Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019(census.gov)
census.gov
Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-270.html
179 comments
Hey look, 2019 household data validating the household size growth part of your conjecture:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/01/the-number-...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/01/the-number-...
Hrmm, not consistent with Census Bureau current population survey which shows household size hitting a record low in 2019.
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/familie...
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/familie...
What conclusion should I draw from these seemingly inconsistent statistics?
I would say it is wiser to draw a conclusion using the census household size data, since the headline statistic of household income is also sourced from the census. Why compare apples and oranges when you have apples and apples?
Well the inferences would only be as good as the sampling then. I know for me, the census was the last thing that was on my mind, and it was only completed it because my spouse was did it. There has been many issues with Census data collection (take a google news search).
This data is from the Current Population Survey where they select households and then either visit or call on the phone. It's not a thing where they just mail out the survey. The CPS also repeatedly selects the same household in consecutive surveys, which gives them continuity that other surveys lack.
I don't know! The article that supposedly upholds the theory of slow household growth is discussing a forecast of the 2020 decennial census and says nothing about 2019. The income data we are discussing is for 2019 only. These two things do not really stand in opposition to each other.
These statistics depend on how the questions was framed to get the data.
Given the context the the article provides, and that the raw table does not, I am inclined to believe the pew research article, and would suggest the linked table needs to also have some methodology and definition of what it thinks it is and is not capturing.
The pew article also looks at statistics like "In 2019, 20% of households are shared households, up from 17% in 2007."
The weakness in the pew article is it's forecasting growth in household size from one year of its model, obviously we need to wait more time to see if it's model is correct.
The pew article also looks at statistics like "In 2019, 20% of households are shared households, up from 17% in 2007."
The weakness in the pew article is it's forecasting growth in household size from one year of its model, obviously we need to wait more time to see if it's model is correct.
I have the opposite assumption: the raw data is usually more reliable than an editorial. And I confirmed it: the raw table is more reliable since it is the same survey across different years. The article is inconsistently comparing numbers from 2 different surveys. The 2018 figure (2.63) is from the "American Community Survey" and the 2010 figure (2.58) is from "Census SF1 data".
But the 2010 "American Community Survey" says the average houshold size is 2.63 (https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=b25010&tid=ACSDT1Y201...), so for this survey the trend is flat.
But the 2010 "American Community Survey" says the average houshold size is 2.63 (https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=b25010&tid=ACSDT1Y201...), so for this survey the trend is flat.
The pew article is more comprehensive than those two surveys. They also point out supporting data from
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-26...
From which they conclude "In 2019, 20% of households are shared households, up from 17% in 2007."
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/05/a-record-64...
from which they mention "By 2016, 20% of Americans lived in a multigenerational household, up from 12% in 1980"
One survey is one survey, multiple data points from a set of different perspectives is more comprehensive an analysis and less susceptible to single measurement methodology errors.
The main thing I take from this is that movement of a household income number is fairy meaningless unless you also know what household size number is measured or calculated with the income number.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-26...
From which they conclude "In 2019, 20% of households are shared households, up from 17% in 2007."
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/05/a-record-64...
from which they mention "By 2016, 20% of Americans lived in a multigenerational household, up from 12% in 1980"
One survey is one survey, multiple data points from a set of different perspectives is more comprehensive an analysis and less susceptible to single measurement methodology errors.
The main thing I take from this is that movement of a household income number is fairy meaningless unless you also know what household size number is measured or calculated with the income number.
I came here to say this is mostly likely the cause.
We're looking at is households, and the easiest way to explain this jump is actually that the economy is more fucked than ever and more working age people are living together. If we consider the type articles you're referencing, that have been noting the migration of young, educated, working-age adults back to their parents homes in the USA-- we should very well expect to see a large spike in the reported median household income. The same growth would be true if more people were living in situations with roommates where ideally they wouldn't.
Here's the definition of a household from the linked article:
> A family household is a household maintained by a householder who is related to at least one other person in the house-hold by birth, marriage, or adoption and includes any unrelated individuals who may be residing there. A nonfamily household is a householder living alone (a one-person household) or sharing the home exclusively with nonrelatives.
Addendum: I'd like to note, that even if household size itself appears to be low; that's likely due to reproduction rates being on the decline as more people, on average, are having smaller families each year...
We're looking at is households, and the easiest way to explain this jump is actually that the economy is more fucked than ever and more working age people are living together. If we consider the type articles you're referencing, that have been noting the migration of young, educated, working-age adults back to their parents homes in the USA-- we should very well expect to see a large spike in the reported median household income. The same growth would be true if more people were living in situations with roommates where ideally they wouldn't.
Here's the definition of a household from the linked article:
> A family household is a household maintained by a householder who is related to at least one other person in the house-hold by birth, marriage, or adoption and includes any unrelated individuals who may be residing there. A nonfamily household is a householder living alone (a one-person household) or sharing the home exclusively with nonrelatives.
Addendum: I'd like to note, that even if household size itself appears to be low; that's likely due to reproduction rates being on the decline as more people, on average, are having smaller families each year...
Based on the definition of household, it sounds like roommates wouldn't be included in the median income calculation.
[deleted]
> The 2019 real median earnings of men ($57,456) and women ($47,299) who worked full-time, year-round increased by 2.1 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively (Figure 4 and Table A-6).
Hm, I wonder how you reconcile this with the other summary finding that
> the real median earnings of full-time, year-round workers increased 0.8 percent between 2018 and 2019
Seems like this is the wealth gap, coupled with an increase of the proportion of females working full-time in the workforce.
> The number of females who were full-time, year-round workers increased by about 1.2 million between 2018 and 2019, while the change for their male counterparts was not statistically significant.
Reminds me of Simpson's paradox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
> the real median earnings of full-time, year-round workers increased 0.8 percent between 2018 and 2019
Seems like this is the wealth gap, coupled with an increase of the proportion of females working full-time in the workforce.
> The number of females who were full-time, year-round workers increased by about 1.2 million between 2018 and 2019, while the change for their male counterparts was not statistically significant.
Reminds me of Simpson's paradox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
No.. household is a tax and income thing. Parents cannot claim 18+ year olds as dependents unless they are actually dependent (e.g. disabled/guardian etc...)
Not according to their glossary:
"
Household
A household consists of all the persons who occupy a house, an apartment, or other group of rooms, or a room, which constitutes a housing unit. A group of rooms or a single room is regarded as a housing unit when it is occupied as separate living quarters; that is, when the occupants do not live with any other person in the structure, and when there is direct access from the outside or through a common hall. The count of households excludes persons living in group quarters, such as military barracks and institutions. Inmates of institutions (mentalhospitals, rest homes, correctional institutions, etc.) are not included in the survey.
"
"
The number if people in your household does not alter your tax liability, only the number of dependents in that group. Those who qualify as dependents are: “your biological child, stepchild, foster child, sibling, step-sibling, or a descendant of any of these individually... but the child can’t turn 19 at any time during the tax year (age 24 if a full-time student).”
From: https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/family/what-are-depende...
From: https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/family/what-are-depende...
Interesting... ok maybe so then.
