Archive for the 'Income - Middle' Category

Has Middle America’s Wages Stagnated?

{Click on the image to take a closer look}
Avg Hourly Earnings magnafing glass

I found a Federal Reserve article that analyzed the change in Average Hourly Earnings for production and nonsupervisory workers. After adjusting for inflation using the Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) {instead of the Consumer Price Index-Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W)} and including an estimate for worker’s benefits, the author concluded that workers’ hourly earnings (wages plus benefits) actually increased by 16% over 30 years (1975-2005) rather than decreased. Here, I graphed the full history, 1964-2006, but used the approach laid out in the article to show the effect of inflation and benefits. BTW, if you earned $16.76 an hour in 2006 that gave you an annual income of $33,520 (assuming you worked full-time).

See also:
Average Income in the United States
Total Income of Top, Middle, & Bottom

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Addendum: This was past on to me from a reader who found it on Marginal Revolution

Popularity: 5% [?]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Technorati

Get the latest graphs and maps sent to you automatically!
Subscribe to my RSS feed or sign up for updates by email.

NYTimes: Calculating America’s Wealth

The New York Times had an interactive graph that calculated income for different demographic groups. I have plotted people who dropped out of high school (bottom) with people who graduated college (top). It is important to note that the data is adjusted for inflation. What interested me is that not only has the advantages for getting a college degree increased but that the range of income for people with college degrees has increased.

Income Sources of top 0.01 percent

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Popularity: 4% [?]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Technorati

Income Inequality in the news

After my previous post about the U.S News & World Report article about economic anxiety, I decided (just for fun) to do a quick survey of several mainstream media sites for references to income inequality. Here are the results:

From the Washington Post:

Reward for the Hereditary Elite

The nation faces rising inequality. Since 1980 the gap between the earnings of the top fifth and the bottom fifth has jumped by almost 50 percent. The United States is by some measures the most unequal society in the rich world and the most unequal that it’s been since the 1920s. What is the dumbest possible response to this? Identify the most progressive federal tax and repeal it.

U.S. Losing it’s Middle Class Neighborhoods

In their place, poor and rich neighborhoods are both on the rise, as cities and suburbs have become increasingly segregated by income, according to a Brookings Institution study released Thursday. It found that as a share of all urban and suburban neighborhoods, middle-income neighborhoods in the nation’s 100 largest metro areas have declined from 58 percent in 1970 to 41 percent in 2000.

Blending in, Moving up

James P. Smith of Rand Corp. has shown that the children and grandchildren of Latino immigrants come very close to closing educational and income gaps with native whites. This is the same as it has always been in American immigration: Newcomers know what keeps them outside the mainstream and work hard to make sure that their children do better. Immigrant Latino men make about half of what native whites do; their grandsons earn about 78 percent of the salaries of their native white friends.

Advantage: the Brits

Previous research has shown that people are more trusting of each other in more economically equal states. Participation in community life is greater, social supports are stronger and levels of violence are lower. “The higher violence and lower trust all suggest that social relations are poorer in more unequal societies,” continues Wilkinson, author of “The Impact of Inequality: How to Make Sick Societies Healthier” (The New Press).

Natives Feel Left Out of China’s New West

In the six years since China’s central government began its well-financed campaign to spread the benefits of economic growth beyond coastal provinces, the effort has exacerbated the extreme inequality that characterizes the national economy. Gaps have grown between urban and rural China and between the less-developed west and the frenetic east.

From Newsweek:

Globalization and its Discontents

We know by the data that have been collected, that over time, economic growth benefits all sectors of the population. However, in the short term, there is no question that economic growth increases income inequality. Some people are better positioned to take advantage of the new economic opportunities than others. Some people make a real bundle of money; others are lucky if they get a job. For example, in Latin American countries, particularly in Brazil and in Mexico, as those countries economies have expanded and as they have participated more in globalization, the rich have gotten richer in comparison to the poor. But it’s not necessarily the case that the poor have gotten poorer.

Why Chile Really Matters

Between 1989, when the current Socialist/Christian Democratic coalition reached power and democracy returned to the country, and 2005, the Chilean economy has grown nearly 6 percent per year, more than doubling per capita income. Poverty has been drastically reduced; education, health, housing and other social indicators have all improved significantly, and even inequality, that terrible bane of all hemispheric societies, has finally begun to diminish, albeit modestly. For practical purposes, Chile is on the verge of occupying the lowest rung of the highest ladder: becoming a still poor but now developed nation, perhaps like Greece or Portugal a few years ago in Western Europe, like Poland or South Korea more recently.

