Can Binyamin Appelbaum or Janet Yellen call over to the Higher Education Sector and get me my money that has been owed to me? Owed to me, for several years now! I have been waiting really that long, for my Student Award money to be sent to me. ----- Because I have not received my Highest Honors Student Award money yet (for the Ph.D and Post Doctorate), I find it hard to believe that Household Income is improving/increasing. Mine certainly has not.
2
I believe this improvement was on Obama's watch, but DT will claim it for himself anyway.
1
The headline should make it clear that this is a pre-Trump phenomenon. In fact, the economic gains were made under the assumption among most that a pro-business Hillary Clinton would be serving as President. Time will tell if the scammer-in-chief and his administration of oligarchs will sustain them, but their collective track record should not give reason for optimism over the long-term, despite the Trump bump.
1
The median income is not useful. Immense raises in wealthy incomes increases inequality.
4
Wrong! AVERAGE income is distorted by the highest wage earners. Median is half above, half below. But "household" may include 2 wage earners. So a median $60k salary may not mean that an individual earns that
5
Right. "The average household income for the poorest fifth of households fell by $571 over the decade that ended last year, adjusting for inflation. Over the same period, the average income for the wealthiest fifth of households rose by $13,479, adjusting for inflation."
1
You have median and mean confused. Statisticians understand that outliers can skew an average (mean) in a distributed population. For that reason, the "median is more useful.
Sorry.... at this point I find it hard to believe ANY government statistics.
REAL unemployment remains close to 25% using 1980's metrics. REAL inflation is close to 10% here in NY.
I know some people doing very well but many are in bad shape - far more than you'd expect. From my perspective we're as bad off as the nation was in 1937, eight years after the great crash. This time we've managed to reinflate the market (which seems to be a HUGE bubble unsupported by any fundamentals) but have accomplished little else.
The rich have gotten VERY rich while the rest are hurting.
REAL unemployment remains close to 25% using 1980's metrics. REAL inflation is close to 10% here in NY.
I know some people doing very well but many are in bad shape - far more than you'd expect. From my perspective we're as bad off as the nation was in 1937, eight years after the great crash. This time we've managed to reinflate the market (which seems to be a HUGE bubble unsupported by any fundamentals) but have accomplished little else.
The rich have gotten VERY rich while the rest are hurting.
7
Even with the change in methodology, the rise in median incomes in 2015 and 2016 was significant. But the Dems failed last year to counter tRump's bogus 'American carnage' narrative with a reality check - just as they failed to support the ACA until it became popular.
2
This Report is incomplete accounting. It only does 1 Apple = 1 Apple, even though one of the apples, or both could be damaged, and not edible. There is a probability that these apples should not be on the Market, for sale.... but they are. And it is this probability that should be accounted for. There are a lot of defective products on the USA Market, with no effort towards removal. ---- Note: I am not sure if this Report is intentionally misleading.
1
Trump will likely take credit for any improvements!
1
Trump will attempt to ruin the US economy the same way that he screwed up most of his own personal investments, he will look for the quick "deal", take the money, run, and try to leave someone else holding the bag. This will manifest itself as tax cuts for the rich, less share for the lower 80%, less consumer demand, and a weakening economy.
4
How much has median income in China risen over the last 5 decades? I recall Ross Perot say there will be a huge vacuum sound as corporations leave the US. The corporations where driven offshore to realize huge profits as a result of slave labor overseas. Our import duties actually gave huge reductions to US companies that sent capital equipment to foreign countries for production.
It is very easy to increase profits by shifting labor off shore to earn huge bonuses and drive capital gains to create CEO and Wall-street billionaires.
We have given the security and wealth of our middle class to the 1% and to workers abroad.
Want to see real gains in median income? Boycott centralized economic systems and invest in local ones.
Here in the US if a private company is successful at developing or penetrating a market it is usually bought out by a centralized corporation. The people who built it are discarded. The owners get a huge check and the oligarch increases market control.
There is economic strength in local and regional companies that drive competition, diversity and wealth for the middle class and weakness in centralized entities that drive wealth for about 150 families.
Buy local.
3
With such a large USA Debt, and no effort to pay the Debt, this Report claim of improvement cannot be taken seriously. This Report ignores or chooses not to take into account important factors. Another factor being, Crime. Clearly, the claim of "Income Up" is unstable.
Thanks Obama.
Lest anyone think the trending data in this article is the result of any of the nonPolicies 45 has implemented in his short and unsuccessful circus of an administration. "rise of 5.2% since 2015, 2016 gains were the highest on record". While the future 45 was disparaging large groups of Americans on the campaign trail, Obama was continuing his successful Presidency in the face of every obstacle possible. History will reflect that.
4
Bottom line one yr's data means nothing.
Having said that if it continues give Obama credit for his eight yrs.
You have to wait four yrs (assuming Trump is still in office) to see any effect Trump has.