> Wouldn’t the large number of Americans in their 20s living in their parents homes have affected this?
Yeah, in many ways a more interesting figure would be median adult income, but household (which has real comparability problems across time) is the popular number.
Yeah, in many ways a more interesting figure would be median adult income, but household (which has real comparability problems across time) is the popular number.
Individual worker median income change is in the report too, split out by sex (people 15+ years old with income).
Men - +2.5%
Women - +7.8%
Men - +2.5%
Women - +7.8%
> Individual worker median income change is in the report too,
And is still not individual adult median income, and like median household income is a measure whose rise can indicate bad outcomes: where with median household income the factor that causes this is that it increases, cet. par., with more adults/household, with median individual workers it goes up if people who were previously working but at the low end of the distribution just lose their jobs.
And is still not individual adult median income, and like median household income is a measure whose rise can indicate bad outcomes: where with median household income the factor that causes this is that it increases, cet. par., with more adults/household, with median individual workers it goes up if people who were previously working but at the low end of the distribution just lose their jobs.
You're saying an increase in individual median income is bad?
No, I'm saying an individual worker median income is not the same as individual median income, and it is quite possible for the former to go up when the latter goes down.
As a simple case, consider a situation with 100% enployment and any non-uniform income distribution you want as the “before”, and the situation where everyone below the median in the “before” loses their job and has 0 income as the “after”, while everyone else remains employed with the same income as before.
What happened to individual worker median income?
What happened to individual median income?
As a simple case, consider a situation with 100% enployment and any non-uniform income distribution you want as the “before”, and the situation where everyone below the median in the “before” loses their job and has 0 income as the “after”, while everyone else remains employed with the same income as before.
What happened to individual worker median income?
What happened to individual median income?
I can't tell if the various % changes are for inflation-adjusted constant dollars or not...
These numbers are from 2019, pre-COVID.
There were a large number of people in their 20's living with their parents pre-COVID.
Not really, or not many more than normal
But does it make sense that there would be a huge jump in that for 2019 but not 2018? This data smells.
Definitely, and the census even calls it out:
https://www.epi.org/blog/household-income-gains-welcome-in-2...
https://www.epi.org/blog/household-income-gains-welcome-in-2...
Also, "2019" data is from 2020, and the entire census process was awkward as you might imagine this year:
https://www.epi.org/blog/household-income-gains-welcome-in-2...
> the data was collected between February and April of this year,
> the data was collected between February and April of this year,
>"According to the Census Bureau’s latest report, median household incomes rose 6.8% between 2018 and 2019"
Collected here means tabulated. The data reflect changes in hhold income from 2018 to 2019.
Collected here means tabulated. The data reflect changes in hhold income from 2018 to 2019.
FTA:
> Overall, non-response increased significantly and was more strongly associated with income than in previous years, with non-response decreasing with income, meaning that income data could be skewed higher than it actually was.
I don't see how calculations would trend in a particular direction if they weren't literally collected in this calendar year.
It's still confusing as hell.
Also, is this addendum, by the census themselves:
> When correcting for non-response bias in 2019, the Census found that real median income was $66,790, 2.8% lower than reported in the official release.
> Overall, non-response increased significantly and was more strongly associated with income than in previous years, with non-response decreasing with income, meaning that income data could be skewed higher than it actually was.
I don't see how calculations would trend in a particular direction if they weren't literally collected in this calendar year.
It's still confusing as hell.
Also, is this addendum, by the census themselves:
> When correcting for non-response bias in 2019, the Census found that real median income was $66,790, 2.8% lower than reported in the official release.
This is not correct. The 2019 income data is collected in a survey conducted in 2020.
from the report:
This report uses the characteristics of the householder to describe the household. The householder is the person (or one of the people) in whose name the home is owned or rented and the person to whom the relationship of other household members is recorded. If a married couple owns the home jointly, either spouse may be listed as the householder. Since only one person in each household is designated as the householder, the number of householders is equal to the number of households. The count of households in this report excludes group quarters.
Further definitions are held here: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/techdocs/cpsmar...
(dont have time to parse through, but I suspect that there is only one head of household, and thus it means a child who is 18+ living with their parents, they are basically aren't even considered in the calculation)
This report uses the characteristics of the householder to describe the household. The householder is the person (or one of the people) in whose name the home is owned or rented and the person to whom the relationship of other household members is recorded. If a married couple owns the home jointly, either spouse may be listed as the householder. Since only one person in each household is designated as the householder, the number of householders is equal to the number of households. The count of households in this report excludes group quarters.
Further definitions are held here: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/techdocs/cpsmar...
(dont have time to parse through, but I suspect that there is only one head of household, and thus it means a child who is 18+ living with their parents, they are basically aren't even considered in the calculation)
[deleted]
Pretty dense report with lots of interesting statistics.
These got my attention:
The 2019 poverty rate of 10.5 percent is the lowest rate observed since estimates were initially published in 1959
The 2019 real median incomes of White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic households all increased from their 2018 medians [between 5.7% (Blacks) and 10.6% (Asians)]
Percentage change in share of aggregate income was highest for the lowest income quintile (+1.8%). High income quintile saw decrease in share of aggregate income (-0.6%)
These got my attention:
The 2019 poverty rate of 10.5 percent is the lowest rate observed since estimates were initially published in 1959
The 2019 real median incomes of White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic households all increased from their 2018 medians [between 5.7% (Blacks) and 10.6% (Asians)]
Percentage change in share of aggregate income was highest for the lowest income quintile (+1.8%). High income quintile saw decrease in share of aggregate income (-0.6%)
The poverty line has not scaled with the increase in expenditures associated with modern living, nor increased worker value. The only adjustments made in the last half-century have been for inflation and bare-minimum at that.
America is a lot more poor than these statistics let on when compared to the rest of the first world. Furthermore debt is not considered in many such analyses.
America is a lot more poor than these statistics let on when compared to the rest of the first world. Furthermore debt is not considered in many such analyses.
> America is a lot more poor than these statistics let on when compared to the rest of the first world.
Source?
Source?
I think you misread my comment like many others. I made no claim we're doing worse than other developed countries. I just pointed out that these statistics don't capture the entire picture and we're worse off than they let on.
Definitely need some support for that claim. I've heard the opposite claim that poor Americans are better off (save healthcare) than poor in other countries. But like the above, that was hearsay and I'm not sure I would believe either claim without some stats to back that up.
You'll see a lot of empty claims that the US has practically no social safety net. That's plainly false. That it's not as good/effective as eg France, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc., that much is true. Poor Americans get free healthcare, around just over 1/4 of all Americans receive free healthcare. ~24% of Americans are receiving Medicaid.
The US spends more on its social welfare programs, as a share of GDP, than Canada does, and it matches what Australia and Switzerland are spending. The US is close to the OECD middle and a bit behind the UK (OECD figures below):
https://i.imgur.com/5GnDdTp.png
And when it comes to improvements in poverty thanks to our vastly expanded social safety net, you can see that very strikingly represented when you drop out those programs from the calculations (childhood poverty shown below, with and without government aid):
https://i.imgur.com/hqTS3Ck.png
https://i.imgur.com/9aEi2sL.png
The same thing shows up in our homelessness improvement figures from the past 20 years. The housing first program implemented by the Bush Administration and sustained by the Obama Administration - aka a government program - was almost solely responsible for the huge decrease in US homelessness.
