What do you get for "Sixteen Tons"?

Cletus C. Coughlin, Lesli S. Ott
{"title":"What do you get for \"Sixteen Tons\"?","authors":"Cletus C. Coughlin, Lesli S. Ott","doi":"10.20955/es.2007.29","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The chorus from Travis’s 1947 song about the plight of coal miners might ring true for someone looking at average hourly earnings (AHE) of production and nonsupervisory workers. By this measure, as shown in the chart, the pay for an hour of work fell in real terms by 3 percent between 1975 and 2006. Is the average worker actually receiving less per hour of work today than 31 years ago? The answer is likely no. In fact, an alternative measure of compensation, national labor income per hour, increased 44 percent during this period. What accounts for these conflicting results and why do we conclude that the average worker’s real compensation per hour has increased since the mid-1970s? Both the AHE and the national labor income series are adjusted for inflation. However, AHE is adjusted using the consumer price index for all urban wage earners and clerical workers (CPI-W), while national labor income per hour is adjusted using the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) implicit price deflator. To calculate the purchasing power of an hour of work, it is more appropriate to use the PCE implicit price deflator to adjust for inflation because this index better reflects the basket of goods and services actually consumed. Contrary to the CPI-W, which assumes that the same basket of goods and services is purchased for several years, the PCE deflator is calculated using expenditures from the current and preceding period. After applying the PCE deflator, AHE show an 11 percent increase rather than a 3 percent decrease between 1975 and 2006. Another difference in the construction of the two data series is that national labor income per hour includes not only wages and salaries, but also fringe benefits. Given the importance of benefits to a worker’s standard of living, we think many would disagree with the use of the label “fringe.” The benefits of employer contributions to worker’s pension and insurance funds and to government social insurance are included in national labor income per hour, but are not in the AHE series.1 These benefits have become a larger share of worker compensation over time, rising from 14 percent in 1975 to 19 percent in 2006. Once the AHE data are adjusted to include estimated benefits per hour and the PCE deflator is applied, the calculated increase in real wages and benefits reaches 16 percent between 1975 and 2006. Without question, the 16 percent increase in average hourly earnings following the two adjustments described above remains far short of the 44 percent increase in national labor income per hour. What accounts for the remaining difference is unclear. Part of the difference is likely due to the fact that the AHE is restricted to production and nonsupervisory workers. What is clear, however, is that the average worker is receiving more in 2006 for “sixteen tons” than 31 years ago.","PeriodicalId":305484,"journal":{"name":"National Economic Trends","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"National Economic Trends","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20955/es.2007.29","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The chorus from Travis’s 1947 song about the plight of coal miners might ring true for someone looking at average hourly earnings (AHE) of production and nonsupervisory workers. By this measure, as shown in the chart, the pay for an hour of work fell in real terms by 3 percent between 1975 and 2006. Is the average worker actually receiving less per hour of work today than 31 years ago? The answer is likely no. In fact, an alternative measure of compensation, national labor income per hour, increased 44 percent during this period. What accounts for these conflicting results and why do we conclude that the average worker’s real compensation per hour has increased since the mid-1970s? Both the AHE and the national labor income series are adjusted for inflation. However, AHE is adjusted using the consumer price index for all urban wage earners and clerical workers (CPI-W), while national labor income per hour is adjusted using the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) implicit price deflator. To calculate the purchasing power of an hour of work, it is more appropriate to use the PCE implicit price deflator to adjust for inflation because this index better reflects the basket of goods and services actually consumed. Contrary to the CPI-W, which assumes that the same basket of goods and services is purchased for several years, the PCE deflator is calculated using expenditures from the current and preceding period. After applying the PCE deflator, AHE show an 11 percent increase rather than a 3 percent decrease between 1975 and 2006. Another difference in the construction of the two data series is that national labor income per hour includes not only wages and salaries, but also fringe benefits. Given the importance of benefits to a worker’s standard of living, we think many would disagree with the use of the label “fringe.” The benefits of employer contributions to worker’s pension and insurance funds and to government social insurance are included in national labor income per hour, but are not in the AHE series.1 These benefits have become a larger share of worker compensation over time, rising from 14 percent in 1975 to 19 percent in 2006. Once the AHE data are adjusted to include estimated benefits per hour and the PCE deflator is applied, the calculated increase in real wages and benefits reaches 16 percent between 1975 and 2006. Without question, the 16 percent increase in average hourly earnings following the two adjustments described above remains far short of the 44 percent increase in national labor income per hour. What accounts for the remaining difference is unclear. Part of the difference is likely due to the fact that the AHE is restricted to production and nonsupervisory workers. What is clear, however, is that the average worker is receiving more in 2006 for “sixteen tons” than 31 years ago.
《十六吨》你能卖多少钱?
对于那些关注生产工人和非管理工人平均时薪(AHE)的人来说,特拉维斯1947年关于煤矿工人困境的歌曲中的副歌部分可能听起来很真实。如图所示,按照这一标准,每小时的工资在1975年至2006年间实际下降了3%。现在普通工人每小时的工资真的比31年前少了吗?答案很可能是否定的。事实上,另一种衡量报酬的方法——每小时国民劳动收入——在此期间增长了44%。是什么导致了这些相互矛盾的结果?为什么我们得出这样的结论:自20世纪70年代中期以来,工人平均每小时的实际报酬有所增加?工人工资指数和国民劳动收入指数都经过通货膨胀调整。然而,AHE使用所有城市工薪阶层和文职人员的消费者价格指数(CPI-W)进行调整,而每小时国民劳动收入使用个人消费支出(PCE)隐性价格平减指数进行调整。为了计算一小时工作的购买力,使用PCE隐性价格平减指数来调整通胀更为合适,因为该指数更好地反映了实际消费的一篮子商品和服务。CPI-W假设几年购买同一篮子商品和服务,与之相反,个人消费支出平减指数是使用当期和上一期的支出来计算的。在应用个人消费支出平减指数后,AHE显示,1975年至2006年间,AHE增长了11%,而不是下降了3%。两个数据序列构建的另一个不同之处在于,国民每小时劳动收入不仅包括工资和薪金,还包括附加福利。考虑到福利对工人生活水平的重要性,我们认为许多人不会同意使用“边缘”这个标签。雇主对职工养老保险基金和政府社会保险的缴款包括在每小时国民劳动收入中,但不包括在AHE系列中随着时间的推移,这些福利在员工薪酬中所占的比例越来越大,从1975年的14%上升到2006年的19%。一旦对AHE数据进行调整,包括每小时的估计福利,并应用个人消费支出平减指数,计算出的实际工资和福利在1975年至2006年间增长了16%。毫无疑问,经过上述两次调整后,平均每小时收入增长了16%,但与全国每小时劳动收入增长44%的水平相比,增幅仍然相距甚远。其余差异的原因尚不清楚。这种差异的部分原因可能是由于AHE仅限于生产和非监督工人。然而,可以肯定的是,2006年,普通工人从“16吨”粮食中获得的收入比31年前要多。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信