History note....whether it was the first one Alcidbedes in ancient Greece or the last one Chazez in Venz., demagogues like Trump almost always ruin their economies.
1
Let's start toward the conclusion of this article, with the "poverty" rate being "reduced" to a mere 12.7% ...HOW does the gov't define the anxieties of today's poverty amongst one pf the richest (per capita) nations on the planet?
DOES the gov't even have a "real-time" view, relative to being "on the street" in interviewing what their arms-length approach is, in mathematically calculating U.S. "poverty" in '16....beyond typical demos, 50% bottom run, 50% top run of incomes, divided by population....HOW skewed!
The new "methodology" to calculate median incomes is obviously a joke, to further mask the reality of today's poverty...AND...the increasing erosion of our "backbone" demo, that always, was expected to churn out more personal expenditures due to our imbalanced (since 2008) reliance of abiding by a near 70% GDP in consumer spend...which of course, includes paying the high cost of health care premiums, as part of our massive "consumer" spend...I think the ratio of near 70% GDP on consumer spend must be re-structured because the short/long-term outlook of the U.S. economy is clearly, out of sync...hence the point of glacial (e.g. 2%) annualized growth since '08.
1
Has anyone noticed that all of the pundits are pushing "tax reform," and how key Democrats are already repeating the mantra that tax reform means tax cuts.
Haven't wet already made this deal, where taxes are cut in exchange for cutting loopholes? Taxes are still down, but the loopholes are back..
The main push will be to cut taxes on corporations and capital gains taxes on those that own the shares, 75% of whom are in the top 1%.
We have been cutting taxes on the rich and super rich for five decades now, resulting in weak growth caused by declining consumer incomes. So after eight years of Republicans blocking everything, the Democrats are already signaling that they will give political cover to yet another round of tax cuts.
True tax reform would raise capital gains, the main source of income for the super rich, to the same rates as work. That is what Democrats should be fighting for, but like that clingy person you didn't want for a friend, Democrats follow the Republicans around begging to be included in their looting of America.
Then they whine when we vote for someone else.
Tax the billionaires to pay for education, healthcare, and infrastructure.
2
This really is a non issue for President Trump; who has never made mention of historic levels of economic inequality that economists have studied. Candidate Trump stated that people working around minimum wage were being paid too much. His efforts to reform taxes have as much to do with helping middle class as something he forgot about fifty years ago. His agenda is the antithesis of helping anyone who is not wealthy like himself.
This story needed an editor. The income inequality piece is significant, as shown by the extent to which it is covered down in the story. It could have been wrapped into the first couple paragraphs -- or covered in a separate piece with a refer. As it is now, it's buried, which leaves your coverage open to an allegation of bias, especially with the political piece you include.
1
Depending on whether one uses the new metric or the old metric the news is good or, respectively, bad. Personally, I think the headline is far too optimistic about incomes. Using the old metric, things really don't seem all that improved.
3
The problem with these data driven reports is that while they may (or may not) be factual based on the small survey slice they represent, they do not paint a picture of the truth. Small incremental gains for the average person pale against the exponential increases in income for the wealthy - most of whose gains do not occur from 'working' but from investment returns (at the expense of workers) and from tax loopholes. Additionally, the increase in contact workers creates a platform of instability and lack of job and income security. The real truth is the economy is NOT better for the average worker. Income is NOT increasing, steady and appropriate jobs are NOT available and hope for future improvement lessens each time one of these 'reports' is released. The extreme and growing income inequality is not a mere footnote, it is a glaring harbinger of the true economic reality of this country and is a danger to the social stability of our society. Politicians cannot be allowed to use these data driven 'successes' as an excuse for not addressing the real income needs of the great majority of citizens. It is a smoke screen that all Americans need to disavow. The economy is still a mess and until policies and protections are in place to provide opportunities for all Americans, reports like these are just meaningless.
9
The article doesn't even say what the change in wages is, only the change in household income.
Things still need work. That said, Mr. Trump's contention that he "inherited a mess" leads to the assumption that nothing is working and that everything must be done differently. We have made good progress since 2009, though it has surely been too slow. What we need not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but rather to build upon what has been begun.
3
"..Except for periods in the 1950s and 1960s and possibly the 1990’s when tax rates on the rich just happened to be high enough to prevent overinvestment, the economy has generally suffered from periodic overinvestment cycles.
It is not just a coincidence that tax cuts for the rich have preceded both the 1929 and 2007 depressions. The Revenue acts of 1926 and 1928 worked exactly as the Republican Congresses that pushed them through promised. The dramatic reductions in taxes on the upper income brackets and estates of the wealthy did indeed result in increases in savings and investment. However, overinvestment (by 1929 there were over 600 automobile manufacturing companies in the USA) caused the depression that made the rich, and most everyone else, ultimately much poorer.
