PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Household Income Grew 5.2 Percent in 2015, Breaking Pattern of Stagnation


Vlerchan
September 14th, 2016, 06:37 AM
WASHINGTON — Americans last year reaped the largest economic gains in nearly a generation as poverty fell, health insurance coverage spread and incomes rose sharply for households on every rung of the economic ladder, ending years of stagnation.

The median household’s income in 2015 was $56,500, up 5.2 percent from the previous year — the largest single-year increase since record-keeping began in 1967, the Census Bureau said on Tuesday. The share of Americans living in poverty also posted the sharpest decline in decades.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/business/economy/us-census-household-income-poverty-wealth-2015.html

Points to note,
The number of people in poverty fell by about 8%, or 3.5 million people were lifted out.
The median income outpaced the mean income, which is good from a inequality perspective.
The growth seems to be confined, broadly, to urban areas.
Obviously great news.

Dalcourt
September 14th, 2016, 06:45 AM
Good news for those that might be affected sure, but it doesn't really do anything to decrease tensions or increase hope within socially deprived problem areas.
Everything that was and is done is just helping suburban middle classes to get over the financial crisis but it won't really change anything for the rest.
But maybe it helps the majority to see that life in Obama and Democrats governed America wasn't so bad and they don't need to vote for a Republican change.

Vlerchan
September 14th, 2016, 08:38 AM
Good news for those that might be affected sure, but it doesn't really do anything to decrease tensions or increase hope within socially deprived problem areas.
The fact that 3.5 million people have been hoisted out of poverty speaks to the fact that there has been quite some gains for socially-maligned areas. But what the article doesn't mention and I have found out since is that the largest gains were accrued by those on the lowest part of the income ladder (https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/09/13/income-poverty-and-health-insurance-united-states-2015). The bottom 10% saw their incomes increase 7.9%, the bottom 10% - 20% saw their incomes increase 6.3%, and the bottom 20% - 40% saw their incomes increase 5.5%.

The link does a good job recording the distribution, and the poorest haven't been left behind.

But maybe it helps the majority to see that life in Obama and Democrats governed America wasn't so bad and they don't need to vote for a Republican change.
This is the reason I posted it.

I'll wait to see what Conservatives on here respond.

candorgen
September 16th, 2016, 04:54 AM
This is the reason I posted it.

I'll wait to see what Conservatives on here respond.

Will be interesting to see their responses, yes.


How have the average costs of renting/buying properties been doing over there?

Vlerchan
September 16th, 2016, 07:06 AM
How have the average costs of renting/buying properties been doing over there?

The Economist publishes a good chart on this (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/08/daily-chart-20). Though, I'm quite sure the increase was in real income, as opposed to just nominal income, so the increase in inflation would be corrected for in the statistics.

Edit., it's real income growth, so it accounts for rising house prices and other inflationary trends.

Flapjack
September 18th, 2016, 10:00 AM
Wow this is awesome!!! Finally some positive news!!:)

Porpoise101
September 18th, 2016, 11:11 AM
I'll wait to see what Conservatives on here respond.
It's about time. For the past few years years, it has been decreasing steadily. This isn't growth, it's making up for your losses.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/septemberReport_poteFInal.jpeg

candorgen
September 18th, 2016, 07:56 PM
Vlerchan Porpoise101

Data noted. :D

Kahn
September 23rd, 2016, 12:39 PM
Encouraging.

Uniquemind
October 3rd, 2016, 01:10 AM
WASHINGTON — Americans last year reaped the largest economic gains in nearly a generation as poverty fell, health insurance coverage spread and incomes rose sharply for households on every rung of the economic ladder, ending years of stagnation.

The median household’s income in 2015 was $56,500, up 5.2 percent from the previous year — the largest single-year increase since record-keeping began in 1967, the Census Bureau said on Tuesday. The share of Americans living in poverty also posted the sharpest decline in decades.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/business/economy/us-census-household-income-poverty-wealth-2015.html

Points to note,
The number of people in poverty fell by about 8%, or 3.5 million people were lifted out.
The median income outpaced the mean income, which is good from a inequality perspective.
The growth seems to be confined, broadly, to urban areas.
Obviously great news.

What math exists specifically for those who were baby boomers who lost wealth in 2008? Has that specific demographic recovered from their damages yet? Or has that demographic just entered retirement a lot poorer than they expected and simply settled for less, went homeless, died off (or suicided?).

phuckphace
October 3rd, 2016, 05:19 PM
I'll wait to see what Conservatives on here respond.

you rang?

anyway, the only thing less surprising than Pravda English officially endorsing Hillary Clinton for president (doubtless after months of carefully weighing each candidate's policy positions) is an "all is well so stop complaining you silly goyim" headline like this one.

By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM

presented without comment

The gains were an important milestone for the economic expansion that began in 2009. For the first time in recent years, the benefits of renewed prosperity are spreading broadly.

I'm Jeff Bezos and I approve this message

The data was released into a heated presidential race, where Democrats seized on the statistics to promote Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and undercut Donald J. Trump’s dark assessment of the nation’s well-being.

yeah, I miss the good old days way back in 2014 when things were bright and cheerful, not like now what with Literal Hitler and his doom and gloom

Mark R. Rank, a professor of social welfare at Washington University in St. Louis, said the new data “is obviously good news.” But he noted that poverty and income inequality in the United States remained more extreme than in most developed countries. “It would take a lot to move that needle,” he said.

a lot of Third World immigration amirite

Private sector coverage also increased as companies hired more workers and offered them better benefits.

shit_that_didn't_happen.txt

“We lifted three and a half million people out of poverty, the largest one-year drop in poverty since 1968,” President Obama said on Tuesday at a rally in Philadelphia for Mrs. Clinton. “The uninsured rate is the lowest since they began keeping records. The pay gap between men and women shrank to the lowest level on record,” he said, adding, “Thanks, Obama.”

somebody get this man a third term! and while we're at it, let's throw in a couple more (upcoming NYT editorial)

“Poverty is beyond belief,” Mr. Trump said. “It’s time to break up the failed Democratic control over our inner cities, and provide real hope and opportunity to every single community in this nation.”

