wages

What is $300,000 from “The Gilded Age” Worth Today?

Jeremy Horpedahl2 Comments

SPOILER ALERT FOR THE THIRD SEASON OF THE GILDED AGE

In Season 3 of the drama series “The Gilded Age,” one of the servants (Jack, a footman) earns a sum of $300,000 by selling a patent for a clock he invented (the total sum was $600,000, split with his partner, the son of the even wealthier neighbor to the house Jack works in). In the series, both the servants and Jack’s wealthy employers are shocked by this amount. Really shocked. They almost can’t believe it.

How can we put that $300,000 from 1883 in New York City in context so we can understand it today?

A recent WSJ article attempts to do that. They did a good job, but I think more context could help. For example, they say “Jack could buy a small regional bank outside of New York or bankroll a new newspaper.” Probably so, but I don’t think that quite conveys the shock and awe from the other characters in the show (a regional bank? Ho-hum).

First, the WSJ states that the “figure nowadays would be between $9 and $10 million.” That’s just doing a simple inflation adjustment, probably using a calculator such as Measuring Worth (it’s a good tool, and they mention it later in the story). But as the WSJ goes on to note, that probably isn’t the best way to think about that figure.

Here’s my best attempt to contextualize the $300,000 figure: as a footman, Jack probably made $7 to $10 per week. Or let’s call it $1 per day. That means Jack’s fellow servants would have had to work 300,000 days to earn that same amount of income — in other words, assuming 6 days of work per week, they would have had to work for almost 1,000 years to earn that much income. Jack appears, to his co-workers, to have earned that income almost in one fell swoop (though in reality, he spent months of his free time toiling away at the clock).

Continue reading →

The Middle/Working Class Has Not Been “Hollowed Out”

Jeremy Horpedahl6 Comments

Claims that the middle class or working class has been “hollowed out” in the US have been made for years, or decades really. The latest claim is an essay in the Free Press by Joe Nocera. But these claims are usually lacking in data, while strong in anecdotes. Let’s look at the data.

One data point we might use is median weekly earnings for full-time workers with a high school diploma, but no college degree. That sounds like a reasonable definition of “working class.” Here’s what that data looks like adjusted for inflation with the PCE Price Index:

Notice that the latest data point is for 2024, which is the highest they have ever been in this data series, and likely higher than any point in the past. While many point to about the year 2000 as when troubles for the working class started (this is when manufacturing employment really fell off a cliff, and China joined the WTO in 2001), inflation-adjusted earnings have risen 11% for this group of workers since then. You might say that’s not a lot of growth — and you would be correct! But this group is better off economically than in the year 2000, which is a point that gets lost in so many discussions about this issue.

But that’s just a national number. Might some states that were especially hit by manufacturing job losses be worse off? Nocera mentions North Carolina and the Midwest. To answer this, we can use BLS OEWS data, which has not only median wages by state, but also the 10th percentile wage — the lowest of the working class. Here’s what median real wage growth (again inflation-adjusted with the PCEPI) since 2001 (the earliest year in this series with comparable data):

Continue reading →

The Price of Eggs: Long-Run Perspective

Jeremy Horpedahl3 Comments

Everyone is talking about the price of eggs. Even the President. That’s despite the fact eggs, on average, constitute about 0.1% of consumer spending (according to the Consumer Expenditure Survey for 2023). Even so, economists always get excited when people talk about prices.

On prices at the current moment, I wrote a blog post for the Cato Institute looking at the relevant supply and demand factors, and trying to explain why wholesale egg prices are falling so quickly. When will these falling wholesale prices translate into lower retail prices? The NY Times asked this question, and I tried to answer it for them (answer: perhaps in a few weeks).

But let’s step back from the current moment and take a longer-term perspective on egg prices. This chart shows the long-run real price of eggs, measured in terms of how much time an average worker would need to work to afford 1 dozen eggs:

Continue reading →

Nintendo vs Nintendo: Time Prices of Video Games in 1986 and 2024

Jeremy HorpedahlLeave a comment

For decades one of the most popular Christmas gifts for kids (and often adults) has been video game systems. And Nintendo has long been a dominant player in this market: the original NES arguably launched the modern gaming market in 1986 (even though it wasn’t the first, it was the first blockbuster) and Nintendo’s latest offering, the Switch, is now the best-selling console ever in the US.

As we often ask on this blog: has it become more or less affordable for an average worker to buy this iconic Christmas gift (or even buy one for yourself)?