Since 1969 there has been a tremendous shift in the tax burdens away from the rich on onto the middle class. Corporate income tax receipts, whose incidence falls entirely on the owners of corporations, were 4% of GDP then and are now less than 1%. During that same period, payroll tax rates as percent of GDP have increased dramatically. The overinvestment problem caused by the reduction in taxes on the wealthy is exacerbated by the increased tax burden on the middle class. While overinvestment creates more factories, housing and shopping centers; higher payroll taxes reduces the purchasing power of middle-class consumers. ..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642
7
Yes, by taxing capital at a lower rate than work we have stimulated assert bubbles. Capital is at 80% utilization, which means we have 25% more capital than we need, even while the Fed is saying the labor market is tight.
And when they tell you a CEO makes $2 million a year, they don't explain how they end up with billions of dollars. At $2 million per year it takes 500 years to make a billion. Most of their income is from capital gains, taxed at 15%. Why isn't Chuck Schumer talking to the middle class about how they pay higher tax rates than Trump, because Trump only pays 15% on capital gains (if he pays anything at all).?
There is plenty of money to pay for education, healthcare, and infrastructure. Productivity is double what it was when one worker could raise a family and send two kids to college.
But most of our productivity has been shifted into asserrt bubbles for the entertainment of global billionaires.
Democrats need to fight, not retreat.
2
The entire world economy has changed since 1969. The United States had essentially no economic competition from Europe and Japan for almost 20 years after the close of World War II, therefore economic growth during that time is a historical anomaly that will not be repeated. The tax regime that existed during that time is not relevant to The competitive economic situation today.
Also, it is a fallacy that corporate tax is paid entirely from dividends that would otherwise go to people with higher incomes. There is very good economic data that suggests that about half of the cost of corporate tax results in lower employment. So higher corporate taxes generally result in higher unemployment, as well as a decrease in dividends to the wealthy, most studies so this ratio to be about 50% for each.
In my opinion, the single largest contributor to the increase in economic inequality in the last 10 years has been the Federal Reserve policy to hold interest rates below their market-rate. This has artificially increased the value of stocks, which has resulted in a more than doubling of the stock market indices, this additional wealth accrued almost entirely to the top 5%income portion of the population.
The best program to reduce income inequality is a program to increase employment.
"Race and Hispanic Origin"
everyone is mixed race. in particular, asia is a big place.
think outside of the racial boxes.
3
This is a survey of 95,000 households, so the data is self-reported. You have to wonder if many people don't necessarily report all their income in such a survey, for various reasons. Even if they try to be truthful, how accurate can they be?
3
This is 2016. Trump had nothing to do with it.
5
I am sure 45 will somehow attempt to take credit for this. Let's give credit where it is due - thank you President Obama!!
5
Thank you President Obama!!!@ We miss you!!!
11
This is good news but it is really a very little and certainly very late. First of all median household income increases are almost entirely driven by the two income family these days. There are exceptions, but if women hadn't entered the paid workforce outside the family these numbers would be drastically lower.
Also after thirty years of stagnant wages we are just beginning to catch up from decades where corporate profits were up, but those gains were not shared with the American worker.
The 3.2 increase is certainly better than nothing. But I worked without a contract for six years before getting a 10% raise stretched out over the next three years of our eventual contract. But if I had been paid fair wage increases for that entire six year period with no increase I would have gotten a 29% raise.
So at the end of the day I regained one third of the buying power that I had lost. When you take a snapshot of my new contract year, it looks great. When you step back and measure it over the six stagnant years, it's better than nothing, but not a very rosy picture.
12
Same here. After a layoff in 2010 in IT, I managed to find a manager job which is paying me 1997 wages. Is the responsibility less? Yes. The stress? Tripled.
8
As you note, the slight decrease in those without health insurance is due to the expansion of medicaid. It is certainly not due to higher middle class coverage. That group of people, who are just above the level of ACA premium subsidy support, have seen their costs triple under the ACA. They are being priced out of the market, and are dropping coverage.
2
Universal Single Payer is the answer.
1
I follow pensions and I just read that the AVERAGE full career(35 yr) teacher in Ct retired at 59700 and in Kentucky(cheap state) it is 64000 after 30 years. So many police, fire as well make far more than working families..I have a neighbor who is a park ranger who is not even 60 and he has been retired for 8 years at 70k. How can this continue with these numbers, every one of these pensions would cost me over 1 million as an annuity at Prudential or NY Life. These people are all millionaires in assets, and this is the AVERAGE, not the outliers.
5
This is part of the divide and conquer strategy of the billionaires who lose more money than that in the cushions of their many sofas.
First they steal the private pensions, then they say, "look at those evil public workers who have pensions when they retire, why should they get more than you?"
The answer is private workers should also have good pensions.
But we have bought into the lie that is supply side economics for decades and it is destroying the workers who are the consumers.
