Average wages have *declined* for three years?!?!

But, but, the AP story in today's paper starts out "Five years into a national economic recovery...."

Our elites have decreed that is is a national economic recovery, so everything must be great!

If Bill Gates walks into a room full of 39 homeless men, the average net worth becomes $1 billion per person. Deceiving, no?

This is great news! Now I know that if I pull my kids out of school so they can work at McBurgers then we can increase our family income even more. Hooray for the free marketplace!

"Experts said the rise in income was mainly a reflection of an increase in the number of family members entering the workplace or working longer hours."

Kevin, I think you're misreading the statistic. What's the matter with people working more to make more money? Of course, working more hours will lower their average hourly wage because they don't make as much money working those extra hours. But they still make more money overall. Why do you such a problem with somebody putting in those extra hours to get their second or third car?

From Torgersons Blog, related to the IRS income report last week that talked about a 0.9% drop in income 2000-2005;

(quote)

What the Times did not report is that the average income for those earning less than $100,000 in 2005 was $31,849, $2,914 lower than the $34,763 earned in 2000....So basically, the "bottom" 90% of us (those earning less than $100,000), are living on wages that are 8% below what they were in 2000, much worse than the 0.9% (overall) reduction the Times reported. This doesn't mean that everyone experiences this income drop in exactly this way. What it does mean is the IRS data conclusively proves that the old adage of "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is quite literally true in the Bush era. The White House response to the growing imbalance of wealth and income? It "is not a very interesting story."

(end quote)

Americans are angry over Bushco's policies in Iraq, but I think the economic policies of Bushco deserve more fury. This is a really dismal report.

Is this computation including inflation? or "inflation"?

(ie. increases in food and energy costs - and real increases in housing costs resulting from higher interest rates, resulting from Bush running the printing presses at top speed).

Ah, Kevin.

More playing with numbers. When liberals come into contact with little things called facts and figures, they furiously wrap themselves into contortions trying to explain away the good news.

Fact is, poverty DECLINED, Kevin. Where's the congratulations to Bush? Where's the "Gee, I guess we were wrong, Mr. President?" WHere's the "Maybe supplyside economics has some mertis after all"? Nope, just more political spin.

Average incomes go up, and all liberals can do is cry "class warfare!" So I guess higher incomes don't count when people freely choose to work more ours. Tell that to the entreprenerial single mother of three who takes on a second job so her children can get a top notch college education. Nope, Kevin wants the US to fix working hours to 35 a week, like France.

Patetic.

What the Times did not report is that the average income for those earning less than $100,000 in 2005 was $31,849, $2,914 lower than the $34,763 earned in 2000....So basically, the "bottom" 90% of us (those earning less than $100,000), Posted by: Neal

Since you didn't use any HTML text or proper quotation marks, I can't tell where the NYT bits end and your remarks begin. However, while 87% of America is making less than $100K, 43% of the population is making $50K or more. Median U.S. income is over $40K.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p60-218.pdf (see page 13).

Kevin, the Gini index went up 1.7% and wages went down for men by 1.1%--that is a 0.6% gain! Why do you always report the bad news. I also read that lifespans are now decreasing in the US, that means total wages per year lived are going up--we will all be wealthier when we retire thanks to Bush's fiscal policy. One more stat that proves how dumb you liberals are: the Earth's rotation is slowing, that means we are getting lighter. As we get lighter it takes less energy to do work so we can eat less. So what if our wages go down, we will be eating less and burning less fuel, so it is a net plus. And all thanks to George Bush's Jesus-God who is slowing down the Earth for us: http://www.angelfire.com/nt/fairytales/ye.html

n a customarily blase demonstration of data abuse, Mickey Kaus ...

Kaus is such a sad, pathetic joke. So why is he a "contributing editor" to the Washington Monthly?

Patetic.

Indeed.

Oh, egbert.

You're just as "patetic" (sic) as that deeply closeted mess masquerading as a U.S. senator from Idaho -- calling other people names in a vain effort to skirt the core issue, just like an eight-year-old second grader.

Kevin probably only lets you hang around like some right-wing jester, so we can have a few laughs at your expense. But eventually, he'll tire of your rants and asterisk your sorry-assed postings like mhr, thus rendering you the online far-right equivalent of Edvard Munch's The Scream.

y'know, More Al Parody, as funny as that was -- and it was -- the problem with your post was that you're actually making more sense than the "real" Al.

