a.SafaLab
The Neolibertarian NetworkTo Hell In A Handbasket?
Speaking directly to my “progressive” friends, here’s an article that won’t get the endorsement from the class warfare bunch. Some money quotes ( pun intended):
Adjusting for decreasing family size, real median family income is 13% higher than in 1994, 22% higher than in 1984, 37% higher than in 1974, and 88% higher than in 1964. That’s a significant increase.
…
Other income data show the same trends. Over the past 30 years, real average hourly compensation, a measure that includes wages and benefits, has risen by 41%. And real income per person has increased by 62%. This cannot be described as tepid growth.
Households below the poverty level have also fared better over the past decades. The number of such households has increased from 13 million to 15 million over the past 20 years, but for many of these households material conditions have improved.
Look at housing, one benchmark of living standards. In 1985, 38% of poor households owned a home — by 2005 it was 43%. And these homes were of better quality than the 1985 homes. In 1985, 17% of these homes had central air conditioning, and in 2005, 50% did. Fifty-six percent of homes owned by poor households had washing machines in 1985, and in 2005, it was 64%.
Read the whole thing… and then stop whining.
The information on this site is not intended as individualized investment advice and all investment decisions by a reader must in all cases be made by the reader either individually or together with his/her investment professional. The views expressed in articles appearing on this site are solely those of Dave Budge and should not be attributed to any other person or entity except where expressly stated.
Print This Post
That’s one way of reading that data. Another reading is that people are delaying families and keeping them smaller in part because of financial reasons.
Maybe so, but the correlation between family size and income has been negative for several generations. One might conclude, then, that as wealth and income have increased people are making a rational economic choice to have less children and have them later.
I think you have a hard time making the argument that people would have more children earlier if incomes had increased faster. If one assumes that the “market” was in equalibrium in 1964 then the average size household would be bigger today than it is.
Also, it seems to me that the issue of home ownership and home quaity are also significant. Hence, I stand by the analysis are good (as good as economic analysis can be.)
Of course, another problem with all of this is the metric we’re looking at excludes net worth. Debt has a massive impact here. CampusProgress.org notes,
Now, this is just college grads, so it excludes a lot of other folks and a shift from 7% to 14% delaying having children probably isn’t quite enough to explain everything going on here.
Part of what is happening is simply more widespread use of birth control and condoms — not too horribly surprising. Part of what is going on is probably a rise in two-income families — with attendant increases in costs.
My point was simply that the real causes of the changes in these numbers is more complicated than a single explanation.
Finally, I think it’s worth noting that if I was to have a discussion with a number of economists discussing the key metric for determining changes in either inequality or class mobility, median family income adjusted for family size is probably not going to be the central item.
The rather startling figures comparing changes in productivity to changes in median worker income and the widening gulf between median executive compensation and median worker compensation do plenty to highlight that for better or worse there is a growing gulf in this country.
No amount of cherry picking statistics will make that gulf disappear.
You’re comparing apples to oranges. If your point is that we are less egalitarian that we either were are should be, then we should be discussing Rawls, but we’re not. We’re discussing the relative wealth of the median ideal over time – which, by most measures, is better off in absolute terms.
My opening sentence anticipated your thoughts it seems.
Enjoy your cherry picking. I don’t even know why I bother coming over here any more.
It seems to me that “cherry picking” is a pretty useful tool which you’re equally prone to use inasmuch as you tend to focus only on those things that support your cause. There is no denying, however, that your point was not about the releative wealth and income of the lower and middle classes over time but about the “gulf” in income between the wealthy and everyone else. So I suggest you’re as guilty as me in yur seletivity. Pot, kettle, black!
Hey Matt-
Just talk to him the same way he talks to you. It really pisses him off, trust me.