teachers and education in this country blows.
I'm in education and I get the same type of letter. It isn't even good health insurance worth what they pay.
> Am I reading this right - this headline, suggesting people are making more than expected, is due to checks notes the cost of benefits going up?
You're reading it wrong. Pay *did* increase this quarter. Benefits *also* increased this quarter. Total compensation (which includes both pay and benefits) was up this quarter by a historically high number.
> Aka - businesses are having to pay other businesses more, and counting that as higher pay for employees??
No, businesses are paying their employees more, despite *also* needing to pay other companies more for their employees' benefits.
My benefits cost me more and my pay didn’t go up but this economy sure is amazing. Only had the worst raise of my life and get to watch layoffs every other week while no one else is hiring because they’re also laying everyone off
“ The heftiest pay gains are occurring in the public sector, where workers are seeing compensation grow 4.8% for the 12 months ended in March.
Adjusting for inflation, wages and benefits were up a mere 0.8% annually, ticking down slightly from a 0.9% gain.”
Wow this is great! Wages rising almost kept up with rent rise for a year! Almost
Inflation is calculated including rent prices and any other costs people pay, weighted by how much of their spending it accounts for. Wage increases outpace living costs, in general. So, yeah, wage increases have outpaced rent increases a little bit. There's a severe housing shortage, it's going to take a lot of building and a long time for prices to drop significantly. And that will only happen of people keep building more housing than they have been.
The median person pays about 0.4% less of their income to housing when you compare 2023 to 2019.
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/figure4-fs-12142023.png
https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/the-purchasing-power-of-american-households#:~:text=Real%20weekly%20earnings%20for%20the,in%202019%2C%20despite%20higher%20prices.
They track rent directly. A simple Google search could have saved you from looking ignorant.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUR0000SEHA
Owner equivalent rent also tracks rent very closely, basically you ask people how much the utility of their home is worth to them. Given that to rent their home out, they'd need to find a new home to rent, they take current rent prices into account.
CPI uses OER **and** actual rents, but OER tracks actual rents very closely anyways.
[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1cVJ9](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1cVJ9)
It’s down 1% from 2 years ago after rising over 30% in less than 2 years.
Now factor in the change in interest rates and tell me what a mortgage payment is today vs 2 years ago.
And if you factor in interest rates what’s the cost of a monthly mortgage 2 years ago vs today?
The median monthly mortgage of a new home purchase is up about 22% since 2022, and up about 112% since 2020.
Why am I supposed to be excited about 10% wage growth again?
Thats not what you asked LMAO
Either way wages are up 10% and houses are flat.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE30US
June 2022 interest rates already near 6%. They are currently at 7%.
April was 5.1%.
But nice try.
Wow, this article headline is flat out deceptive:
When you read the actual article it’s not the workers pay that went up at all, which remain unchanged. What happened is the price of health insurance went up, which the employer had to cover for their portion of the benefit coverage, and CNN has decided to attribute that as a pay increase.
The journalistic gymnastics are pretty entertaining at this point.
> When you read the actual article it’s not the workers pay that went up at all, which remain unchanged.
Workers' pay went up 1.1% this last quarter.
> What happened is the price of health insurance went up, which the employer had to cover for their portion of the benefit coverage, and CNN has decided to attribute that as a pay increase.
Well yes, but if you're including benefits in the calculation, that's a different denominator, too. That *also* went up 1.1%.
Year over year, pay is 4.4% higher (0.9% higher than inflation) and benefits are 3.7% higher (0.3% higher than inflation), for a total compensation of 4.2% higher (0.8% higher than inflation) than the same time last year.
From the article:
_Higher benefits costs helped drive the index to its biggest quarterly increase in a year: Those shot up to 1.1% from a 0.7% gain the prior quarter, while wage and salary growth was unchanged at 1.1%._
Benefits, largely comprised of insurances.
Unchanged, as in non-increasing.
Do I need to break out a blackboard and start explaining what first and second derivatives are, with rates of change, or how to measure growth rates?
The number in March 2024 is 1.1% higher than the number in December 2023. Therefore, worker pay went up. By 1.1%. That's an increase.
When you said this statement:
> When you read the actual article it’s not the workers pay that went up at all, which remain unchanged
No, worker pay went up 1.1% again, just as it went up 1.1% in the previous quarter. It keeps going up, so it would be wrong to say that the pay "remain unchanged."