The US social safety net has expanded rather massively in the past 40 years. Structurally the biggest problem the US has when it comes to its social safety net, is it's all haphazard and often poorly administered. The US isn't very good at running social safety nets, it's chaotic and critical parts of it are managed in very different ways state to state. We're not getting enough bang for our buck on that spending, we need to do better. We're spending a lot of money and the results are often not good enough (which we frequently see with government spending in the US). For example, if the US were spending per capita on our healthcare system what the UK is, we could nearly double - maybe up to 40%-45% - the number of people we're covering with free healthcare at minimal additional cost.
The US spends more on its social welfare programs, as a share of GDP, than Canada does, and it matches what Australia and Switzerland are spending. The US is close to the OECD middle and a bit behind the UK (OECD figures below):
https://i.imgur.com/5GnDdTp.png
And when it comes to improvements in poverty thanks to our vastly expanded social safety net, you can see that very strikingly represented when you drop out those programs from the calculations (childhood poverty shown below, with and without government aid):
https://i.imgur.com/hqTS3Ck.png
https://i.imgur.com/9aEi2sL.png
The same thing shows up in our homelessness improvement figures from the past 20 years. The housing first program implemented by the Bush Administration and sustained by the Obama Administration - aka a government program - was almost solely responsible for the huge decrease in US homelessness.
The US social safety net has expanded rather massively in the past 40 years. Structurally the biggest problem the US has when it comes to its social safety net, is it's all haphazard and often poorly administered. The US isn't very good at running social safety nets, it's chaotic and critical parts of it are managed in very different ways state to state. We're not getting enough bang for our buck on that spending, we need to do better. We're spending a lot of money and the results are often not good enough (which we frequently see with government spending in the US). For example, if the US were spending per capita on our healthcare system what the UK is, we could nearly double - maybe up to 40%-45% - the number of people we're covering with free healthcare at minimal additional cost.
> The US isn't very good at running social safety nets, it's chaotic and critical parts of it are managed in very different ways state to state. We're not getting enough bang for our buck on that spending, we need to do better. We're spending a lot of money and the results are often not good enough
Typically, when someone is complaining about the lack of a social safety net in the US, they mean in terms of services received, rather than money spent.
As the above quote shows, you obviously know that because of various insane inefficiencies (often caused or abetted by perverse incentives at the interface between the public and private sectors) the point you're making of how much is spent in terms of % of GDP doesn't actually refute the complaints (about how little is being done for those in need) that you are objecting to.
So. We spend a heck of a lot, and we don't have a decent social safety net.
It's also worth noting that where social safety net programs are being poorly run by the government, this can sometimes be traced to politically motivated shenanigans and deliberate mismanagement.
Typically, when someone is complaining about the lack of a social safety net in the US, they mean in terms of services received, rather than money spent.
As the above quote shows, you obviously know that because of various insane inefficiencies (often caused or abetted by perverse incentives at the interface between the public and private sectors) the point you're making of how much is spent in terms of % of GDP doesn't actually refute the complaints (about how little is being done for those in need) that you are objecting to.
So. We spend a heck of a lot, and we don't have a decent social safety net.
It's also worth noting that where social safety net programs are being poorly run by the government, this can sometimes be traced to politically motivated shenanigans and deliberate mismanagement.
This is a very accurate summary of the US social safety net. It’s very large, but some European countries spend more. But it’s also a bit of a bureaucratic mess and not that easy to navigate.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted.
It’s telling that your well sourced and cited post is getting downvoted.
"well sourced" would be linking to the actual source with the citation, not expecting us to dig out the information. I'm not sure how they got to near 20% of US gdp being spent on social programs.
US GDP is 21 trillion, social program spending is under a trillion.
US GDP is 21 trillion, social program spending is under a trillion.
The images say the source is OECD data. The OECD tracks various indicators like this in a comprehensive database: https://data.oecd.org/
Social expenditures are here: http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD2016-Social-Expenditure-Upda...
As defined by the OECD, social program spending includes social security, Medicare, and education (each of which are $700-900 billion expenses).
Social expenditures are here: http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD2016-Social-Expenditure-Upda...
As defined by the OECD, social program spending includes social security, Medicare, and education (each of which are $700-900 billion expenses).
There is no source for that, it is not true. The world bank’s preferred metric for material welfare is PPP adjusted consumption (because for instance, food stamps aren’t income), and because poverty measurements are only relative to people within one country, not between multiple countries.
When you measure that, the poorest 20% of Americans have a superior level of welfare to the average person in most OECD countries.
You can see on table 6.5 in the study linked below that lowest quintile households (by income) consumed an average of $57,049 goods and services per household, which is just under $22k per person. Putting the lowest 20% of the US in the top half of OECD countries for that year.
https://www.nber.org/chapters/c12831.pdf
When you measure that, the poorest 20% of Americans have a superior level of welfare to the average person in most OECD countries.
You can see on table 6.5 in the study linked below that lowest quintile households (by income) consumed an average of $57,049 goods and services per household, which is just under $22k per person. Putting the lowest 20% of the US in the top half of OECD countries for that year.
https://www.nber.org/chapters/c12831.pdf
What? America is like the top 3 in median disposable income in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_c...
US wealth per adult is higher than Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe...
US wealth per adult is higher than Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe...
And its easily higher is what people don't know. I feel like people don't understand living here that the issue is life is generally just hard. If you are having issue in the US good luck everywhere else in the world and even the first world.
They include retirement income as income, but do they exclude retirement savings? In US there’s a huge burden to save for your own retirement, and modern retirement vehicles (e.g. 401k and IRA) pay out in full even if you die young (no longevity risk pooling), so they’re a lot more expensive to fund.
It's PPP adjusted disposable income after all taxes and transfers, so that includes Social Security, welfare, etc.
It's debatable if this is able to adequately capture all forms of non-cash transfers (like food stamps). To get around this, the World Bank uses consumption as a metric for well-being. By that metric, the poorest 20% consume more than the average person in most OECD countries[1][2], including Canada, the UK, Sweden, Australia, Japan, Denmark, New Zealand, and Iceland.
[1] https://www.nber.org/chapters/c12831.pdf
[2] https://fee.org/articles/the-poorest-20-of-americans-are-ric...
It's debatable if this is able to adequately capture all forms of non-cash transfers (like food stamps). To get around this, the World Bank uses consumption as a metric for well-being. By that metric, the poorest 20% consume more than the average person in most OECD countries[1][2], including Canada, the UK, Sweden, Australia, Japan, Denmark, New Zealand, and Iceland.
[1] https://www.nber.org/chapters/c12831.pdf
[2] https://fee.org/articles/the-poorest-20-of-americans-are-ric...
I was referring to money set away for retirement. Since moving from Norway to US, I can’t really spend all my disposable income, given that maximum social security benefits are so low.