When it comes to the consoles themselves, the Switch and NES are, perhaps surprisingly, equally affordable. The original NES cost $90 in 1986, while the Switch costs $300 today. Average wages in late 1986 were $9/hour and they are about $30/hour today. So in both years, it took about 10 hours of work to buy the console (alternatively, it’s about 25% of median weekly earnings in both years).

But as any serious gamer will tell you, the individual game cartridges can cost as much or more than the console if you want to play a lot of games. For example, the games available in the 1986 Sears catalog ranged from $25-$30. To buy just the 10 games in that catalog would cost $275 — over 30 hours of labor at the average wage, or about 3 hours of labor per game.

Today there is a wider range of prices for games, but the most expensive Switch games are around $60, or just 2 hours of labor at the average wage. There are also plenty of games around $30, or just 1 hour of labor.

The challenge with the comparison is that video games today are much higher quality, challenging, and advanced in so many ways. Is there any way to make a more direct comparison?

Yes. Nintendo offers an annual subscription for $20 to Nintendo Switch Online. Included in the subscription is access to nearly every NES game, plus Super Nintendo and Gameboy games. Not only do you get the 10 games from the 1986 Sears catalog, but many dozens more. All for less than $1 hour of labor at the average wage.

In other words, for 30 hours of labor today (the time to purchase those 10 original NES games), you could buy about 46 years worth of subscriptions to Nintendo online. That’s almost a lifetime of video game play, with many more advanced games.

Economic Nostalgia: 1890s Edition

Jeremy Horpedahl2 Comments

You see a lot of nostalgia for the recent past. People pining for the simpler life of the 1950s, or claims that wages have stagnated since the late 1970s or early 1980s. I’ve tried to take these arguments seriously and respond to them, such as in a paper I wrote with Scott Winship and summarized in a blog post last June. But occasionally, you find really weird economic nostalgia, like for the 1890s. Yes, the 1890s, not the 1990s.

Here’s one example: a cartoon shared on social media of workers being oppressed in the 1890s, with the caption “the problem has only gotten worse.” That post received 2 million views on Twitter, possibly because many people are criticizing it, but it also has a lot of retweets and likes.

If it was just one semi-viral social media post from an anonymous Twitter account, we could easily dismiss it. But 1890s economic nostalgia has been coming from another important place lately: President Elect Trump. Of course he is nostalgic for the policies of the 1890s. But on occasion, Trump will say things like “Go back and look at the 1890’s, 1880’s with McKinley and you take a look at tariffs, that was when we were at our richest” (emphasis added).

Really, our richest in the 1890s? Can this be true? Are the anonymous socialist Twitter accounts correct? Let’s look at the data. But the answer probably won’t surprise you: your intuition is correct, we are much better off today than the 1890s, in almost every way of looking at it economically.

Continue reading →

House Prices and Quality: 1971 vs 2023

Jeremy Horpedahl12 Comments

Last week I did a comparison of “time prices” for several goods and services in 1971 compared with 2024. For almost all goods and services, it took fewer hours of work in 2023 to purchase them. In some cases, huge increases in affordability; air travel is 79% cheaper and milk is 59% cheaper, in terms of how much time an average worker needs to labor to pay for them.

There was one major exception though: housing. Especially the cost of buying a new home. Just using the median sale price of a home, the cost (in terms of hours of work) roughly doubled between 1971 and 2024. That’s not good!

Many who commented on the post mentioned that houses are much bigger today, and I noted that in the post but still claimed this is a worrying trend: “since 1971 you can’t really argue the quality improvements make up for the increase. Yes, houses are much bigger (about double in size), but that’s not clearly driven by consumer demand (more so by zoning and other laws). The 1971 house also had indoor plumbing (but maybe not air conditioning).”

Furthermore, housing is the largest expense for most families, both today and in 1971. In the early 1970s it was 30.8% of consumer spending, and in 2023 it was slightly higher at 32.9%. Given all this, it is worth investigating further.

First, let’s consider the size of a typical house. For most of the 1971 data, I will use this HUD report on new single-family homes. And I will use the similar Characteristics of New Housing report for 2023 (the latest year available) to compare.

Are houses bigger today? Yes, but not nearly enough to account for the decreasing affordability I showed in the previous post. In 1971, the median new home had 1,400 square feet of floor space. In 2023, it was 2,286. That’s a big increase (over 60%), but let’s now do the time-price affordability calculation, which I show in the table below.

