The example seems to make it self evident that the original 30 workers did not include foreign workers.

You keep writing 30, but apparently arithmetic is not your strong suit, the initial number was 40.

I believe the point of the article was to demonstrate that the average hourly earnings data that show average real incomes of hourly wage employment to be down can not be relied on because Don can come up with a set of data that shows that the decline in real average wages was due to an influx of foreign workers at lower wages.

Really, and what data set would that be? I just read the article again and Boudreaux makes no mention of any such data set. What he does do is point out that relying simply on averages can be problematic no matter what point you are trying to make (e.g. madmatt is [sorta] right also that the average could go up, even if everyone's wages fall).

If the purpose of the example is to discredit what the actual data shows, then the example should have some relationship to what the actual data measures.

The example wasn't to discredit anything, but to point out that sometimes what people think a statistic means doesn't necessarily have to be the case. We just saw it a couple of months ago with housing prices. In fact, in all regions the median price went up, but nationally the median price went down, by alot. So I have a clearly made up example illustrating the problem, I also have a real world example of these kinds of problem, yet you still have your panties all in a knot.

Why am I not surprised.

In other words anything you make up is better evidence the the facts.

Spencer are you acting like an jerk because you enjoy it or simply can't help it? It is quite clear that my post was discussing that people need to be careful when using statistics such as an average. Anything else, is just your own fantasy.

Oh, and here is a bit of advice, I'd recommend enrolling in a reading program. Maybe the Sylvan Learning Centre.

You said:
"I never claimed it was supposed to be reality."

Why am I not surprised.

In other words anything you make up is better evidence the the facts.

I believe the point of the article was to demonstrate that the average hourly earnings data that show average real incomes of hourly wage employment to be down can not be relied on because Don can come up with a set of data that
shows that the decline in real average wages was due to an influx of foreign workers at lower wages. If the purpose of the example is to discredit what the actual data shows, then the example should have some relationship to what
the actual data measures.

If, as Don is claiming the weak real wage data is due to an influx of foreign workers he should make some effort to demonstrate that the share of foreign workers in the labor force is somewhat similar to the example he constructs. Otherwise, anyone that can do simple math or wants to base their analysis on something approaching reality is unlikely to take his argument seriously.

Do you actually believe that this example has any relationship to reality?

I never claimed it was supposed to be reality and second you are reading in some assumptions such as that there are no foreign workers intially. The point is that wages can go up for everybody and the average still go down. We saw it recently with the median price of housing.

Clearly you have no other point than to make dopey comments about how an illustrative example is not reflective of reality. No shit Sherlock, reality is messy and often confusing. This is why economists use models, to simplify things. I'd thought you of all people would realize this. Guess I was wrong.

RJN,

The problem with manufacturing jobs and the trade deficit is that it isn't clear that the correlation would hold up using a longer time series. Also, world wide manufacturing employment has been declining. Why there is a decline in manufacturing is not something as simple as the U.S. is running a trade deficit.

so in this example foreign worker have expanded from zero (0%) of the workforce to 45% of the workforce while the domestic workforce has not grown.

Do you actually believe that this example has any relationship to reality?

This is so flawed that I can barely get my head around it. He is saying that mfg. employment is lower now than when we ran trade surpluses (of mfg. goods). Duh. Then he says; but, but, but, a trade deficit is not the same as a negative surplus (which of course it is), so the fact that we have lower mfg. jobs when deficits appear is ????, but certainly not correlated to trade deficits.

Please break the news to me gently, I am old; have I slipped into dementia.