Using my google skills it looks like the maximum supplemental pension in Norway is NOK 293 583 or $32,216 USD.[1]
The maximum US social security pension is $49,680 USD.[2]
Obviously it scales based on income, but at least for US tech workers, you're likely to get close to the maximum amount since you'd be earning over $110,000 for a significant chunk of your career.
The US has a much higher maximum pension amount than Canada, where it's $1,176 CAD or $889 USD. You do get an old age benefit on top of $613 CAD, which bring it up to $1,351 USD or $16,212 USD per year.
[1]https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1123&intPageId=47...
[2]https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2010-2011/ame...
The maximum US social security pension is $49,680 USD.[2]
Obviously it scales based on income, but at least for US tech workers, you're likely to get close to the maximum amount since you'd be earning over $110,000 for a significant chunk of your career.
The US has a much higher maximum pension amount than Canada, where it's $1,176 CAD or $889 USD. You do get an old age benefit on top of $613 CAD, which bring it up to $1,351 USD or $16,212 USD per year.
[1]https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1123&intPageId=47...
[2]https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2010-2011/ame...
You shouldn't look only at supplementary pension for Norway. Everyone gets the basic pension as well, and if you're employed your employer must also contribute on your behalf.
So what is the maximum for someone with a high income? I'm not that familiar with Norway's pension system, so definitely open to being educated on it.
It's complex, but if you have a high salary it looks like the basic pension is NOK 89 872, so another $9,889 USD, for a total of $42,105 USD?
It's complex, but if you have a high salary it looks like the basic pension is NOK 89 872, so another $9,889 USD, for a total of $42,105 USD?
Disclaimer: this is awfully complicated, and I’m not an expert
What’s most relevant for this discussion is the system for people who are earning now for retirement in the future. The amounts are adjusted yearly, but the current maximum rate is about $14300. This is tax funded, and so doesn’t come out of your disposable income. Gaps from illness, unemployment, military service and caregiving are covered. When you start withdrawal, the accrued amount is adjusted for changes in the average national income and your life expectancy based on your age. I.e. the money is paid back to you at a rate that draws your balance to zero at the expected date of your death. If you live longer, it keeps going of course, funded by the people who die earlier. The maximum rate is therefore achieved by retiring at the oldest age (74), or roughly $97000/year with today’s numbers. This would require making well above the national average salary starting at age 13.
If you max out your income based pension described above, the base pension gets reduced substantially. Looks like it can go as low as $4300/year of benefits currently.
On top of these two pension types, your employer must save at least 2% of your income up to $134000, and pay for insurance that covers contributions if you become disabled. The employer must cover all associated costs. These plans vary a lot and have no maximum.
I will add that you need substantially less income in retirement in Norway since you won’t be paying for healthcare, and property taxes are extremely low.
What’s most relevant for this discussion is the system for people who are earning now for retirement in the future. The amounts are adjusted yearly, but the current maximum rate is about $14300. This is tax funded, and so doesn’t come out of your disposable income. Gaps from illness, unemployment, military service and caregiving are covered. When you start withdrawal, the accrued amount is adjusted for changes in the average national income and your life expectancy based on your age. I.e. the money is paid back to you at a rate that draws your balance to zero at the expected date of your death. If you live longer, it keeps going of course, funded by the people who die earlier. The maximum rate is therefore achieved by retiring at the oldest age (74), or roughly $97000/year with today’s numbers. This would require making well above the national average salary starting at age 13.
If you max out your income based pension described above, the base pension gets reduced substantially. Looks like it can go as low as $4300/year of benefits currently.
On top of these two pension types, your employer must save at least 2% of your income up to $134000, and pay for insurance that covers contributions if you become disabled. The employer must cover all associated costs. These plans vary a lot and have no maximum.
I will add that you need substantially less income in retirement in Norway since you won’t be paying for healthcare, and property taxes are extremely low.
I didn't say America's median population or poverty class was more poor than other developed countries, I said they're just a lot more poor than these statistics let on. Big difference.
You literally said: "America is a lot more poor than these statistics let on when compared to the rest of the first world." (emphasis mine)
That is demonstrably false.
That is demonstrably false.
Your interpretation of what I said is incorrect, I don't know what to tell you. Read it a few more times. That sentence makes no claim that America is poorer than any other country.
Does it take into account purchasing power / cost of living? That seems relevant when comparing across countries and talking about poverty.
Yes. It’s based on OECD data, which uses PPP dollars. (Purchasing power parity dollars.) The US makes a classic average case versus worst case trade-off. The bottom 20% in the US are poorer than in other Western countries and there is less of a safety net. But in terms of material lifestyle, the median is better off.
I'm not sure I'd say the US has consciously made that tradeoff, though maybe you aren't claiming that. If anything it's likely a side-effect, imo.
The median at any snapshot in time is materially better off, but also much more stressed out than people in other wealthy countries about whether they might end up in a very bad economic situation, due to how there is barely any bottom. Subjectively, middle-income Americans don't feel well off and don't feel secure in even what they have. For example, numbers vary based on the specific survey, but about 60-70% of Americans consistently feel high levels of stress about money. I'm not sure that's a course that would've been taken by a 50th-percentile person trying to optimize their own well-being?
One reason Scandinavian countries tend to come near the top of those "happiest countries in the world" surveys (though I don't like the term "happy" for it) isn't from any particular joyfulness, but because the typical household subjectively has very low levels of economic fear or stress. Some of the survey questions that go into that score include things like, do you feel economically secure, do you worry about losing your housing, etc. A huge percentage of even middle-class Americans spend a lot of their time worrying about that (including my family), while the majority of middle-income people from say Denmark don't consider it a big risk to worry about.
The median at any snapshot in time is materially better off, but also much more stressed out than people in other wealthy countries about whether they might end up in a very bad economic situation, due to how there is barely any bottom. Subjectively, middle-income Americans don't feel well off and don't feel secure in even what they have. For example, numbers vary based on the specific survey, but about 60-70% of Americans consistently feel high levels of stress about money. I'm not sure that's a course that would've been taken by a 50th-percentile person trying to optimize their own well-being?
One reason Scandinavian countries tend to come near the top of those "happiest countries in the world" surveys (though I don't like the term "happy" for it) isn't from any particular joyfulness, but because the typical household subjectively has very low levels of economic fear or stress. Some of the survey questions that go into that score include things like, do you feel economically secure, do you worry about losing your housing, etc. A huge percentage of even middle-class Americans spend a lot of their time worrying about that (including my family), while the majority of middle-income people from say Denmark don't consider it a big risk to worry about.
> I'm not sure I'd say the US has consciously made that tradeoff, though maybe you aren't claiming that. If anything it's likely a side-effect, imo.
The US has consciously made that trade-off. See how even Sanders doesn't propose to raise taxes on people making under $250,000, and Biden is up at $400,000. The top income tax rate in the Scandinavian countries kicks in at around $70,000.
The US has consciously made that trade-off. See how even Sanders doesn't propose to raise taxes on people making under $250,000, and Biden is up at $400,000. The top income tax rate in the Scandinavian countries kicks in at around $70,000.