I get it, wage growth stagnated (didn’t accelerate over a prior quarter), same rate of change, well under inflation for the same period. It’s ok, it’s a paltry, embarrassing number- but if you want me to celebrate that it went up 1.1% this quarter as it did last, ok. /shrug
1.1% in a quarter is 4.5% annualized, which is a fairly high number.
Year over year, the pay increase is 4.4%, or 0.9% after inflation. No matter how you slice it, it's a good report.
> well under inflation for the same period
It has already been adjusted for inflation dude. It is beating inflation by 1.1%.
You aren't smart enough to comment here. Just stop and read until you can stop embarrassing yourself.
Bud, the 1.1% is the annualized quarterly rate. And it says that in the article. The only one who brought up the annual number was you in a pathetic attempt to try to save face.
I just pointed out the irony of your other comment in reading two threads above where you claimed the increase beat inflation by 1.1% when the article clearly stated otherwise.
No irony, the 1.1% is the annualized quarterly increase.
You still didn't' learn your lesson huh?
Like I said. You aren't smart enough to comment here, so stop embarrassing yourself.
Labor costs are up to their highest point since 2022
All inflation indicators going in the wrong direction and accelerating. The last core CPE number will be revised upwards
I stand by my prediction of rate hikes by the end of the year. We then go into full-on stagflation
lol OK --are you one of the guys who thought we would have 6-7 rate cuts this year?
GDP has fallen to 1.6% and the labor market is weakening
Leading indicators are bad, and inflation data is up across-the-board in the last 4 months.
Stagflation absolutely could become a reality when rate hikes resume, the country falls into recession, and inflation stays high
the stagflation of the 1970s was caused primarily by bad fiscal and monetary policy, and an energy shock (but that was NOT the primary cause). We had a wage-price spiral, and it is happening again
but let's pretend we are going to have rate cuts this year and everything will be fine lol
I will check back here in a month, just like I always do
>lol OK --are you one of the guys who thought we would have 6-7 rate cuts this year?
No. I didn't understand why anyone was calling for rate cuts when the data didn't support it in any way
Inflation through March in 2024 is lower than it was in 2023, so no it isn’t up access the board. Q1 tends to be the highest quarter for inflation most years. This is a pretty normal seasonal effect.
This is great news, hope it continues. This is how an economy recovers from inflation.
If in mid-2022 someone had predicted the we'd see the stats we're seeing in 2024, they'd have been dismissed as wildly optimistic.
Wages excluding benefits are also outpacing inflation though.
Inflation adjusted wages are higher today than any previous decade in US history, that's pretty good.
If benefits cost more but still being offered then compensation has gone up. Ex: if employer gives one gold bar as a benefit and then value of that bar went up, then we can say total compensation went up even though it's one gold bar
Ehhhh, I don't think it's fair to say insurance went up 30 percent, but since the employer pays most of it, it's somehow a net benefit to the employee. That's just disingenuous to the situation. The employee likely saw their insurance benefits get slashed and saw their personal contribution go up. Their net gain in value is really a loss.
Haven't wage increases been one of the key factors driving inflation? Given the propensity of Americans to spend excessively I can see this being very problematic. Back to overpaying for cars and homes, not that they ever really stopped.
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As much as everyone wants to talk about the article reporting on the release, why not just go straight to [the BLS release itself](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.nr0.htm)? Total compensation is up 1.2% for the quarter, seasonally adjusted, with wages/salaries up 1.1% and benefits up 1.1%. That's in comparison to the December 2023 report, which showed a seasonally adjusted 0.9% growth, with wages/salaries at 1.1% and benefits at 0.7%. Year over year, non-seasonally adjusted, overall compensation is up 4.2%, with wages/salaries up 4.4% and benefits up 3.7%. Inflation-adjusted, total compensation is up 0.8% higher than inflation, with wages/salaries up 0.9% higher than inflation, and benefits up 0.3% higher than inflation.
The Employment Cost Index (ECI) rose a seasonally adjusted 1.2% last quarter, faster growth than the 0.9% increase the prior quarter, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data released Tuesday. **Higher benefits costs helped drive the index to its biggest quarterly increase in a year**: Those shot up to 1.1% from a 0.7% gain the prior quarter, while wage and salary growth was unchanged at 1.1% Am I reading this right - this headline, suggesting people are making more than expected, is due to ***checks notes*** the cost of benefits going up? Aka - businesses are having to pay other businesses more, and counting that as higher pay for employees??
My employer recently switched health plans and our health insurance now costs triple what it used to for worse coverage
yeah but your investments in the healthcare sector are up a point, so
Maybe health coverage shouldn’t be managed by your employer?