Now they want to privatize social security so they can get a piece of whatever you have left.
And while they cut our pay and benefits and steal our pensions (hedge funds took all of the gains from the NYC pension funds for a decade, for example), they will blame immigrants and blacks, and Mexicans, and unions and public employees and gays and anyone else they can think of for your plight, instead of those with the economic and political power to design a system that shifts our productivity into their bank accounts. That is the true "redistribution of wealth."
The person that is holding you down is the CEO who just fired your co-worker and wants you to do their job too.
Try a union. Teachers et al accept lower wages throughout their working lives in return for a pension. We also do not get social security unless we have a second job in the private sector, as many do. Why do you think it's acceptable for working people not to have a pension while millionaire investors retire at forty with millions? Why let the financial, business, or tech sectors off the hook? Are they paying their fair share of taxes? Everyone should have a pension, because you won't live forever or be able to work forever. You may become disabled. Everyone deserves the dignity of retirement. Everyone should pay in and help everyone. Teachers pay a portion of their salaries into retirement account and they also pay into social security. They pay payroll taxes, many taxes just like all workers. Stop trying to bring down your neighbors. Get a union!
2
The last ten paragraphs pretty much refute the previous rosy paragraphs, but no big deal - all of us in the bottom three quintiles know that the economy is still a mess.
4
Who should receive major portion of credit? ... the Federal Reserve and it's former chairman Ben Bernanke.
1
Nonsense. Quantitative Easing II, created a net of $2 trillion for global banks. Asked why they didn't invest it back on the American economy, they said they were waiting for demand to kick in. If that money had been divided among 300 million Americans it would come to cone to over $6,000 for each citizen, $24,000 for a family of four. That could have saved millions of homes, paid medical debt, rents, education debt, credit cards, or bought cats and TVs. That would have been a huge stimulus that would have brought the dining back to pre recession levels almost immediately.
Instead global banks were allowed to invest anywhere on the planet, in esoteric derivatives, and asset bubbles.
Meanwhile wages are still catching up to pre recession levels ten years later.
The Fed is a tool of global bankers.
2
Thus be it ever with politics. George Bush left us with the worst recession since the Great Depression, and Barack Obama got a lot of the blame. Obama left office with the country on a course of prosperity, with rising employment, rising middle class and working class wages, low inflation, and booming securities markets - and Donald Trump takes the credit.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
9
That is because the Democrats encourage Republicans to blame them for the bad and take credit for the good. It couldn't happen if the Democrats didn't let it happen. I know that because the Republicans don't let Democrats do it to them.
The post Bush recession recovery has been the weakest in the modern era. It is fine to cherry-pick the last 2 years and suggest all is well, but all is most certainly not well, economic growth in past recoveries has been twice as robust.
1
I am a retiree with no income except social security check every month. The SS check annual increase is meager compared to actual cost of living increase. For instance, my property value just went up 5% this year and so goes my property tax by 5%. I don't feel any comfort from "median household income up" story. This low interest rate is killing all the retirees.
9
Please explain. If you have "no income except Social Security," how can "low interest rates" be "killing" you? You aren't collecting any interest from deposits or dividends on income-generating assets, since you have no income besides Social Security. High interest rates, all else being equal, would imply greater inflation and even greater erosion of the purchasing power of your Social Security benefits.
4
Earnings don't earn interest, savings earn interest. His situation is a very common problem for retirees who have no income from labor and now their lifetime of savings also generates no return.
3
At least SS gets an inflation raise. IBM's pensions are miniscule, and have no pension rider. And IBM is supposedly such a great employee friendly company.
Why do you care about low interest rates if you have no savings earning interest? Some of my retired friends who saved all their lives and are now earning essentially zero on their savings -- I understand why they are unhappy about interest rates,
1
"A closely watched measure, median household income, jumped for the second straight year, reaching $59,039 — a 3.2 percent increase after inflation."
Keep this statistic in mind when you hear all the whining from those making over 100K a year that they need tax relief. This is why I could only vote for HRC while holding my nose.
2
Given how Humean causation no longer seems to matter to many Americans (you know causes come before effects), perhaps Trump can claim credit for this? Let's write loads of articles about that. Of course, it's probably down to the slow recovery from the devastation wrought by the banking failures of 2008. If this is so, let's deregulate the big banks once more on the logic that after they fail again (and the CEOs walk away with HUGE rewards) there will be a slow improvement in the collective welfare once more. This country really is becoming a big joke whichever of these scenarios plays out.
3
Clearly the Obama administration helped with the growth of middle income over the last two years. The earned income tax credit, the SNAP program , Obama Care and jobs contributed to this increase. Rubublicans had not done nothing to help reduce poverty. They helped increase povert by cutting benefits for poor Americans. Shameless Trump will soon be tweeting to take credit.