Maybe I'm being trolled, but this is a Markov chain non sequitur response I have no way to interpret.
In Maryland, you have to make $350,000 before you’re taxed at similar rates to what an entry level white collar worker pays in Germany. (I know this because our au pair paid a similar percentage rate at her job in Germany to what my wife and I pay as two attorneys working in private practice.) It’s impossible to provide a safety net like they have in Europe while simultaneously promising not to raise our extremely low tax rates on people making $250,000 or $400,000. When even Sanders makes that promise, that is an indication of how strongly voters choose to keep taxes low versus investing in a safety net.
How does this explain why, compared to middle-income Germans, middle-income Marylanders have low life satisfaction, feel economically insecure, and die younger?
Maryland has among the highest HDI’s in the Union: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ....
It’s not dissimilar from that of Germany (0.935 vs 0.939), and it’s higher than that of most other OECD nations.
As for average life expectancy: the average is brought down by outliers. In general, the US has a higher homicide rate, a higher motor vehicle death rate, a higher obesity rate, and a higher opioid/drug death rate. These external factors all bring down the average life expectancy number more substantially than in other countries: https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2017/05/16/the-explanator...
It’s not dissimilar from that of Germany (0.935 vs 0.939), and it’s higher than that of most other OECD nations.
As for average life expectancy: the average is brought down by outliers. In general, the US has a higher homicide rate, a higher motor vehicle death rate, a higher obesity rate, and a higher opioid/drug death rate. These external factors all bring down the average life expectancy number more substantially than in other countries: https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2017/05/16/the-explanator...
[deleted]
I’m referring to your specific point here: “I'm not sure I'd say the US has consciously made that tradeoff.”
Even if you assume the lack of a safety net causes the symptoms above, my point is that the lack of a safety net is deliberate, because even our left wing party promises not to raise taxes enough to actually fund a more robust safety net.
Apart from that, the life expectancy of white Marylanders is 80 years, just a bit shorter than for Germans (80.9 years). But 30% of our state’s population is from a minority group that was enslaved on Maryland plantations, and then denied civil rights until very recently. If bill gates had been born in the county where I live as a Black kid, he would have gone to a segregated school until middle school. Their life expectancy is several years lower, due to the legacy of those injustices.
Many of the differences between the US and European countries are misdiagnosed as matters of general policy (safety net, healthcare). But when you break it down, much of the difference is actually the result of the country’s history and large Black-white gaps in many indicators. The median white household, for example, has 10 times the wealth of the median Black household—a fact that plays a huge role in people feeling economically insecure. But those gaps can not necessarily be fixed with the same policy choices that European countries apply to their general populations. That wealth gap, for example, has not changed since the 1960s, when Maryland schools were still segregated—despite a large growth in general social welfare spending since that time. It is a unique challenge that requires targeted solutions, and there is no political will to implement those policies. These policy challenges simply have no parallel in Germany.
Even if you assume the lack of a safety net causes the symptoms above, my point is that the lack of a safety net is deliberate, because even our left wing party promises not to raise taxes enough to actually fund a more robust safety net.
Apart from that, the life expectancy of white Marylanders is 80 years, just a bit shorter than for Germans (80.9 years). But 30% of our state’s population is from a minority group that was enslaved on Maryland plantations, and then denied civil rights until very recently. If bill gates had been born in the county where I live as a Black kid, he would have gone to a segregated school until middle school. Their life expectancy is several years lower, due to the legacy of those injustices.
Many of the differences between the US and European countries are misdiagnosed as matters of general policy (safety net, healthcare). But when you break it down, much of the difference is actually the result of the country’s history and large Black-white gaps in many indicators. The median white household, for example, has 10 times the wealth of the median Black household—a fact that plays a huge role in people feeling economically insecure. But those gaps can not necessarily be fixed with the same policy choices that European countries apply to their general populations. That wealth gap, for example, has not changed since the 1960s, when Maryland schools were still segregated—despite a large growth in general social welfare spending since that time. It is a unique challenge that requires targeted solutions, and there is no political will to implement those policies. These policy challenges simply have no parallel in Germany.
So adjusting for inflation, which tracks the relative buying power of the dollar across common goods and services, is not representing the cost of modern living?
I know it has some areas that may be under-represented, but in general it tracks the same changes in the power of the dollar across multiple categories. Changing what the inflation metrics track would make it an even poorer standard for comparison/tracking.
What would make a better metric?
I know it has some areas that may be under-represented, but in general it tracks the same changes in the power of the dollar across multiple categories. Changing what the inflation metrics track would make it an even poorer standard for comparison/tracking.
What would make a better metric?
One argument is that increases in necessities like healthcare, and rent are offset by decreases in things like the cost of consumer electronics.
So the inflation rate doesn’t give you a good picture of the actual increase in the cost of living.
So the inflation rate doesn’t give you a good picture of the actual increase in the cost of living.
People measure many things. For example, you mention that debt isn't considered here; wealth metrics are widely studied, the poverty line just doesn't happen to be a wealth metric, but rather an income measure.
I am not sure I fully comprehend the remark "The poverty line has not scaled with the increase in expenditures associated with modern living." It adjusts with inflation, and the inflation metric tries to stay relevant: the CPI basket includes housing, medical treatment and drugs, tuition, TVs, cell phones, etc. I guess the criticism comes down to the idea that somehow a cell phone should somehow adjust from an assumption of 0 from times before cell phones were popular?
If we do something like that, it sounds really hard to get things right (CPI is already pretty hard to get right). What would it mean to say that standard of living improvements are outpacing alleviation of poverty? That sort of metric seems something suited for sophisticated research, not a standard government metric.
Another important thing to do, one might note, that addresses some of the concern about losing track, is to take a fixed proportion of people - e.g. the bottom quintile of income earners - and study various aspects affecting their lives. This is, as I understand it, really widespread.
I am not sure I fully comprehend the remark "The poverty line has not scaled with the increase in expenditures associated with modern living." It adjusts with inflation, and the inflation metric tries to stay relevant: the CPI basket includes housing, medical treatment and drugs, tuition, TVs, cell phones, etc. I guess the criticism comes down to the idea that somehow a cell phone should somehow adjust from an assumption of 0 from times before cell phones were popular?
If we do something like that, it sounds really hard to get things right (CPI is already pretty hard to get right). What would it mean to say that standard of living improvements are outpacing alleviation of poverty? That sort of metric seems something suited for sophisticated research, not a standard government metric.
Another important thing to do, one might note, that addresses some of the concern about losing track, is to take a fixed proportion of people - e.g. the bottom quintile of income earners - and study various aspects affecting their lives. This is, as I understand it, really widespread.
Lol americans are much much richer compare to the rest of the world especially the first world. And debt is considered.
For those interested, here's the upper / lower half split chart on hourly wage growth going back to 2007.
Wage growth for the lower half had been consistently outpacing wage growth for the upper half since 2014.
https://i.imgur.com/tXv4jr7.png
Wage growth for the lower half had been consistently outpacing wage growth for the upper half since 2014.
https://i.imgur.com/tXv4jr7.png
Did that change actually go through? Your link says it was just a proposal.