Continue reading →

“Time Prices” Today Compared With 1924 and 1971

Jeremy Horpedahl4 Comments

I’ve written before on this blog about “time prices”: the amount of time it takes at a particular wage to buy a specific product. Time prices are especially useful for making historical comparisons of the real price of a good or service. Rather than adjusting historical prices for inflation (which only tells you whether they have increased faster or slower than average prices), time prices give you a real comparison of whether a good has become more or less affordable.

Antony Davies recently did a 100-year comparison of time prices for an average worker in the US. He compared prices in 1924 for several common food items, gasoline, electricity, movie tickets, airline tickets, an automobile, and several measures of housing costs to the best comparable thing in 2024. This following table shows his results:

You will notice a few things here. For the median worker, most things are much more affordable in 2024. Some things are dramatically so! For many items, the median worker in 2024 is similar to someone in the top 1% in 2024. Huge improvements in the standard living.

It will probably not surprise you that one major exception is housing. For renters, things are not obviously worse, but they are not better, depending on what size of city you are in (renters also have lower incomes, but that would be true in both time periods). However compared to the average home price, things look much worse in 2024. You can reasonably reply that the home is much larger and better quality in 2024 (as late as 1940, barely half of homes had complete indoor plumbing!), and this is all true. Still, an average house today is much better, but also much less affordable.

Despite the high cost of housing, the average worker today is much better off than 1924. It’s hard to deny it.

But what about more recent times? As a recurring meme likes to date it, what about since 1971?

Continue reading →

Don’t Let Nominal Prices Fool You (Thanksgiving Edition)

Jeremy Horpedahl1 Comment

When you see prices from the past, especially the distant past, your normal reaction is perhaps one of envy or nostalgia. Take for example the Thanksgiving menu from the Plaza Hotel in New York in 1899. As you browse the menu, note that the prices are in cents, not dollars.

The most expensive items on the menu are only a few dollars, while many items can be had for around 50 cents. But hopefully your nostalgia will soon fade when you recall that wages were probably lower back then.

But how much lower?

According to data from MeasuringWorth.com (an excellent resource affiliated with the Economic History Association), the average wage for production workers in manufacturing was 13 cents per hour in 1899. From this we can immediately see that a dish such as Ribs of Prime Beef (60 cents) would take about 4.5 hours of work for a production worker to purchase.

How can we compare these prices and wages from 1899 to today?

Continue reading →

Did Inflation Make the Median Voter Poorer?

Jeremy Horpedahl4 Comments

A new essay by J. Zachary Mazlish answers the title question in the affirmative: yes, inflation made the median voter poorer. The post is data-heavy, with lots of charts and different ways of slicing the data, which is great! But since I am called out by name (or rather, my evil twin, Jeremy Horpendahl), I want to respond specifically to the claim about my data, but also I’ll make a few broader points.

Here’s the Tweet of mine that he links to:

https://twitter.com/jmhorp/status/1854548669317455894

Regular readers will recognize the chart in that Tweet comes from an EWED post from April 2024. Mazlich says that my chart and others like it are “misleading for understanding the election because a) they compare wages now versus January 2020, rather than January 2021.”

Fair enough, but if you read my Tweet you will see that I am specifically responding to an NPR story which said, “if you look at the difference between what… groceries cost in 2019 and what it costs today, and what wages looked like in 2019 and today, the gap is really gigantic.” So, they are specifically using 2019 as a baseline in that story, and my chart specifically used that as the baseline too! That’s why I thought that chart was relevant.

It’s true, of course, that if you want to understand median voter sentiment about the Biden administration, you should probably start the data at the beginning of the Biden administration. But I was responding to the more general claim people make, that they are worse off than in 2019.

With that clarification out of the way, what does Mazlich’s broader post say?

Continue reading →

On Average, American Wage Earners are Better Off Than They Were Four Years Ago

Jeremy Horpedahl5 Comments

As I wrote last November, the question “are you better off than you were four years ago?” is a common benchmark for evaluating Presidential reelection prospects. And even though Biden is no longer running for reelection, voters will no doubt be considering the economic performance of his first term when thinking about their vote in November.

The good news for American wage earners (and possibly Harris’ election prospects) is that average wages have now outpaced average price inflation since January 2021. Despite some of that time period containing the worst price inflation in a generation, wages have continued to grow even as price growth has moderated. Key chart:

For most of Biden’s term, it was true that prices had outpaced wages. But no longer.

The real growth in wages, admittedly, is not very robust, despite being slightly positive. How does this compare to past performance under recent Presidents? Surprisingly, pretty well! (Lots of caveats here, but this is what the raw data shows.)