8
Clearly the Obama administration helped with the growth of middle income over the last two years. The earned income tax credit, the SNAP program , Obama Care and jobs contributed to this increase. Rubublicans had not done anything to help reduce poverty. They helped increase povert by cutting benefits for poor Americans. Shameless Trump will soon be tweeting to take credit.
3
Well, you have to understand that to the president and his cronies, anyone making money other than themselves is carnage!
4
So economically things really have been getting better for most Americans and Obama and Democrats deserve at least some of the credit for the steps they took during and in the immediate aftermath of the financial meltdown bequeathed by the previous Republican administration, for e.g. the financial stimulus which most mainstream economists credit with boosting the economy when it was most needed, and saving a huge chunk of the US auto industry - both actions in the face of bitter GOP opposition. And the progress in reducing the number of uninsured Americans is attributable entirely to the ACA passed without a single Republican vote.
And yet the American people saw fit to elect to total power the ideologically blinded and dysfunctional GOP, the very same party who would have seen the economy collapse into Depression in 2009 and the US auto industry largely disappear, not to mention the one that fought tooth and nail to keep 40-50 million Americans without health insurance. If we keep making choices like that, we really will shrivel up and die as a nation.
14
That is because Democrats apologize for their successes and take credit for Republican failures.
Four months into Obama's presidency he was calling it his economy. Why would he do such a thing?
Why was it that during the 2014 midterms the Democrats refused to put these two ideas together: "We have gotten the economy back on track with continuous growth, but the system is still rigged in favor of billionaires." Instead of trying to fix the system so that it would help workers, they refused to take credit for their success, and lost the midterms.
It is hard to believe Democrats are this incompetent by accident.
1
You are overlooking the obvious and well-known fact that this economic recovery is the least robust of any in the modern era. I'm delighted that the last two years have been good for the average household income, but the six years preceding it economic growth was half what it should have been. This is not a record of success for the Democratic Party.
This article feels a bit like smoke and mirrors; it misses increasing expenses on the individual worker or household and it misses how many of us no longer have the security of a permanent job.
Data point of one: my pay has been flat, but my expenses have gone way up. A lot of benefits I used to get from my employer have shifted to my shoulders now that I'm working as a contractor-- health insurance tops the list, also no sick pay--if I don't work, I don't get paid-- and I pay my licensing dues and my commuting expenses come out of my income after taxes.
Don't get me started on costs rising--rent, commuting costs, car insurance ....
22
And you have to pay for unemployment insurance, although as an independent contractor you are not eligible for unemployment benefits!
1
Ugh. Just in time for the GOP to destroy the economy. Again.
9
This is good, I guess. For if people don't start getting paid more for their hard work there may be revolts. Sharing profits with workers is a thing of the past, so last century.
Now what about those at the bottom of the economic food chain, who still make so little that they can still qualify for all of the government benefits? Did they get an increase?
2
Thank you,Obama.
18
Thank him for the poorest getting poorer?
The US has a serious problem which will keep populists to be elected to offices.
5
Ben. If we had a real populist, instead of a billionaire opportunist posing as a populist, this would be improving.
Must be a massive blow to the Trump Admin.
Perhaps,they just might take credit or audacious double-down should Trump claim it.
Hopefully those positively impacted,even in the slightest, whether they'd like to admit it or not, acknowledge where credit's due.
Nothing is more rewarding than seeing your achievements come to fruition.
1
Huzzahs!!! We elderly can now eat the healthier dog and cat food. You know, the Blue Stuff.
Can we get some of that water logged chocolate cake from Mar-a-Lago for dessert?
Once again to the GOP - thanks a big, fat, lot.
3
Hmmm. Wasn't someone telling us all last year that the USA was a hellhole?
5
Aren't most liberals telling us that the USA is a mess and we need far more taxation and government to fix the many problems. Especially poverty? As though the $trillions spent on anti-poverty programs over the past 50+ years, leaving liberals yelling about "more poverty than ever" and all the inequality were money well spent.
Reagan declared the war on poverty lost, even though the New Deal had reduced poverty by 50%, and we have been cutting back on poverty programs ever since. After the great recession dropped tens of millions into poverty the safety net is stretched too thin.
Personally I wish the "liberals" were asking for tax increases. Schumer is talking about tax cuts.
We have been cutting taxes on the rich for 50 years and the economy is limping along.
In the fifties one worker could raise a family and send the kids to college. At the same time, government was paying off WWII, the biggest debt in U.S. history, rebuilding Europe and Japan, building the interstate highway system and bringing electricity and phones to Texas.
Productivity is now double what it was then, and two worker households struggle to pay rent and feed the family.
Where did all of the productivity go? It went to the offshore accounts of global billionaires, the "job creators" who keep firing people.
The conservative project is bankrupting or country, and the centrist Democrats are helping.
Median national income is meaningless unless it is compared to local costs.
That $60K buys a lot more in Kentucky than NYC.
