NYTimes: Wages fall to an historic low!

[MODU]

Boohoo  . . . "My income doesn't match up to a certain mathematical percentage.  WHAAAA!"

[MODU]

Boohoo  . . . "My income doesn't match up to a certain mathematical percentage.  WHAAAA!"

Your post is nonsensical as usual, MODU.  If one has been reduced in circumstance due to the political machinations of another, it makes sense to take note and attempt to reciprocate.

Let's see . . . wages have increased.  Economy has increased.  Economy increased rapidly.  Wages did not increase at the same pace as economy.  Whoop-dee-doo.  I'm not crying in my cornflakes because I didn't get a 5.7% pay increase.  But my "real wage" didn't fall either, but actually rose by 4%, yet in their mathematical model, it somehow magically dropped.  It's just a stupid mathematical relationship which really doesn't mean much of anything except for people who wish to use it to their advantage. 

[MODU]

Ahh, so when the market cools off a bit, and pay increases stays the same, then everyone is suddenly making money.  Nope, it's a terrible form of statistical analysis. 

[MODU]

People like MODU who are better established rather than someone like me out of college can afford to be more smug about the state of the economy.  opebo definitely has credence in this argument. 

Believe me, I was worse off long ago.  Living off of a military income is not an easy one, no matter how young you are.  As far as the state of the economy goes, it's not a matter of being smug but a matter of being a realist.  The economy rises and falls in spurts, so it is too easy to take a snapshot in time and compare two bits of data and extract some "significant" conclusion based on its analysis, which is all that this article has done.