And from the report, it seems like poverty had been decreasing for years.
Since 2014, the poverty rate has fallen 4.3 percentage points, from 14.8 percent to 10.5 percent
And from the report, it seems like poverty had been decreasing for years.
Since 2014, the poverty rate has fallen 4.3 percentage points, from 14.8 percent to 10.5 percent
Why is household income such a common statistic to use - it seems like it doesn't tell us much unless you at least normalize it by the number of earners in the house and the cost of rent?
For example - I'm pretty sure large numbers of people living together and sharing rent is way more common nowadays than it used to be. From 18 - 25 (I'm 27 now) I was always living in a house with at least 3 other people (usually 4-5), because that was literally the only way I could afford to pay rent if I wanted to eat as well and I'm still splitting rent 50/50 with one other person now.
Most of us were working (low paid) full time jobs, so our total household income would have been pretty big - but this situation is obviously not at all an improvement over what we had a few decades ago when one minimum wage full time income could afford their own house and a full belly.
For example - I'm pretty sure large numbers of people living together and sharing rent is way more common nowadays than it used to be. From 18 - 25 (I'm 27 now) I was always living in a house with at least 3 other people (usually 4-5), because that was literally the only way I could afford to pay rent if I wanted to eat as well and I'm still splitting rent 50/50 with one other person now.
Most of us were working (low paid) full time jobs, so our total household income would have been pretty big - but this situation is obviously not at all an improvement over what we had a few decades ago when one minimum wage full time income could afford their own house and a full belly.
Average household size has been decreasing significantly and is at a low as of 2019.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizat...
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizat...
Does that include children under 18, though? If so, then they're not counted in the income calculation. That means the problem is worse, not better.
"The term "size of household" includes all the people occupying a housing unit."[1]
And household income is all income earned, including those down to 15 years old.[1]
Plus, the report breaks out individual income as well and the numbers are similar.
[1]https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-docume...
And household income is all income earned, including those down to 15 years old.[1]
Plus, the report breaks out individual income as well and the numbers are similar.
[1]https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-docume...
It's used (historically) because household income is one of the best determinants of living standard for a great majority of individuals under "typical" living conditions.
I.e. if you have one high income earner, married to a low income earner, supporting one or two no income earners living together in a household, its inaccurate to split those out and consider or calculate those statistics as individuals. Most households historically live a lifestyle more akin to pooling and sharing income and resources.
But, as you rightfully point out, when I was calculating them, we also tended to use equivalised-household incomes (to take into account the different resources and structures used by the number of children vs adults living together). 'Course you also then have to worry about things like imputed rent and drawing on access to capital/resources that don't turn up in economic or monetary flows.
The short answer for why its used is probably like most economic statistics: its calculable and easily available and people think they understand it (even if they don't).
I.e. if you have one high income earner, married to a low income earner, supporting one or two no income earners living together in a household, its inaccurate to split those out and consider or calculate those statistics as individuals. Most households historically live a lifestyle more akin to pooling and sharing income and resources.
But, as you rightfully point out, when I was calculating them, we also tended to use equivalised-household incomes (to take into account the different resources and structures used by the number of children vs adults living together). 'Course you also then have to worry about things like imputed rent and drawing on access to capital/resources that don't turn up in economic or monetary flows.
The short answer for why its used is probably like most economic statistics: its calculable and easily available and people think they understand it (even if they don't).
Because households only buy one vacuum cleaner.
It probably is a dated stat but it's still useful.
Going down the more individualized path also has problems
It probably is a dated stat but it's still useful.
Going down the more individualized path also has problems
And a household pays a single rent. This means I’m average ppl can afford 6% increase to rent.
Afford might be poor choice of word though
Afford might be poor choice of word though
Really unless I'm missing something increasing average/median household income could be an indicator of housing availability getting worse, not better.
Yup long long way to go to - https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-1.html
This survey comes with a chapter-length caveat that says the current data should not be used to compare with the prior year, because the survey response rate was exceptionally low and potentially biased by COVID-19. The survey was conducted in spring of 2020 and asks respondents to report their 2019 income, which is where the estimate of 2019 HH income growth is coming from. But, beginning on page G-9 (353rd page) of [1] the Census itself says:
""" it is likely that the characteristics of people for whom a telephone number was found may be systematically different from the people for whom the Census Bureau was unable to obtain a telephone number. While the Census Bureau creates weights designed to adjust for nonresponse and to control weighted counts to independent population estimates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin, the magnitude of the increase in (and differential nature of) nonresponse related to the pandemic likely reduced their effectiveness. Using administrative data, Census Bureau researchers have documented that there are more (and larger) differences between respondents and nonrespondents in 2020 than in the prior three years. Of particular interest for the estimates in the ASEC reports are the differences in median income and educational attainment, indicating that respondents in 2020 had relatively higher income and were more educated than nonrespondents."""
1: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/techdocs/cpsmar...
""" it is likely that the characteristics of people for whom a telephone number was found may be systematically different from the people for whom the Census Bureau was unable to obtain a telephone number. While the Census Bureau creates weights designed to adjust for nonresponse and to control weighted counts to independent population estimates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin, the magnitude of the increase in (and differential nature of) nonresponse related to the pandemic likely reduced their effectiveness. Using administrative data, Census Bureau researchers have documented that there are more (and larger) differences between respondents and nonrespondents in 2020 than in the prior three years. Of particular interest for the estimates in the ASEC reports are the differences in median income and educational attainment, indicating that respondents in 2020 had relatively higher income and were more educated than nonrespondents."""
1: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/techdocs/cpsmar...
Interesting... in 2018, 2017, and 2016 it only really increased by 1 or 2 percentage points.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-26...
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-26...
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-25...
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-26...
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-26...
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-25...
They're could be some lag in tax cuts making their way into household income, and some of this could be from corporations onshoring profits.
These numbers are pre-tax.
There isn't "one tax" that effects households. There's also second and third order-of-effect tax changes that affects income as well.
second+ order effects of tax policy have effects on pre-tax income distribution, just as do second+ order effects of benefits policy have effects on pre-benefits income distribution.
Quite often, arguments about the likely second+ order effects are major arguments for or against tax and benefit policy changes; it's not all about first order effects in isolation.
Quite often, arguments about the likely second+ order effects are major arguments for or against tax and benefit policy changes; it's not all about first order effects in isolation.
This[1] is from the year prior, but it indicates that wages may not be going up and causing income to go up. People may just be working more. Not sure if it applies to 2019 as well, though.
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/10/04/if-real-w...
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/10/04/if-real-w...
The mental gymnastics some commenters use to turn this into bad news...
Occam must be spinning in his grave.
Occam must be spinning in his grave.
I think there’s a non-trivial number of Americans who have adopted a belief system that we’re a crap country and don’t want to hear anything that contradicts that narrative. It seems like a lot of folks also shift into and out of that category when their preferred red or blue team is in the White House.
Yeh the america is bad crowd is out here in full effect trying to say other places have it better. When the reality is life is hard and its actually much hard everywhere else. There is no easy mode to this.