8
The median income in Kentucky is likely to be much lower, and the median in NYC much higher. The national number is really pretty meaningless.
2
This is great news, although we should be careful about attributing the rise in income to any particular president. There are too many other factors to consider to say this is the result of Obama or Trump.
Additionally, a rise in the median income is, by definition, good for average Americans, although I'm sure today's populists will try to spin it otherwise.
3
As the article points out the rise in household income is mostly not from a rise in pay, but in worked hours.
1
Dollar's worth less every day, and when the printing presses crank out billions of bucks to cover Harvey and Irma, there goes another inflationary decline in our buying power. A million is not what it used to be, even if one states that or more for one's annual income.
6
Have incomes for working class people gone up? Haven't retirees' incomes dropped?
8
Two years in a row — now can we have a respite from the oft-repeated "fact" that American household income has not increased in the last [insert a fake number here] years? Let's take this red meat off the menu, please.
1
Looking at the real numbers since about 2001 or earlier (as opposed to the fake "voter fraud" figures), perhaps the best thing one should say is, "It's about bloody time!" Thanks a big fat lot, Obama!
3
Income is still lower than it was ten years ago.
Why doesn't the Democratic Party use this red meat instead of begging for compromise from Republicans?
1
No progress in 18 years, though the rich have done extraordinarily well. No wonder voters went haywire.
6
Financially, I am set for life. Providing that I die next week.
21
Hurray - we elderly can begin getting the better cat and dog food.
You know, the Blue Stuff...much healthier for us all.
Once again, to Trump, Ray Dalio, and the Republican Party, I say -
Thanks a big, fat, lot.
See ya at the polls.
3
Whose household? Not mine!
7
Median means middle. It is not the average earnings. Would like to know that one, And given that after adjustment for inflation there has been no gain since 2000, it simply means that we are treading water at best.
And regarding health insurance, more have it that did have it, I guess it is due to Obamacare. Can't think of anything else.
10
It's hard for people to grasp that.
If three average people sit down to lunch with Bill Gates...the "average income" of the group is about $30 billion a piece.
But of course in reality....Gates has $100 BILLION himself...the other folks have maybe $45,000 a year.
So this article is quite meaningless. It is only the rich getting richer. The middle class has not had substantial gains since the 90s.
2
The average income is higher because extremes, like the super rich move the average more than the mean. That is why median income is a better indicator of how the middle class is doing.
By the way if you divide the median by the average, you get a measure of inequality, which in America note competes with Banana Republics for high inequality levels.
1
While this is certainly good news, it is useful to know that the 2017 income level is approximately the same as that in 2000. These are all inflation-adjusted numbers, so it means that the U.S. has had no meaningful median income growth in 17 years. (This data extracted from Fig. 1 in the actual census report at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo.... And over the 50 years for which there is data, the annual growth in median income is approximately 0.5%, or one half of a percentage point per year, but all of that growth took place from 1967 to 2000.
Contrast that with the very rapid growth in income for the top few percent of the population.
We can look at the short-term results, 2015 and 2016, and say we've largely recovered from the Great Recession. Or we can look at the long-term results and say that America can do better. We need tax policies that make America great again for the middle class, not just the wealthy. It will take a generation to reverse the trend towards income inequality. But if we don't, the next generation might not be so patient with our political system. Unfortunately, our elected leaders take short-term views of these issues; after all, elections are only 2-4 years away. But we elect them to think strategically and lead.
28
Tax reform should be increasing capital gains so that they are taxed on the same sliding scale as labor. That would pay off the debt and leave money to invest in education, healthcare, and infrastructure.
We are at 80% capital utilization, so it is obvious that our tax policies are creating too much capital and short changing workers.
Democrats have to fight the bogus Republican tax plan, not make up votes for Republicans at risk of losing their seats for voting against the interests of their constituents.
It is a shame that President Obama will not get the full credit he deserves for this. This vulture in the White House will sweep in, chew it up, and devour it as if he did this in - what? - eight months of corruption and lies. Let us not forget how our former president got us out of the Great Recession, brought us to the closest thing this country has had to universal health care, as well as pushing for equality in all areas and for all peoples.
Now we are supposed to sit back and watch, little by little, because of an overinflated ego, narcissism, hubris, and instability, all that was accomplished be taken away from us? Think again, Mr. Trump. No way. No how. We will continue to fight for better wages, better paying jobs, health care, equality, and the environment. If anything, when we juxtapose the good man we had with the embarrassment we have now, it makes us that much stronger and that much more willing to "persist, resist, and insist."
