@wallstreetcappers
Of course I know the term but as I stated its a generalized term which means nothing without detail and specifics
It is NOT a 'generalized term'. The detail and specifics are baked into it.
For example: Real wage growth refers to the **percentage increase in workers’ earnings adjusted for inflation**, showing whether their purchasing power has truly improved. Unlike nominal wages (the raw dollar amount on a paycheck), real wages strip away the effects of rising prices, giving a clearer picture of whether workers can afford more goods, services, or savings over time.
The concept is rooted in **economic theory**, particularly the idea that money’s value erodes when prices rise. For example, if your salary increases by 5% but inflation is 6%, your real wage has declined by 1%. This distinction is vital for understanding whether economic growth is actually benefiting everyday people.
Or:
Real wages tell you what a paycheck can actually buy. Your nominal wage is the number printed on the check. Your real wage is that number adjusted for changes in the price level. If your boss gives you a 3% raise but prices rise 5%, your real wage fell by about 2%. You have more dollars, but each dollar buys less, so you're poorer in terms of goods and services.
In AP Macro, real wages live in Topic 2.5 (Costs of Inflation) because they're the cleanest example of how unexpected inflation redistributes wealth (EK MEA-1.H.1). Workers and employers often lock in nominal wages through multi-year contracts based on expected inflation. If actual inflation comes in higher than expected, real wages fall and wealth shifts from workers to employers. If inflation comes in lower than expected, real wages rise and the employer loses. The redistribution is arbitrary, which is exactly why economists call it a cost of inflation.
So, you can parse it out by weekly, hourly, whose wages, timeframes, median vs. average, etc. But if you keep all of those the same for whatever you are measuring it for (President, country, administration) and keep it consistent it will give you a very adequate bottom-line number to use for comparison.
BLS does a very good job of providing this for government officials as well as private-sector users.
If this was some flimflam type number, then serious economists would not use it. That is not to say that you cannot cherry-pick it as you can with any data.
But if you keep it consistent and measure, say, from the February of the start of a President's term you will get a good idea of how it has been for each President and each of his terms.
But the meaning is pretty specific on what they are measuring and how it is done.
