Financial and Monetary Systems

Why America’s wage growth will remain low

Ben Zipperer
Research Economist, Washington Center for Equitable Growth
Share:
Our Impact
What's the World Economic Forum doing to accelerate action on Financial and Monetary Systems?
The Big Picture
Explore and monitor how Financial and Monetary Systems is affecting economies, industries and global issues
A hand holding a looking glass by a lake
Crowdsource Innovation
Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale
Stay up to date:

Financial and Monetary Systems

The U.S. economy added jobs faster than expected in November, but wage growth continued to be anemic, according to today’s employment data released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Job gains of about 321,000 last month and prior upward revisions show an average monthly gain of 278,000 jobs over the previous quarter. In contrast to the increase in employment, wage growth continued to stay well below healthy rates.

While nominal wages (unadjusted for inflation) increased by 9 cents last month, the average nominal wage grew at less than a 1.8 percent annual rate over the last quarter. This rate is about half of what would be considered healthy nominal wage growth. Given the Federal Reserve Board’s target inflation rate of 2.0 percent and productivity growth of 1.5 percent, annual nominal wage growth must consistently exceed 3.5 percent before we will see sustainable real wage growth and signs of a tighter labor market. Nominal wage growth has not reached the 3.5 percent threshold for more than half a decade.

Employment gains were broadly shared across industries, with professional and business services adding 86,000 jobs, health services adding more than 37,000 jobs, and the leisure and hospitality sector growing by 32,000 jobs. Retail employment accelerated somewhat, with 50,000 jobs added last month. Some of this increase in retail employment may be reversed in future months if these stores are simply staffing up earlier than usual for holiday shopping.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ household portion of the survey paints not so bright a picture of employment growth as its establishment survey. The share of the prime-age population (ages 25 to 54) with jobs stayed the same last month at 76.9 percent. Prime-age men saw a slight decrease in employment, but the share of prime-age women with jobs edged up from 70.1 to 70.3 percent.

The overall unemployment rate did not change last month, remaining at 5.8 percent compared to 4.4 percent in 2007 during the peak of the last business cycle, when workers actually experienced some nominal wage growth above the 3.5 percent threshold. When the U.S. unemployment rate fell below 4 percent for five months in 2000 and when unemployment was below 5 percent in the late 1990s was the last period workers experienced sustained and broadly based wage growth.

One positive change reported by the household survey is the changing composition of the part-time workforce. Over the past three months, the number of those working part-time for economic reasons fell by an average of 142,000 per month, but those voluntarily working part-time grew by an average of 159,000 per month. Some of the increase in the voluntary part-time workforce is likely attributable to the Affordable Care Act, which weakened the tie between full-time employment and health insurance access through one’s employer. Compared to 2013, the first year workers could enroll in the new health exchanges to purchase health insurance, there are now 6 percent more workers voluntarily working part-time.

While today’s job gains were welcome and stronger than expected, even at a pace of adding more than 300,000 jobs per month we will not reach the employment rates of the prior business cycle peak until the end of 2016, nine years after the start of the last recession. The prime-age employment share remains below 77 percent, but was above 80 percent during 2007. Until we reach comparable employment rates, wage growth is likely to remain weak, particularly for those at the bottom of the income distribution.

This post first appeared on The Washington Center for Equitable Growth. Publication does not imply endorsement of views by the World Economic Forum.

To keep up with Forum:Agenda subscribe to our weekly newsletter.

Author: Ben Zipperer is a Research Economist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.

Image: Image: Morning commuters are seen outside the New York Stock Exchange, July 30, 2012. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid.

 

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

Sign up for free

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:
Financial and Monetary SystemsFuture of WorkEconomic Progress
Share:
World Economic Forum logo
Global Agenda

The Agenda Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

Subscribe today

You can unsubscribe at any time using the link in our emails. For more details, review our privacy policy.

IMF says global economy 'remains remarkably resilient', and other economics news

Joe Myers

April 19, 2024

About Us

Events

Media

Partners & Members

  • Join Us

Language Editions

Privacy Policy & Terms of Service

© 2024 World Economic Forum