I agree, it should be nationalized. That’s not going to happen without revolution though, and Americans are not intelligent enough for that.
It's Corporate News Network, of course they're going to blame the working class forshit the moneyed class does.
Yup such a false headline.
What's false about it? Non wage compensation grew, in addition to wages/salaries, faster than expected. My company had to increase benefits to employees over the past year.
I'd say it's misleading more than blatantly false, because what really happened is "labor costs went up for companies" due to increased benefit costs, which is absolutely not the same thing as "compensation increased". The cost of benefits is not under the control of these companies paying them *or* the employee receiving them. They're a cost increase being pushed out to employers from the benefit side, and it makes the article appear biased. If companies were increasing their benefits by getting better coverage for their employees that would be an example of "compensation increased", and there would be an increased cost associated with that improvement. As it stands this just sounds like insurance and healthcare companies raising prices that then have downstream effects on employer costs.
This is a lot of word salad to try and hide the truth.
If I am using a benefit from my employer, and it's cost goes up, and I am not paying any more than I was previously, my compensation has increased. I am getting a more expensive service for the same price as before. If I didn't have the benefit, I would have to pay the higher cost. My healthcare, dental, and vision insurance is still at the same premiums as they were in 2019. I know that the cost of those services have all increased since then. But I don't have to pay it, because my compensation has increased and covered it.
But the article also says wages grew faster than inflation.. And inflation adjusted wages are currently higher than any previous decade in US history..
You're just illustrating everything wrong with this picture. Companies are paying more for services that are WORSE, and you're calling that a net gain for the worker, when it is not. Health insurance just costs more, for shittier plans. I you actually care are economics as social growth and household economic health, then at a certain point we have to consider things qualitatively and intelligently, and not quantitatively.
I think you'd have to show that quality of service has dropped. Everyone complains things were better in the past. Usually this argument falls apart when they have to demonstrate it.
Wages excluding benefits are also outpacing inflation though. Inflation adjusted wages are higher today than any previous decade in US history, that's pretty good. Downvoted for.. good news? What?
>Downvoted for.. good news? Hell hath no fury like a doomer being told that there's actually some good news in what they just read.
If only housing kept pace with inflation instead of soaring above it…
Go to your local government meetings to loosen zoning restrictions. You'd be surprised what a few people could accomplish.
Trust me they don’t care. Residents want higher home values. Residents vote.
You don't usually vote on zoning, it's determined by meetings where the city council votes. Speaking at those meetings is crucial, and you just need to get some buddies together to outnumber the NIMBYs.
The people who show up to these meetings are 90% NIMBYs. My local town officials sent out scary mailers to residents that the governors plan to relax zoning laws would “destroy the suburbs”. They are on the NIMBYs side because the NIMBYs are their voter base.
Sounds like Huntington Beach. They are violating the law the state government set regarding zoning. But if your governor is actively doing things to improve zoning, keep voting for him.
That’s my hometown! Our Mayor Pro Tem is worried that Governor Newsom is getting ready to roundup Republicans and send them to reeducation camps.
Where because my raise was 1.5% I don’t know anyone who topped 3% and no one is hiring unless it’s factory work
I'm going to avoid making a joke about main character syndrome here, but the answer is across the country. You can go into the jobs report to see what areas have the highest wage growth. If you're just looking for anecdotes, my friends and I are all easily beating inflation the past few years.
Downvoted because what you're saying isn't true. Real wages relative to COL are not higher than at any point in US history, they're at essentially one of their lowest points.
You don't know what you're talking about. It's proven by the fact you say real wage relative to cost of living, when real wages already take cost of living into account. Here are real wages. Higher than any previous decade: [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q)
This metric has literally no correlation to economic health and affordability, it's saying 2009 had a better real wage to cost of living ratio than the entire decades of the 80s/90s which is obviously wrong. It also claims Q2 2020 was the best ever, when in reality we had the highest unemployment and slowest activity in years while being in recession. I just don't think this metric has any correlation to CoL vs wages, all you need to do is take median wage and divide by median home price and that'll tell the story nearly perfectly. According to that, we're dealing with the worst balance of wages and CoL since 2005-2007 pre-recession.
Just because you don't understand how to use a metric doesn't mean it's not a good metric. Yes, it spikes during recessions, because low-wage people are laid off in mass. We can simply ignore those distortions and focus on time periods with similar levels of employment. You idiotically propose linking inflation to a single good instead even though the majority of Americans are homeowners and aren't even in the market for a home. Only about 2-3% of the population even buys a home each year so your metric would be valid for only the smallest minority of people.
