I don’t have an opinion (either way) on Greg Ip, the WSJ reporter who covers the Fed.
But I have to call this sentence into question:
"Cautious employers put the brakes on hiring in October, producing the second straight month of weak job gains. But workers recaptured some of their lost purchasing power as wages rose at the fastest pace in two years."
I have to take issue with that description; As we have noted repeatedly, REAL Wages and Salaries — i.e., adjusted for inflation — were a negative -2.3% in the third quarter.
Yes, salaries went up on Q3 — but not nearly as fast as prices went up. In other words, workers LOST additional purchasing power. They didn’t recapture anything.
Anytime the phrase "Purchasing Power" is used, it is referring to REAL wages. I have also seen it used to reference after tax wages (inflation adjusted or not) — but since there wasn’t any change in Tax policy in Q3, this definition is irrelevant to the present discussion.
Any thoughts on this? Am I missing something here?
Hiring Was Cautious in October
Job Gains Were Weak,But Workers’ Wages Rose At Fastest Pace in 2 Years
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, November 5, 2005; Page A3
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.