Generally everyone in the US views the US negatively right now.
maybe some mumbo jumbo stat that has nothing to do with the real world says things are better. Or maybe they frankly are not better.
maybe some mumbo jumbo stat that has nothing to do with the real world says things are better. Or maybe they frankly are not better.
These numbers are pre-COVID. Obviously things are bad now, there’s a global pandemic.
Pre-COVID, personal satisfaction in the US was at all time highs, so these numbers shouldn’t be all that surprising to anyone outside the HN bubble...
Pre-COVID, personal satisfaction in the US was at all time highs, so these numbers shouldn’t be all that surprising to anyone outside the HN bubble...
Ahh yes, "personal satisfaction." I'd love to see the survey that made that statistic marketable.
It’s Gallup: https://news.gallup.com/poll/284285/new-high-americans-satis...
Anyway, it sounds like you’ve really made up your mind here, and no amount of data appears to be sufficient to reverse the dogma.
Anyway, it sounds like you’ve really made up your mind here, and no amount of data appears to be sufficient to reverse the dogma.
"The latest figure bests the previous high of 88% recorded in 2003."
lol wow. 2% of difference. Am I really supposed to believe this nonsense you spew? What a meaningless statistic, all to support YOUR dogma.
See what I mean? You seem easily convinced, so stick around and I'll have your whole world upside down.
lol wow. 2% of difference. Am I really supposed to believe this nonsense you spew? What a meaningless statistic, all to support YOUR dogma.
See what I mean? You seem easily convinced, so stick around and I'll have your whole world upside down.
The difference between 88 and 90 isn’t important here. This is directly in response to your claim that “Generally everyone in the US views the US negatively right now.”
Perhaps that’s true in late 2020 amidst a once-in-generation pandemic and the inevitable economic fallout that’s gripped the entire world. But these pre-COVID US Census numbers mostly line up with the overwhelming pre-COVID sentiment. I don’t know why that’s so surprising/off-putting to you.
Perhaps that’s true in late 2020 amidst a once-in-generation pandemic and the inevitable economic fallout that’s gripped the entire world. But these pre-COVID US Census numbers mostly line up with the overwhelming pre-COVID sentiment. I don’t know why that’s so surprising/off-putting to you.
Unfortunately you simply do not comprehend the subject matter in the article. Please reread your link.
This is "personal satisfaction survey." Not a US satisfaction survey. Completely different things.
Your narrative games don't work on actual intellectuals. Sorry.
This is "personal satisfaction survey." Not a US satisfaction survey. Completely different things.
Your narrative games don't work on actual intellectuals. Sorry.
"US satisfaction" surveys don't do a good job of telling us how people feel about their economic well-being, because it is also a survey of social issues, foreign policy, etc. It's a survey of how Americans feel about the government. While important, it's a polluted data-point in the context of income and poverty in the United States, which is the topic at hand here.
The personal satisfaction survey captures exactly what we're talking about: how Americans feel about their personal well-being, and that's primarily driven by their personal access to resources/goods/services — in other words, their economic well-being.
> Your narrative games don't work on actual intellectuals. Sorry.
Not going to touch this, but you might be overestimating the positive effect statements like this have on your argument's credibility.
The personal satisfaction survey captures exactly what we're talking about: how Americans feel about their personal well-being, and that's primarily driven by their personal access to resources/goods/services — in other words, their economic well-being.
> Your narrative games don't work on actual intellectuals. Sorry.
Not going to touch this, but you might be overestimating the positive effect statements like this have on your argument's credibility.
When individual incomes are up nowhere near as much, there is obviously more going on than just good economic news.
Real median individual income is the highest it's ever been: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
According to BEA, "State personal income increased 4.4 percent in 2019, after increasing 5.6 percent in 2018". This is not median data, so the median would likely have increased even less.
[1] https://www.bea.gov/news/2020/state-annual-personal-income-2...
[1] https://www.bea.gov/news/2020/state-annual-personal-income-2...
The linked FRED data is median data.
Why is it at such variance with the BEA data? That is my question.
Oh you’re not talking about the FRED data, which examines real median personal income over time (which has been constantly increasing).
You’re talking about why the BEA data doesn’t line up with the US Census Bureau data for 2019. That’s probably because the BEA data is average growth while the US Census data shows the median income growth. For year 2019, we noticed that wage growth was largely driven by the lower quintiles: https://www.hiringlab.org/2019/03/05/february-jobs-report-pr...
This can largely explain the discrepancy. In other words, the assertion that “median would have increased even less” actually turned out to not be true, empirically.
You’re talking about why the BEA data doesn’t line up with the US Census Bureau data for 2019. That’s probably because the BEA data is average growth while the US Census data shows the median income growth. For year 2019, we noticed that wage growth was largely driven by the lower quintiles: https://www.hiringlab.org/2019/03/05/february-jobs-report-pr...
This can largely explain the discrepancy. In other words, the assertion that “median would have increased even less” actually turned out to not be true, empirically.
Ah, so a one-off anomaly. Over time it seems that median income is considerably underperforming. [1][2]
[1] https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-1.html [2] https://www.fastcompany.com/90550015/we-were-shocked-rand-st...
[1] https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-1.html [2] https://www.fastcompany.com/90550015/we-were-shocked-rand-st...
Sure, we have seen "anomalous" years for median earners from time to time, but it's important to remember that over time real median income has still been increasing as a function of the business cycle — I.e. the first derivative has always been positive during bull economies (see: FRED historic data). Sometimes the second derivative is also positive, which isn't uncommon. In 2019, the second derivative was not only positive, it was very positive.
Related from the Census Bureau:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EiCLL-_UYAIBJ_T?format=jpg&name=...
The middle class is disappearing ... into the upper class.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EiCLL-_UYAIBJ_T?format=jpg&name=...
The middle class is disappearing ... into the upper class.
That’s interesting but I think also a little misleading. The income brackets are held in constant dollars, which is helpful, but many of the important things in life have scaled like crazy in constant dollars as well.
$100k equivalent income in the 1960s was enough to buy a family home almost anywhere, and now it’s not enough to buy a family home in most major metros.
$100k equivalent income in the 1960s was enough to buy a family home almost anywhere, and now it’s not enough to buy a family home in most major metros.
The way that CPI inflation is calculated accounts for spending pattern changes already, including mortgage/rent. If you don't have a nuanced critique of the CPI calculation method, I'd argue that this point is moot.
It's also worth pointing out that the average square footage of a home has grown considerably in this time, and that even if you are comparing a similar sized home, it is unfair to compare a home 3 miles from city center in a city of 1 million people to the same in a city of 2 million people, after it has grown through the years.
It's also worth pointing out that the average square footage of a home has grown considerably in this time, and that even if you are comparing a similar sized home, it is unfair to compare a home 3 miles from city center in a city of 1 million people to the same in a city of 2 million people, after it has grown through the years.
Its cause the work force double, and people this generation don't marry.
Yeh but only by say 4% since the 60s, but the poorest and middle class are getting richer at a much faster pace.
Couldn't this fluctuate widely based on how inflation is calculated?