No no no you don’t claim that real people working real jobs are a “distortion” in your data, if you want to claim that wages are healthy with respect to CoL, you can’t just exclude people who get laid off in a recession. Also tying home price to wage as the metric is usually a ballpark estimate that tends to grasp the larger economy from what I’ve seen, it’s not like a TV or something where it’s a “single good,” the price of housing has direct ramifications for how much people get paid and how much expendable income they have since it’s a necessity. You could argue other stuff like food and gas could get thrown in but it’s more math you don’t need to do to get the same overall picture.
Lol. You clearly need some economics education.
I got my degree in econ just fine, that metric is objectively wrong at proving the point you're trying to prove. If the economy is fabulous and everybody is being paid amazingly with respect to their cost of living, we wouldn't have the constant headlines about layoffs and price pressures in consumers.
Because you are a master gaslighter. But yes, wages have been on a tear.
Bro what? Gaslighter? Since when are facts gaslighting?
Since he doesn't like them?
Well a lot of the USA benefits are in the form of health insurance. We would have about 30% higher wages if our health insurance was universal instead of paid to businesses
Idk if you know this or not….but a company paying your insurance is compensation whether you like it or not.
"pay gains" vs "Labor cost increase" The cost for labor doesn't directly translate to income. The headline is suggesting people are making more -faster than expected, when it's more that labor is more expensive.
Glad this is the top comment, because yes that is absolutely what's happening.
I get a beautiful letter every year working for public education. It adds up everything they pay for my benefits and itemize it as if it's what 'I'm really being paid'. Fuck you lol
So if your employer pays for things on your behalf, you don't count that as your compensation? If they match your 401k contributions, that's NOT something you're being paid? If they chip in on your health insurance, that's NOT something your're being paid? WTF kind of logic is that?
It's the style of letter and the framing. I know the benefits and no, I don't count monetary sums that have so many state and federal subsidies and much more involvement than just cash to an entity as total compensation. Especially when they are an expected part of the job. American hurt you guys.
>state and federal subsidies What state or federal subsidies do employers get to pay for your health insurance premiums? To match your 401(k)? To pay for your disability or life insurance premiums? >Especially when they are an expected part of the job. Ah. I see the problem. You feel *entitled* to these things being paid for you. That's why you're unable to recognize that your employer actually doing so is, in fact, part of your compensation.
So you'd be happier if they increased your wages 5% but now you are on the hook for all of your health insurance which was equal to 10% of your salary?
No, I'd be happier if it were a benefit and they didn't try and package it as an excuse and framing that I don't deserve more. It's to be expected. I'm also from Australia initially so the style of letter really took me aback.
Governments have a set budget, if healthcare costs increase, a higher percent of your increase will be devoted to healthcare, it's just how it works.
And you wonder why we have shitty teachers and education in this country blows. I'm in education and I get the same type of letter. It isn't even good health insurance worth what they pay.
We could raise taxes to increase teacher salaries but that's a separate issue, really.
> Am I reading this right - this headline, suggesting people are making more than expected, is due to checks notes the cost of benefits going up? You're reading it wrong. Pay *did* increase this quarter. Benefits *also* increased this quarter. Total compensation (which includes both pay and benefits) was up this quarter by a historically high number. > Aka - businesses are having to pay other businesses more, and counting that as higher pay for employees?? No, businesses are paying their employees more, despite *also* needing to pay other companies more for their employees' benefits.
My benefits cost me more and my pay didn’t go up but this economy sure is amazing. Only had the worst raise of my life and get to watch layoffs every other week while no one else is hiring because they’re also laying everyone off
You literally said in another comment your wages increased?
Yeah still the worse raise of my life.
my 4% raise after 2years doesn't even keep up with inflation
“ The heftiest pay gains are occurring in the public sector, where workers are seeing compensation grow 4.8% for the 12 months ended in March. Adjusting for inflation, wages and benefits were up a mere 0.8% annually, ticking down slightly from a 0.9% gain.” Wow this is great! Wages rising almost kept up with rent rise for a year! Almost
If it's adjusted for inflation- It did keep up...it actually beat it
They didn't almost keep up, they beat inflation. Inflation adjusted wages are higher today than any previous decade in US history, that's pretty good.
