
A recent article in The Week titled “As temperatures rise, US incomes fall” by Devika Rao, claims that rising temperatures have already reduced U.S. wages by about 12 percent and that climate change is quietly depressing incomes nationwide. This claim is debunked by hard data. Even over the recent period of modest warming, U.S. income data show wages rose substantially.
The article leans heavily on a recent modeling study to argue that “global warming has cut incomes in the U.S. by 12 percent since 2000,” asserting that temperature changes ripple through productivity, prices, and trade to reduce paychecks even in places without notable warming. Readers are told this is happening now, broadly and invisibly, across the economy. Perhaps it’s invisible because it has not happened.
Readers are not told that this is not a measurement of wages. The claim is based on an unverified and unverifiable, counterfactual model that imagines what incomes might have been in a hypothetical world without warming and then labels the difference as a loss. Even worse, the study’s estimated income hit ranges anywhere from -2 percent to -22 percent, depending on assumptions, even when excluding losses from specific extreme weather events. That enormous uncertainty band is an admission that the headline number is not robust. Change the assumptions, and the “loss” changes or disappears. That is not empirical economics; it is scenario-building.
This is an exercise in dark wish fulfillment. The modelers have no way of knowing what people might have been paid in a world without slightly lower global average temperatures (less than a 1℃ difference in temperature) of over the past quarter century. Would people have shopped more, traveled more, dined out more, or famers grown more food but for an less than one degree temperature change; a change unnoticeable by the average person? This is speculative in the extreme.
More importantly, measured wage data tell a dramatically very different story. The National Average Wage Index, published by the Social Security Administration (SSA), shows that U.S. wages have risen dramatically and consistently over the modern warming period. According to the table spanning 1951 to 2024, the index increased from $32,154.82 in 2000 to $69,846.57 in 2024, more than doubling over the very period as seen in the graph provided by SSA, in Figures 1A and 1B below.


The article’s logic also fails another reality check. The U.S. economy over the past quarter century has seen higher output, higher productivity, and far greater resilience to weather variability than in earlier, cooler decades. These outcomes are inconsistent with the notion that modest warming has been quietly hollowing out incomes.
To sum up, The Week cites a single unverified study to assert that incomes have been slashed by 12 percent due to climate change. The SSA wage index data show there is in fact no correlation between rising U.S. temperatures and falling wages because wages did not fall. Obviously, comparing real-world data of wages and temperature show that the report and the study it references are patently false. The data are not a subtle effect or a statistical quirk. There is a clear, long-term upward trend documented year after year in official federal data that blows the claim made by The Week right out of the water.
By presenting modeled counterfactuals as if they were observed declines in pay, The Week misleads readers about both climate impacts and economic reality. Actual wage data show Americans earning more, not less, as temperatures have risen modestly. When measured outcomes directly contradict a model’s conclusion, the problem lies with the model, and with the flawed reporting, not with reality. Either The Week is incompetent at doing research and factual reporting or purposely ignoring reality to spread a false climate narrative.

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
Originally posted at ClimateREALISM
The”contiguous average” temperature of the US as reported by NOAA may have increased in the past 20 years by just less that 1F but the Climate Reference System temperature, also a NOAA product, declined by about 0.1F during the same time. I suppose the “contiguous average” is the political temperature while the CRS temperature is the actual data? Why does NOAA operate the CRS when they all but ignore it? There is a question for you to dig into Mr. Watts.
To be sure, regulatory charges embedded into every product we buy in the name of “climate change” has outpaced inflation by a long shot.
The CAGW “regulations” caused inflation. Massive government overspending on quack “solutions” to a non-problem have devalued the currency and robbed the populace. Only climate grifters made out.
As for the attribution models, they are pure counterfactual, comparing apples to unicorns. It’s Fantasy Island economics, the ravings of madmen with a not-so-hidden agenda of more humongous theft.
Average wage index ? As compared to….
And then, we use those smaller dollars as subsidies for EVs and such, few bigger wastes could be found.
Pay attention to the dust mote, not the plank…
Story tip
The graph of temperature in US contiguous shows clearly the pattern of a period of stable temperature with a jump to another stable temperature in 1998 as proposed by Joseph Hickey.
https://correlation-canada.org/artificial-stepwise-increases-in-temperature-data-canada/
More desperation showing. The CC narrative took a GIANT hit with Trump that would take more time for the scammers to correct than it allows. The world is getting back to business as usual and enjoying it. The fear has changed to ignore and ridicule and there’s no turning back. We should start seeing honest meteorology without the scare tactics and superlatives.
As the Climate Scam rises, US wealth falls is more like it.
This is more up-is-down journalism for the up-is-down illiterates in society. It all counts in the volume-based advocacy news drip.
Very nice Anthony, observations trump everything else.
I’m sure that bringing in millions of undocumented illegal aliens had no effect whatsoever on wages. And they obviously weren’t here to help the DemonKrats win elections and extra seats in the House.
Maybe they just came to visit family, with no interest whatsoever in receiving welfare or SS checks. Yeah, I’m sure that that’s it!
i’m sorry Anthony, I think you’re misinterpreting the Social Security Administration (SSA) wage index. The chart you show is SSA‘s measure of wage inflation over time. To get a realistic index of real wages growth (buying power of those wages), one would have to overlay a chart of inflation versus time (the results of which would be arguable and can to be calculated in a number of ways). The difference in the two curves would be an indicator of real wage growth (or decline).
When I began to collect Social Security retirement benefits in 2024 at age 70, I used an inflation calculator to determine changes in my real wages over time indexed to 2024. Every person has their own wage history that affects their wage growth (or decline), so I won’t go into those details. However, one of the more startling findings was that I was earning higher real wages (higher buying power) one year out of graduate school in 1980 then I was in 2024 after a 45 year career as an environmental professional. I saw three noteworthy events that depressed real wage growth during that time span. First, I entered the workforce during the oil & gas bust, and the savings and loan (S&L) crisis when interest rates skyrocketed into the upper teens. Second, the 2008 recession dropped my real wages by about 8%. Third, and worst of all, was Covid / Biden-flation that cost everyone 10 to 20% of their buying power.
So I agree in general, your point is correct. However, real earnings growth is not nearly so dramatic as suggested by the SSA wage index curve alone.
My own earnings index is less quantitative. In 1955, my father-in-law was a Borden’s milkman, delivering dairy products door to door in Dallas, Texas. As the sole earner in their household, he supported a wife (a stay-at-home homemaker) and three children and was able to afford a tidy masonry home, a nice family car, and put junior through college. In contrast today, young persons postpone marriage, have fewer children in their 30s after they finally do marry (if at all), both husband and wife must work outside the home to make ends meet, and many have no hope of ever owning a home. The loss of buying power (real wages) is a significant factor among many (e.g., higher wants and expectations; spiritual and societal decay; enslavement of women in the workforce due to feminism, the rise of the welfare state, the growth of government and corruption such as the CAGW scam, … the list goes on).