51
Historians will look back at the Obama years and wonder how a country who elected Obama, a pragmatic democrat, who made some of the most substantive changes to our capitalist system since the New Deal, reforming both social and economic policies from a center left position, then followed by voting for Trump, who is undoing everything his predecessor had accomplished. The electoral college failed us and we need an amendment that updates their responsibilities. We should also legally demand certain norms that were ignored during the 2016 election (for example, making tax returns public for a candidate for President). Finally, this story provides another example of how important it is to have a President who is intelligent, has character, and listens to, and researches, all sides of an issue before making a decision (whether it be sign a bill into law, issue an executive order or pardon someone). I know this isn't PC, but this only goes to further prove: Orange is NOT the new Black! And while Mr Obama may end up being one of the best Presidents we've ever had, Mr Trump will eventually be a disappointment to all but his most ardent (read: brainwashed) supporters.
23
Rob L in Detroit, do you know the last time the U.S. Constitution was amended?
In 1992 the Twenty-seventh Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution, which amendment mandates that pay raises for members of Congress take effect only after the subsequent election in the U.S. House of Representatives. Not very controversial sounding, right?
The amendment was one of 12 proposed in 1789; yes, that's right, 1789. Ten of the 12 proposed in 1789 became the Bill of Rights. Skipping the long story, by 1992 the requisite 38 states had ratified the amendment (no time limit had been set for ratification) and so it was certified 202 years after being originally proposed.
Why would places like Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Idaho, Texas, and other "red" states give the gift of the national popular vote to "blue" states like California and New York? Do you know that something like two-thirds of state legislatures are controlled by the Republicans?
Since the electoral college is not going to be eliminated, a candidate for president--even if anointed by God herself--might try to work in all the states he or she needs to win the presidency instead of taking the voters in those states for granted, eh? Just throwing that out there for you to chew on.
4
You're right, Duane. The 27th was passed 202 years after it had been proposed. Now, compare that to the Equal Rights Amendment that was thrown out because it "ran out of time".
That was the joke on the 27th: That there was no time limit on how the men must be paid, but there was on human rights, the rights for the majority of this country's population.
2
An amendment to change the Electoral College is a non-starter. And I would not be so certain that history will look kindly on President Obama. The national debt increased drastically during his time as president. In the long run this will prove the destruction of our standard of living. This would apply to almost all of our recent presidents with the exception of Clinton.
These gains were made despite Republican obstruction for the entirety of the Obama administration. Thank you President Obama for keeping a clear head when our country needed it. How can we forget how close we came to a fiscal abyss under the Bush administration?
42
For some people this is a nation of money, of economic opportunity, come to America for a better life. There is no America. There is no solidarity. I think people need to concentrate on their own upcoming death more. It's sobering. It helps you realize you have nothing. You can have someone bring you your food at a nice restaurant but you can't pay someone to die for you. You have to die. Everyone does. Your group identity won't save you, your money won't. All that work, all that comfort and you have made no preparation and can make no preservation to avoid being like everyone else. No matter how you distinguish yourself, you are no one anymore than anyone else is. It was all a distraction. America is a distraction. Whether you put cucumbers in your water or drink from a spigot, you never did anything that really mattered because if it really mattered it would eliminate death. If you are revived after a heartache, your only revived to die later. You are dying. All the time. Life is terror. Constant decay. We just can't detect it or sense it all the time because our perceptive faculties are primitive.
3
Oh, how true this is.
The real story is in the fine print: the income of the poorest fifth of American households fell by $571 over the last decade, while the wealthiest fifth saw their income jump by $13,479.
Instead of tax cuts to the wealthy, America needs to boost the incomes of the other four fifths of the population.
And it's long past time for corporations to shave the obscene compensation of the top echelon and spread the same dollars down to the ranks where it will do everyone good. Not only will consumer spending drive economic growth, tax revenues will pay down the debt, and it's a net zero change in profits. The only losers would be the greedy few at the top.
34
Nice rhetoric, but how about some math?
Walmart enploys 1.4 million people in the US. Yes, most of them get paid pretty low--un unfortunate effect of trying to sell things as cheaply as possible. Walmart's CEO Doug McMillon took home $22 million.
So take all his pay and divide it up. Each employee would get $15.70 (for the entire year). How does that help?
1
First, why focus on a single person? All executive management compensation throughout the corporation is pegged to the CEO's. The exorbitant compensation at American companies vs our Asian and European counterparts actually amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars depending on the size of the corporation, when you include the rest of the executive team. And why not focus on the bottom 30% of the company, where wages are lowest?
Here's the math to consider: if America's 500 top corporations only redistributed $50 million a year to their lowest paid employees, we'd instantly add $25 Billion in consumer spending to local economies, and ultimately, corporate profits. (High income earners don't spend more, they invest, studies show.)
1
Well, Bob, $15.70 ALMOST makes it a wage that one could live on.
So, 1.4 million people = 1 Doug McMillon.
Ah, vulture capitalism.....
2
So somebody at the top dragged the median income up?
7
Um, that's not how "median" works.
Median is the income at the middle of the distribution. Half the people make less, and half make more. It does not matter how much the richest (or poorest) make, and changing the incomes at the extremes has no impact on the median.