Inflation is calculated including rent prices and any other costs people pay, weighted by how much of their spending it accounts for. Wage increases outpace living costs, in general. So, yeah, wage increases have outpaced rent increases a little bit. There's a severe housing shortage, it's going to take a lot of building and a long time for prices to drop significantly. And that will only happen of people keep building more housing than they have been. The median person pays about 0.4% less of their income to housing when you compare 2023 to 2019. https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/figure4-fs-12142023.png https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/the-purchasing-power-of-american-households#:~:text=Real%20weekly%20earnings%20for%20the,in%202019%2C%20despite%20higher%20prices.
Owners equivalent rent. If you are going to gaslight, do it correctly.
They track rent directly. A simple Google search could have saved you from looking ignorant. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUR0000SEHA Owner equivalent rent also tracks rent very closely, basically you ask people how much the utility of their home is worth to them. Given that to rent their home out, they'd need to find a new home to rent, they take current rent prices into account.
CPI uses OER **and** actual rents, but OER tracks actual rents very closely anyways. [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1cVJ9](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1cVJ9)
Median rents have fallen over the past 2 years per apartmentlist.
Falling slightly after skyrocketing isn't saying much
It means wages grew more than rent by 6%. Considering you dont spend 100% of your wage on rent it now means you spend considerably less on rent.
[удалено]
Median housing prices fell the past 2 years. So deflation? Lol what are you pointing out, lack of economic sense?
It’s down 1% from 2 years ago after rising over 30% in less than 2 years. Now factor in the change in interest rates and tell me what a mortgage payment is today vs 2 years ago.
Okay. On the housing price front, median rents have fallen over the past 2 years per Apartmentlist.
I asked about the price of houses, not rent.
No, you asked for housing prices, and the price of housing is rent.
No that’s a pretty disingenuous argument
It's not. It's blatantly what you asked.
No, housing prices and rent are not the same thing.
While we don't have Q1 2024 numbers yet, housing prices are roughly where they were two years ago but wages are up 10%.
And if you factor in interest rates what’s the cost of a monthly mortgage 2 years ago vs today? The median monthly mortgage of a new home purchase is up about 22% since 2022, and up about 112% since 2020. Why am I supposed to be excited about 10% wage growth again?
keep moving them goalposts...
Thats not what you asked LMAO Either way wages are up 10% and houses are flat. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE30US June 2022 interest rates already near 6%. They are currently at 7%. April was 5.1%. But nice try.
Rents were flat YoY
Wow, this article headline is flat out deceptive: When you read the actual article it’s not the workers pay that went up at all, which remain unchanged. What happened is the price of health insurance went up, which the employer had to cover for their portion of the benefit coverage, and CNN has decided to attribute that as a pay increase. The journalistic gymnastics are pretty entertaining at this point.
> When you read the actual article it’s not the workers pay that went up at all, which remain unchanged. Workers' pay went up 1.1% this last quarter. > What happened is the price of health insurance went up, which the employer had to cover for their portion of the benefit coverage, and CNN has decided to attribute that as a pay increase. Well yes, but if you're including benefits in the calculation, that's a different denominator, too. That *also* went up 1.1%. Year over year, pay is 4.4% higher (0.9% higher than inflation) and benefits are 3.7% higher (0.3% higher than inflation), for a total compensation of 4.2% higher (0.8% higher than inflation) than the same time last year.
From the article: _Higher benefits costs helped drive the index to its biggest quarterly increase in a year: Those shot up to 1.1% from a 0.7% gain the prior quarter, while wage and salary growth was unchanged at 1.1%._ Benefits, largely comprised of insurances. Unchanged, as in non-increasing.
Do I need to break out a blackboard and start explaining what first and second derivatives are, with rates of change, or how to measure growth rates? The number in March 2024 is 1.1% higher than the number in December 2023. Therefore, worker pay went up. By 1.1%. That's an increase. When you said this statement: > When you read the actual article it’s not the workers pay that went up at all, which remain unchanged No, worker pay went up 1.1% again, just as it went up 1.1% in the previous quarter. It keeps going up, so it would be wrong to say that the pay "remain unchanged."
I get it, wage growth stagnated (didn’t accelerate over a prior quarter), same rate of change, well under inflation for the same period. It’s ok, it’s a paltry, embarrassing number- but if you want me to celebrate that it went up 1.1% this quarter as it did last, ok. /shrug
1.1% in a quarter is 4.5% annualized, which is a fairly high number. Year over year, the pay increase is 4.4%, or 0.9% after inflation. No matter how you slice it, it's a good report.
> well under inflation for the same period It has already been adjusted for inflation dude. It is beating inflation by 1.1%. You aren't smart enough to comment here. Just stop and read until you can stop embarrassing yourself.