Since you didn't use any HTML text or proper quotation marks, I can't tell where the NYT bits end and your remarks begin. However, while 87% of America is making less than $100K, 43% of the population is making $50K or more. Median U.S. income is over $40K.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p60-218.pdf (see page 13).

Page 13 of that report (which is 5 years old and covers up to 2001) shows the median income of male full-time year-round workers as $38,275 and female full-time year-round workers as $29,215, and the mean per capita income as $22,851.

It does not support your claims that "median US income is over $40K" and "43% of the population is making $50K or more". In fact, unless you assume that part-time and/or intermitent workers make more than full-time year-round workers, it is not even consistent with the former claim.

Part of the problem may be conflating people with households: the report you cite does indicate that the median household income was above $40K during the time covered by the report (p. 10: "Between 2000 and 20001, real median income of households declined, 2.2 percent, to $42,228.") The same error also seems to underlie your claim about "43% of the population is making 50K or more a year", as p. 15 of the report you point to indicates shows 43% of households in 2001 making 50K or more a year.

My favorite line from an economics class sometime in my past: "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

Part of the problem may be conflating people with households: the report you cite does indicate that the median household income was above $40K during the time covered by the report Posted by: cmdicely

The part of the report I cited is the aggregated income figures for U.S. households as of 2001. Household income is the normal citation in discussion such as these encompassing households of one (single individuals) or families or . . . If you can't do the math or find the chart I was citing, again on page 13, I can't help you. The data I stated is correct.

My favorite line from an economics class sometime in my past: "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

Reminds me of a joke my econ teacher told:

If you ask a mathematician what 2+2 equals, they will say 4. Ask a statistician, and they will say it falls in the range between 3.5 and 4.5 - but ask an economist and they will jump up and lock the door, draw the shades, pull their chair around the side of the desk, lean in close, and whisper "what do you want it to be?"

But I thought all you righties always say there is a lag so if the economy was good under Clinton it was Reagan and Bush 1 policies not Clinton.So you are telling me things are great then lets thank Clinton.Bush will have to wait untill we are paying off all this debt to get his kudos if there will be one.Thank you Mr. Bill(hetro sexual)Clinton for the great economy.

Thank you Mr. Bill(hetro sexual)Clinton for the great economy.

Shouldn't that be:

Bill "nasty, bad, naughty boy" Clinton

Egbert had another pate tic, and posted it. As usual, it is a reflex ad hominem argument that liberals ignore facts. However Egbert's own income might have gone up over the past couple years, since Democratic efforts have raised the minimum wage in some states.

[trolling deleted]

The part of the report I cited is the aggregated income figures for U.S. households as of 2001.

The claims you made were about the percentage of Americans making more than $50K, and the median income of Americans, not the percentage of American households with total incomes over $50K, or the median household income.

Household income is the normal citation in discussion such as these encompassing households of one (single individuals) or families or . . .

Yes, household income is the normal statistic when you make claims about the income of households; neither your claims, nor the claims they were in response to, said anything about households, so either (a) your claims were both misstated and, viewed as you intended them, non-sequiturs as responses to the claims they were offered in response to, or (b) they were simply false. Its also odd that you made claims about current statistics citing a 2002 document covering 2001 data when the comparable 2007 document covering data through 2006 is available online from the same source, but that's a different issue and one with little bearing on the substance.

If you can't do the math

I know you are fond of gratuitous insults, but where have I, even arguably, failed at any math here?

If you can't do the math or find the chart I was citing, again on page 13,

No chart or table with information like what you claim is on p. 13. The chart of household income is on p. 7 (which is the 13th page of the PDF, there being several unnumbered pages, plus the Table of Contents on pp. iii-iv before p. 1), and, as I previously noted, the detailed tables that have the numbers you referred to on p. 15.

The data I stated is correct.

No, the claims you made that "median US income is over $40K" and "43% of the population is making $50K or more" are neither correct nor supported by the document you cite.

The claims "median household income was over $40K in the US in 2001" and "43% of US householdsin 2001 made $50K or more", which you did not make, are supported by the document you cite and, presumably, correct, but those aren't the claims you made. And, even if they had been, they would have been irrelevant where you made them, which is in response to claims about individual, not household, income.

Should MHR's trolling be deleted in full?

What if every fifth word was left in, then we tried to recreate his post based on 20% content and analysis of past work.

Imagine the fun!

[You know, that is not a bad idea. I'll bring it up at the next staff meeting. --Mod]

I have cmdicely leading Jeffl1 by 8 points:

Jeffl1 misstating both statistics in original post: 2 pts.
Use of misleading statistic (median hh income declined, but Jeffl1 didn't mention it): 1 pt.
Failure to acknowledge incorrect phrasing in first post: 1 pt.
Reiteration of incorrect statistic: 1 pt.
Gratuitous insult: 1 pt
Use of outdated, incorrect report: 2 pts.
Incorrect page reference: 0 pts.

