This is another problem for the Bush Administration. Since the start of 2005 the real wage rate has been declining and in the last two months the real wage has dipped below its November 2001 level. In other words, the real wage (the hourly wage put out by the BLS adjusted for inflation) is lower now than it was 4 years ago.
Here, essentially, is Steve's picture:
Gotta admit, that doesn't look so great. But here is the same series, taking a somewhat longer view:
By this measure of economic performance, every president since Gerald Ford ends up looking pretty bad, the exception being the Clinton administration -- but only during the second term. (In the first four years of the Clinton administration, real average weekly earnings rose by about 4 cents. In the first four years of the current administration, they increased by about 17 cents.)
What's going on here? I'd argue the problem is that hourly wages or earnings are an inadequate measure of labor compensation, primarily because they exclude nonwage forms of compensation -- health care benefits, employers' share of social security contributions, and the like. These forms of compensation are an increasingly important part of what workers receive from employers in exchange for the sweat of their brows. Here's the record on total real compensation (in the nonfarm business sector):
A much different picture, and, just for yuks, here is how it breaks down by "presidential performance":
So, there you have it. On an annual basis, the pace of returns to labor during the current administration has been the best since -- Jerry Ford!
(Note: You can find the definitions of -- and distinctions between -- wages and salaries, earnings, and total compensation in the glossary provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If anyone is interested, here is the data presented above: Download real_average_hourly_earnings.ppt )
UPDATE: Kash reminds me of this excellent post, which breaks down the differences across various labor compensation measures in detail. A must read.
UPDATE II: Steve responds, and quite correctly notes his main point was that, quite apart from whether the wage facts are the right ones to think about, they will likely rebound the detriment of the president. Alas, he's probably right.