The following is my email communication to the Herald.
(Gilbert Wong of the Herald made a small mistake with
respect to something that I wrote in my email to him.)


Consumer Price Inflation

CPI, June quarter 1987: 790
CPI, June quarter 1997: 1083

Consumer prices have risen by 37% in the 10 years since June 1987, at an average of 3.2% per year.

"790" represents the price of a basket of goods in 1987. "1083" represents the price of an equivalent basket of goods in June 1997. The baskets of goods used by Statistics NZ are based on the Household Expenditure Survey, and they relate to the consumption pattern of an average income family.

Wage Inflation

In March 1987 the average hourly wage before tax was $11.06.
In  June  1987 the average hourly wage before tax was $11.35.
In March 1992 the average hourly wage before tax was $14.96.
In March 1997 the average hourly wage before tax was $16.53.

Thus, the average wage rate has increased by 50% (49.5% to be more precise). Thus, the average wage rate has increased by 4.1% per annum.

If a product has increased in price by 50% since 1987, then it is as easily afforded by an average worker today as it was then. The fact that prices increased by only 37% means that there has been a small improvement in the standard of living of the average worker since then.

My suspicion is that the wages of the highest paid 10% of the workforce have risen faster than 50%, while the prices of the goods the top 10% consume have risen by much less than the 37% average.

To test the suspicion, we can check the census.

In the year to March 1996, the 95th percentile income was $61,000. That means that 95% of people got less, and 5% got more. In the year to March 1986 the 95th percentile income was $32,000. Given the rates of increase in each following year, we get $38,000 for 1987 and $63,500 for 1997.

This suggests that the average before tax income among the top 10% rose by 67% in the ten years to March 1997, whereas the average wage rate only roseby 50%.

An even better exercise would be to trace the fortune of the people aged 25-34 in 1986. In 1996 (aged 35-44) the 95th percentile was $80,000. In 1986 it was $32,000. That translates to $38,500 in 1987 and $83,000 in 1997.

This suggests that a typical yuppie in 1997 is earning 115% more dollars than in 1987. Of course not all the successful 40 year olds today were yuppies in 1987. But we can say that today's top-earning 40-somethings have done pretty well in the last 10 years.

Interpreting the Wage Data

We have to be a little careful. Treasury people like George Barker emphasise that the composition of today's 35-44 year-olds might be quite different to the 25-34 year-olds of 10 years ago. Quite apart from the impact of international migration, many yuppies then will not be in the high income group today, and many in the high income group today will not have been yuppies then.

Having said that, a yuppie of that time who kept his (or her) place on the greasy pole would be about 115% better off. (There is some margin of error in the census based estimates because the raw data is from tables specifying the number of people in an income bracket. Also, a number of yuppies would have increased their incomes by much more than the national average of 21% in the 12 months from 1985/86 to 1986/87.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------