4
Yet many senior citizens are eating out of food banks since their Social Security checks have not seen a cost of living adequate to even buy food in many cases.
30
See the movie (not the series) LEFTOVERS. It is shameful how we treat our elderly.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4718164/?ref_=nv_sr_2
1
Social Security payments are adjusted to the inflation rate. Except when prices decrease, then you do not a reduction.
What could be fairer than that?
Now, Social Security is due to become insolvent in 2034. Which means those of us paying for your retirement now, will see sharply reduced or non-existent benefits.
Social Security, for those of us who have worked our entire adult lives is not welfare or a handout. It is forced retirement savings. Money that is owed us. Money that many of us will likely never see. Sounds like theft to me.
You heard me right. I am calling that fat philandering alcoholic FDR a thief. Who used my money to buy votes.
People should be able to plan for their own retirements. It's simple enough.
2
"Money that many of us will likely never see"...
That is ridiculous hyperbole since the changes needed to align Social Security are modest and easily achievable. History and current data have shown people don't save enough for retirement. For the majority of employees where their employer offers no retirement plan, this (forced savings) is, at least, matched.
Also, don't forget Social Security is disability and life insurance as well. The biggest complainers about the system generally don't have either much less a savings account. In other words, if you are so worried, I suggest you vote and by popular need, it will be done.
The spin on this is probably not justified. Depending on what version of "after adjusting for inflation" is used and whether taxes and forced health care expenses are entered into the equation, you could make a case that median household income is down. The article correctly notes benefits have accrued primarily to the wealthy, as reported previously by the NYT, but the reasons are rarely if ever discussed.
12
Take off the rose colored glasses and look at the reality. Millions start working life with massive college loans. How many have savings for the future? How many can look forward to retirement? What nations do you compare the USA with in standard of living, North Korea, or Norway, Sweden, Australia?
33
Great news. Thanks Obama!
62
Will you also think Obama for the 6th preceding years, during which the economy grew at the slowest rate during a recovery in the history of the United States?
Just when our economy is getting stronger and tax receipts increasing to the fed therefore reducing the deficit, we should have massive tax cuts for the wealthy. Makes sense to me. After all if the federal deficit is finally reduced by economic policies from the previous administration who guided us through a depression, the Republicans wouldn't have anything to blame on the Democrats!
9
Really? Tell that to my paycheck that hasn't seen a raise in three years. Trump won't admit it, but this is the real "fake news".
10
I just know Trump will try to claim credit for this, truth and facts be damned.
39
Anything positive is totally due to Obama -- even 9 months after he is gone -- but every negative or bad thing, is 100% Trump's fault.
Got it.
Got it.
Since Trump wasn't president for any part of 2016, and this data point relates solely to 2016, then yes, this is totally due to Obama (and non-political factors, of course). Unless you're trying to make the case that by merely running for president, Trump positively impacted household income?
1
If we all work really, really hard to improve productivity, cut back sharply on or inordinate lust for creature comforts like i-phones, automobiles, refrigerators, food and the like, and grant huge tax breaks to millionaires and corporations, maybe -- just maybe -- there is a child born the United States today who will become the world's first trillionaire.
14
How can we, as a prosperous nation, live with 40.6 million people in poverty? Whenever I see such statistics, I shudder. For every eight people I see, one is in poverty. How about the Republicans and Democrats and all of us focus on them?
41
Real incomes have risen in spite of the federal govt's best attempts to tax, regulate, and inflate us into poverty. Imagine how prosperous we'd be without politicians meddling in our lives.
4
HOw much do you make a year?
3
I dare you to go live in a country where government doesn't "meddle" in your life. Go to Somalia and see how you like a place with little government (local, regional, national).
71
Think how much better off we would be if Congress hadn't obstructed President Obama's economic recovery efforts for eight full years.
36
Thank you President Obama. I'm sure the effect will continue until the GOP destroys it to generate tax breaks for the 1%
86
Like the rise in the DOW index, this is meaningless to me. America supposedly soars but it becomes a more and more alien place to me. How should one react when people applaud successes in the US in the economy and believe it represents some hope for people who even as citizens are not Americans. The people who live in the america that supposedly exists as depicted by these statistics have houses and cars and so on and convene together with others who have the same objects and identity develops that make it just unimaginable to have to live in such and such neighborhood with such and such people.
1
It's worth remembering, though, that real median hourly wage is still down for the last 45 years.
It peaked in 1972 or 1973. Household median income is higher because there are more hours worked, mainly because there are two wage earners in many households. That real hourly wage is what drives a lot of support for Sanders and Trump. An extra dose of bitterness presumably came due to the glaringly obvious better treatment of bankers and investors after the crisis. The explicit bailout focused on the financial industry while the continuing Fed bailout is a sort of trickle down bailout, as Bernanke and others have admitted.