Interesting to see such a good improvement. My questions is why the Fed cut interest rates in 2019. Everything i read is the economy is strong. Curious what the fed saw that warranted a drop in the interest rate.
They started cutting because broad economic growth was softening noticeably.
The labor market was extremely tight though, which was pushing wages up at an accelerating rate. Most of the slack in the labor market was gone.
GDP growth had been grinding lower for multiple years, the very long economic expansion was probably increasingly due for a recession (which we have now gotten out of the way).
If a more natural recession had occurred circa 2020 or 2021 (without the pandemic), it likely would have been shallow, with the Fed always guns-ready to pump (since the great recession). The economy was strong in the sense that there wasn't anything major structurally wrong with it such that it was about to implode, however growth was not anything to write home about leading up to the pandemic.
The labor market was extremely tight though, which was pushing wages up at an accelerating rate. Most of the slack in the labor market was gone.
GDP growth had been grinding lower for multiple years, the very long economic expansion was probably increasingly due for a recession (which we have now gotten out of the way).
If a more natural recession had occurred circa 2020 or 2021 (without the pandemic), it likely would have been shallow, with the Fed always guns-ready to pump (since the great recession). The economy was strong in the sense that there wasn't anything major structurally wrong with it such that it was about to implode, however growth was not anything to write home about leading up to the pandemic.
pump the stock market
This is good to see but I’m curious how 2020 will turn out. I would guess that with with the pandemic driven shutdown median household income will drop pretty dramatically. Maybe more than this 6.8% gain.
Could also increase with households growing in size (other article about kids going back to their parents).
I wonder how much that increase scales further up the pay scale. Given the still widening income inequality, I wonder if its exponential
They only show the change in the share of aggregate income. In other words, of total income, how much did each quintile account for?
Lowest quintile +1.8% Highest quintile -0.6%
So it would appear it didn't go to the highest income earners.
Lowest quintile +1.8% Highest quintile -0.6%
So it would appear it didn't go to the highest income earners.
This is good. Rising incomes are a good thing.
My only problem is that it comes along with rising inequality. We needed to have more billionaires and multimillionaires (and thus raise asset values and debt much higher) for the wage increases to happen. Which basically means that the wage increases don't lead to a better quality of life.
More incoming money, more outgoing money.
My only problem is that it comes along with rising inequality. We needed to have more billionaires and multimillionaires (and thus raise asset values and debt much higher) for the wage increases to happen. Which basically means that the wage increases don't lead to a better quality of life.
More incoming money, more outgoing money.
Wage i.e. income increased is exactly what did happen. Billionaires and millionaires aren't bad. And income equality not a good goal. If we create more rich people at the same time incomes increase for the lower and middle class at historic who cares about the ratio split.
Equality isn't a good goal. But expansive inequality isn't either.
I'm not arguing for socialism. I'm arguing for proportionate slice of the pie for the work done. The share of the pie is heavily skewed towards owning wealth in the first place today and the only way to keep the vast majority employed seems to be making the rich richer.
I'm not arguing for socialism. I'm arguing for proportionate slice of the pie for the work done. The share of the pie is heavily skewed towards owning wealth in the first place today and the only way to keep the vast majority employed seems to be making the rich richer.
If expansive inequality isn't the goal why does it matter.
What does the percent of the pie matter even if you slice is getting bigger at historic paces because the pie in general is bigger. Would you rather have a higher percentage of a smaller pie or a lower percentage of a smaller pie.
Equality isn't the goal, equal opportunity is and higher standard of living I'd guess and focusing on equity may not be helping.
What does the percent of the pie matter even if you slice is getting bigger at historic paces because the pie in general is bigger. Would you rather have a higher percentage of a smaller pie or a lower percentage of a smaller pie.
Equality isn't the goal, equal opportunity is and higher standard of living I'd guess and focusing on equity may not be helping.
Its basically been growing like crazy since 2008. Check out the difference between the US growth vs most first world countries growth. The GDP per capita was 45k in 2008 and 48k in 2019. The US when from 48k to 63k.
> The 2019 real median earnings of men ($57,456) and women ($47,299) who worked full-time, year-round increased by 2.1 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively
If individual earnings gains are less than household income gains, it means people aren't necessarily making more money, it means they're working more total hours. I don't consider this a good thing for the richest country in the world. It's also interesting to note that women earnings increased almost a full percentage more than mens.
If individual earnings gains are less than household income gains, it means people aren't necessarily making more money, it means they're working more total hours. I don't consider this a good thing for the richest country in the world. It's also interesting to note that women earnings increased almost a full percentage more than mens.
Working more might be a person going from a part-time 30hr per week job to a full time 40hr per week job.
That’s a good thing, no?
That’s a good thing, no?
I think of it more as people needing to work more hours overall just to afford the same lifestyle.
That would be inflation. And the income increase is real income, so inflation is accounted for.
I feel like the inflation measurement is BS. It tracks prices of goods, but doesn't account for people paying for things they didn't pay for in the past (day care, bottled water, health insurance, retirement savings), and comparing that to their income. 25 years ago it was normal for families to live fairly well-off on a single income...nowadays you'd barely make ends meet.
It's deceiving nowadays because we're basically living the same lifestyle quality we were 25 years ago, except that either both parents are working like dogs, or the even sadder reality of couples foregoing/delaying kids because of their finances.
It's deceiving nowadays because we're basically living the same lifestyle quality we were 25 years ago, except that either both parents are working like dogs, or the even sadder reality of couples foregoing/delaying kids because of their finances.
[deleted]
Coincides with $15 minimum wage showing up in a lot of places. Coincidence????
This is median, so maybe if you're saying the mechanism is fewer low income jobs available? 15/hr at 40h/50wk is 30k, so it would not raise median to bring the floor up.
Ah...statistics..
beervirus(2)
m0zg(2)
hokumguru(4)
Can we trust the numbers these days? At least several Federal departments have been politicized recently..e.g. interference in CDC reports and others e.g. https://www.govexec.com/management/2020/09/calls-investigati...
edit: moreover, the impact of COVID on census data collection isn't likely to be equal across income groups.
edit: moreover, the impact of COVID on census data collection isn't likely to be equal across income groups.
Similar assertions were made during previous administrations. I suspect that such claims will not become less familiar as the partisan gap widens. I don't believe that outright fraud is happening in either case, but is our duty (and that of the press) to watch the numbers and methodology statements carefully. If the news was a bit more precise in its reporting of statistics it would go a long way to making large scale manipulation more difficult.
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambro...
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambro...
There is no rational, evidenced argument that the last four years has been on par with the Obama administration in terms of the corruption of political appointees, or the degradation of our institutions. The what-about-ism you put forth is a false equivalency in magnitude and kind.
We are in truly dangerous times, and I say this as a libertarian-leaning, conservative-friendly individual: Trump is an existential threat to our Republic.
We are in truly dangerous times, and I say this as a libertarian-leaning, conservative-friendly individual: Trump is an existential threat to our Republic.
I suspect a lot of those who have moved back into their parents’ homes were likely earning below the median household income. Remove them as a household, and suddenly the median family is one higher on the income scale.