From the New York Times (no specific reference to income inequality but I liked the quote at the end)
The Ultra-Rich Give Differently From You and Me

Almost alone among rich Americans, Mr. Buffett has argued that estate taxes should be increased, not eliminated. Mr. Buffett says the estate tax helps build a vibrant economy of innovators and strivers — a true meritocracy — and that repealing it would risk a stunted economy controlled by aristocratic inheritors. Repealing the estate tax, he has said, would be the economic equivalent of “choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics.

Technorati Tags:

Popularity: 3% [?]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Technorati

Change in incomes since 1967 (middle, upper-middle quintiles)

While seaching for more income research I stumble across a reference to Census and Fed reports about income and wealth at independentsources.com but they link to johnbatchelorshow.com which is copy of an op-ed piece from The Wall Street Journal. (Unfortunately neither site links to the actual reports.)

But this quote from the op-ed caught my eye:

Back in 1967, the income range for the middle class (i.e., the middle-income quintile) was between $28,000 and $39,500 a year (in today’s dollars). Now that income range is between $38,000 and $59,000 a year, which is to say that the middle class is now roughly $11,000 a year richer than 25 to 30 years ago. This helps explain why middle-income families can buy things like cable TV, air conditioning, DVD players, cell phones, second cars and so on, that were considered mostly luxury items for the rich in the 1950s and ’60s.

The upper-middle class is also richer. Those falling within the 60th to 80th percentile in family income have an income range today of between $55,000 and $88,000 a year, which is about $24,000 a year higher than in 1967. This rapid upward income mobility indicates that the great American Dream, in which each generation achieves a higher living standard than their parents, is alive and well.

I looked at both the Census’ Historical Income Tables for Households and for Families and it looks like the household data is a closer match to the data in the quote above but neither is an exact match. (Earlier I had graphed the share of family income going back to 1947 based on Census data, which is why I knew about the data tables. )

I went ahead and graphed the income ranges for the “middle class” 40-60 percentile and the “upper middle-class” 60-80 percentile mentioned in the op-ed (1967-2004), for both households and families. While the 40% and 60% lines are increasing over time it is the 80% line that is increasing the most. In other words, the higher your income the greater your increase in income.

householdncome_40_60_80

familyincome_40_60_80

Addendum:
I am added the percentage increase for each chart
Household - consists of all the people who occupy a house, an apartment or other group of rooms, or a single room occupied as separate living quarters.
40th percentile = 24%
60th percentile = 39%
80th percentile = 55%

Family - a group of two people or more related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together.
40th percentile = 34%
60th percentile = 52%
80th percentile = 68%

Looking at the definitions some of the differences between household data and family data could be due to an increase in two-income families.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Technorati

Changes in Household Income by Quintiles

Share of Income by Quintile Graph

Returning to the CBO report that looks at incomes across all households, I found a data table showing the change in the total income for each quintile (bottom 20%, 20-40%, 40-60%, 60-80% and the top 20%) over the past 20 years.In 2002, if you lived in a household with a total income of:

    less than $15,900 per year then you were in the bottom 20%
    between $15,900 and $27,300 then you were in the 20-40% group
    between $27,300 and $39,800 then you were in the 40-60% group
    between $39,800 and $59,400 then you were in the 60-80% group
    greater than $59,400 then you were in the top 20%

What caught my attention is the dramatic rise (and partial fall) of the income going to the top 20%. While the other quintiles do not display this pattern.

It looks like the drop in United States’ total income (seen in the previous post) was due to the change in the top 20% alone.

As for the drop in income, what I think is going on is changes in the stock market effecting income. By looking at the S&P 500 index, we see the raise and fall in the stock market coincides with the changes in the top 20%’s income.

S&P500 1979-2002

Popularity: 5% [?]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Technorati

The richest 20% are getting richer

Share of income richest 20% of families in the United States

I found this data on the Census web site. What is interesting about this graph is that it shows the richest 20% of families in the United States has been capturing more of the total income since the mid-70s. Which means of course the bottom 80% is getting less.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Technorati