This discussion of abstruse indexes maskes the fact that most of those classfied as lifing in poverty are not that badly off. The following is taken from a report as of 2003.

While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. The bulk of the "poor" live in material conditions that would have been judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.

Microwaves and Stereos

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-six per cent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage and porch or patio.

Seventy-six per cent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago only 36% of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only 6% of poor households are overcrowded. More than two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe. (Note: These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30% own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player. Sixty-two percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens; more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group the poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100% above recommended levels. Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, on average growing up to be one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 13% of poor families and 2.6% of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases their hunger is short-term. Overall, 84% of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 3% say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American, defined as poor by the government, has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, stove, clothes washer and dryer and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not over-crowded.

By his own report, his family is not hungry and in the last year he had sufficient funds to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists and politicians.

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/poaverty.htm

The latest announcement reminds me of Tom Harkin's old line about his brother-in-law (or maybe it was his cousin or another constituent) who got laid off from the high-paying job he had as an autoworker and had to go to work for McDonald's to avoid foreclosure. And, of course, since that wasn't enough he had to get a second job as a custodian at the local high school. Which the local Republicans said was a sign that their economic policies were working: "See, now he's got two jobs when he used to have just one."

"...the online far-right equivalent of Edvard Munch's The Scream."
Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on August 29, 2007 at 1:57 PM

Speaking of that... Does anybody remember a spoof college poster of The Scream that was around several years ago where the guy had just dropped a six-pack and it is all broken on the bridge and is screaming as a result? I got that for a coworker for Christmas a long time ago and was wondering if anybody had a link to where I can find it again??

ex-liberal's quotes an article from a reputable source (some random person's website) with well-referenced facts ("various government reports"). He carefully gives us only the real meat, excising the beginning where the article gleefully reports that "the number of poor children increased by 550,000." Hardly any at all.

Incredibally, ex fails also to give us the author's brilliant solution to the non-existant poverty: the poor should work more. And, of course, it is those evil great society programs - "Food Stamps, public housing, and Medicaid" - that are the cause of poverty.

mcdruid, if you check my source, you will note that Human Events has been publishing since 1944. Yes, they are a right wing organization, but a reputable one. Whether or not you agree with their proposed remedies, I would trust their facts.

It's easy to make errors in statements about income statistics and what they mean.

Per capita (average) income has steadily risen, not declined: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104547.html

It appears to be median household income that has declined slightly. Of course, we should note that median does not equate to average (it is the middle value that separates the higher half from the lower half of the data set). Nor does income necessarily equate to wealth. Reportable income doesn't reflect savings, real estate, other assets, or access to things like Medicare. We can expect both the median and average household incomes to decrease as the percentage of the population over 62 increases - folks who retire. So, are we talking about a worrisome change in income or are we seeing the natural results of a demographics change?

I'd like to see the numbers for change in the average (not median) household income for non-retirees, if it didn't mean spending half the day crunching numbers that might or might not be available. Then again, just like for per capita income, the wealth of the very rich households is often hidden, because it is not reportable income, so we've got that to factor in, as well.

Bush wants $50,000,000.00 more he says for his botched war in Iraq, just another way to get Congress to approve it so he can put it all in the Bush Family Vault.

ex,
Obviously I did look at your link, although I wasn't sure if you or they had misspelled "poverty." Nor do I know how "reputable" they are since they don't even have their own website, but seems to be just some guy's hobbie. In any event, since he doesn't have any references -at all- we'll just have to take him at his word.

trashhauler,

Most ppl I know consider median income more important than average, because if the rich get richer while the rest lose a bit, the mean can go up but the median goes down. And something like that seems to have been going on for the past couple of years.

I agree with your point that we have to look at demographics: retirees, age distributions, immigration, etc.

Point taken about the median vs average, catxors. Thinking about it, when dealing with very large numbers, the median is fairly close to the mean, anyway.

Under normal distribution, you mean. Income is not necessarily normal.

Under normal distribution, you mean. Income is not necessarily normal.

The median should be pretty close to the mean for any roughly symmetric distribution (including, but not limited to, normal distribution), but real-world income distribution is not only not necessarily normal, but, AFAIK, rarely even a remote approximation of a symmetric distribution, tending to be in practice rather bottom-heavy.