Beliefs, expectations, and assertions can be tricky business if they're not backed up by hard data.  No other economic report brings as many armchair economists off the bench to make predictions as nonfarm payrolls.  Recently (in the past 2 years or so), there's been a visible shift toward the belief that the wage growth component is just as important--if not more so--than the headline.  How relevant is that belief?  Take a look at the following chart and decide for yourself.

In the chart, each of the past 7 NFP releases is labeled with the payroll count and the wage data result vs expectations.  If the caption says "wages flat," that could be a 0.0 vs 0.0 result, or a 0.5 vs 0.5 result.  If it says "wages miss by 0.2" that would mean the result was something like 0.1 vs a 0.3 forecast.  Make sense?  In a few cases, wage revisions also deviated from forecasts and are noted accordingly.

If nothing else, make sure you see January's report, which missed in terms of NFP, wages, and wage revisions.  By all rights, everyone would have been "right" with their armchair analysis if even one side of the argument was right.  But that's the catch. 

Oftentimes, bonds are going where they're going and anything inside the NFP data is only good for a temporary distraction.  That's been ESPECIALLY true during 2017/2018 as markets are largely concerned with adjusting for increased Treasury issuance (most notably at the end of the year and beginning of 2018 as tax reform materialized), and a steeled resolve on the part of the Federal Reserve to hike rates and remove accommodation.  Wage growth is merely a supporting actor in that story, so whatever happens today--if it even logically jives with the numbers you're about to see--don't assume it sets a new trend until you see how next week pans out.