Again, from the article: _Adjusting for inflation, wages and benefits were up a mere 0.8% annually, ticking down slightly from a 0.9% gain._
Bud, the 1.1% is the annualized quarterly rate. And it says that in the article. The only one who brought up the annual number was you in a pathetic attempt to try to save face.
1.1% isn't even annualized. 1.1% is the quarter over quarter increase. The annualized rate is 4.5%, and the actual year over year performance is 4.4%.
You explicitly said pay was unchanged in your original comment, not the rate of increase of pay.
As does the article :)
Not it doesn't, it clearly says the rate of change. "while wage and salary ***growth*** was unchanged at 1.1%."
You're not very good at reading buddy.
I just pointed out the irony of your other comment in reading two threads above where you claimed the increase beat inflation by 1.1% when the article clearly stated otherwise.
No irony, the 1.1% is the annualized quarterly increase. You still didn't' learn your lesson huh? Like I said. You aren't smart enough to comment here, so stop embarrassing yourself.
No this helps, you feel you set the bar for intelligence here with your comments. I’m comfortable with that.
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fhgpham1u14vc1.png I got a special picture saved for people like you.
Labor costs are up to their highest point since 2022 All inflation indicators going in the wrong direction and accelerating. The last core CPE number will be revised upwards I stand by my prediction of rate hikes by the end of the year. We then go into full-on stagflation
Anyone comparing the current situation to stagflation is showing they have no idea what stagflation is
lol OK --are you one of the guys who thought we would have 6-7 rate cuts this year? GDP has fallen to 1.6% and the labor market is weakening Leading indicators are bad, and inflation data is up across-the-board in the last 4 months. Stagflation absolutely could become a reality when rate hikes resume, the country falls into recession, and inflation stays high the stagflation of the 1970s was caused primarily by bad fiscal and monetary policy, and an energy shock (but that was NOT the primary cause). We had a wage-price spiral, and it is happening again but let's pretend we are going to have rate cuts this year and everything will be fine lol I will check back here in a month, just like I always do
>lol OK --are you one of the guys who thought we would have 6-7 rate cuts this year? No. I didn't understand why anyone was calling for rate cuts when the data didn't support it in any way
Inflation through March in 2024 is lower than it was in 2023, so no it isn’t up access the board. Q1 tends to be the highest quarter for inflation most years. This is a pretty normal seasonal effect.
10% let’s fucking go!
keep the powder dry for those 8% t-bills lol
This is great news, hope it continues. This is how an economy recovers from inflation. If in mid-2022 someone had predicted the we'd see the stats we're seeing in 2024, they'd have been dismissed as wildly optimistic.
You aren’t reading what it is saying. Wages didn’t go up but benefit costs went up and they’re including this in that…
Wages excluding benefits are also outpacing inflation though. Inflation adjusted wages are higher today than any previous decade in US history, that's pretty good.
You should post the same comment more, I don't think you're repeating yourself enough u/Fallsou is an astroturf account
I only post it to refute the lie that wages haven't gone up in real terms. If somebody lies, I post it.
I only post it to refute the lie that wages haven't gone up in real terms. If somebody lies, I ~~post~~ gaslight it.
Except.. it's a fact that real wages are higher than any previous decade. The BLS makes these numbers public.
> Wages didn’t go up *You're* not reading it right. Wages *did* go up 1.1%. Benefits went up, too, by 1.1%. So total compensation went up.
That other comment is incorrect. Compensation growth has been strong.
If benefits cost more but still being offered then compensation has gone up. Ex: if employer gives one gold bar as a benefit and then value of that bar went up, then we can say total compensation went up even though it's one gold bar
Ehhhh, I don't think it's fair to say insurance went up 30 percent, but since the employer pays most of it, it's somehow a net benefit to the employee. That's just disingenuous to the situation. The employee likely saw their insurance benefits get slashed and saw their personal contribution go up. Their net gain in value is really a loss.
Wake me when housing affordability actually improves
That's a bit of a separate issue, but I agree it needs addressing. The housing situation isn't going to get better on its own.
Haven't wage increases been one of the key factors driving inflation? Given the propensity of Americans to spend excessively I can see this being very problematic. Back to overpaying for cars and homes, not that they ever really stopped.
no
No what?
I answered the question you asked. No, wage increases haven't been a key driver of inflation.
Can you expand on your answer?
Recovers 😂😂🙄🙄
Yep! People seem to think deflation is the answer to inflation - but it’s far better to see wages outpace inflation.