FACT CHECK: WE TRIED TO FIX THE INNER CITIES (FREE KFC BUCKETS, EXTRA CRISPY) BUT RACIST KKK BIGOTS STOPPED US IN OUR TRACKS. YOU = PANTS ON FIRE!

Jeff Labruzzo, 56, said he was still earning significantly less than before the recession. Mr. Labruzzo, who lives in southwest Louisiana, treats building sites for termites before concrete is poured. The construction business remains soft, and Mr. Labruzzo said he faced increased competition from firms that employ illegal immigrants. He had five workers, but he recently let two of them go.

if you've got termites I'd suggest Zyklon B, it's the Giftgas that keeps on giving

“Things are to the point where I’m thinking about just closing up the business and letting my income drop,” Mr. Labruzzo said. As a veteran, he said he could then qualify for government health benefits.

lol @ this noob not knowing how CREATIVE DESTRUCTION works, back 2 school with you

“It is encouraging that our economic recovery is lifting Americans out of poverty and boosting wages,” said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority leader. “But instead of building on this progress, Washington Republicans want to turn back the clock.”

all the way back to 1950, fam

The distribution of income in the United States remains tilted toward the affluent. Last year’s gains by lower-income households were not enough to shift measures of income inequality.

you don't say

The data also was a mixed bag for minority groups. Poverty rates fell most sharply for African-American and Hispanic households, but their income gains were smaller than for white households.

2042 is just around the corner, hang in there folks!

Porpoise101
October 3rd, 2016, 06:10 PM
I think the biggest thing to take away from this whole thing isn't that the US is getting better. It's that we are getting more divided not just between rich and poor, but also between rural and city. This shift from the rural areas to the cities is destroying communities and creating lesser standards of living for the peasants who live outside of city walls. The only people who are really improving are urbanites. This isn't even a US thing either, but a worldwide phenomenon. India, China, Mexico, Russia, US, all these countries are urbanizing. And this comes at the expense of the old communities at least in the short term.

candorgen
October 8th, 2016, 04:59 PM
2042 is just around the corner, hang in there folks!

What is so special in 26 years?

Porpoise101
October 9th, 2016, 01:37 PM
What is so special in 26 years?
The United States will be radically transformed. Studies have shown that there will be much more automation, even in service sectors. We will be more resource-scarce. But what phuck was referring to is the fact that in that year, the US will be majority non-white.

Vlerchan
October 9th, 2016, 02:31 PM
What math exists specifically for those who were baby boomers who lost wealth in 2008? Has that specific demographic recovered from their damages yet?
It looks as if Baby-boomers never recovered from the losses of the Great Recession as large numbers pulled out of equities (missing the recovery) and the prevailing interest rates resulted in returns elsewhere being negligible. Something like 80% of that demographic is behind on their savings - whilst the group has a median income of 70,000 or so, the median levels of savings is about 220,000 (you do the division). You can expect to spend half your productive adult life making sure they don't starve though, and then the other half ensuring the same for your parents, as there has been an significant increase in withdrawals from public plans.

And this comes at the expense of the old communities at least in the short term.
It's going to extend to the long-run. The productivity gains that can be extracted from rural and semi-urban economies seems to have been exhausted. In the past the relative wage differences (i.e. lower wages) might have attracted industrial plants to these regions but that age is gone. Outside another agricultural revolution - which I am not dismissing as impossible, I am not sure what can be done there. Modern economies are being build on the agglomeration economies that service-sector clustering employs: or, in other words, urbanisation is what is leading growth as opposed to growth being disproportionately occurring in urban areas.

Studies have shown that there will be much more automation, even in service sectors.
I have never quite understood why people felt this was significant though.

Porpoise101
October 9th, 2016, 02:49 PM
I have never quite understood why people felt this was significant though.
This will be one of the biggest economic issues in the West for the coming years. As more robots take our jobs, unemployment will rise. Unlike before, where they would take away jobs from unskilled workers, they will start to take jobs from professionals. It kind of ruins the appeal of getting a higher education if you are going to get replaced by machinery. And those who are in the first wave, they are going to get hit hard because they expected many returns on their investment for going to college.

This means that out-tooled professionals will:

Not be Produced
Flee to Less Developed Nations

If they can go to other countries, then they will be working for much lower wages than current levels as well. The poor, they won't really have an option to leave and will just suffer as they have for millennia.

Edit: I feel like an old person with economic anxieties reading this lol

Vlerchan
October 9th, 2016, 03:05 PM
As more robots take our jobs, unemployment will rise.
This has been claimed for the last 200+ years, and the people who claimed it always lost.

Humans have been reinventing what work is almost every decade. For example, the app-economy is expected to be worth over 100 billion inside the next 5 or so years (double its current worth), whilst less than a decade ago it, basically, didn't exist.

There's an issue, and a claim to difference, insofar as the new economy is lot more cognitively-intensive than previous, but what has been demonstrated the last number of decades is that increases in those incomes above the median has tended to led to an increase in the demand for personal goods and personalised services. Some will fall through the cracks - and we have the expansion of IT in the 90s and 00s to reference in case of this: middle-class bean-counters stopped being middle-class - but life went on.

This is no claim that it will be simple. We still subsidise agriculture, production that went into the same decline 200 years ago, but transition is nothing that we haven't faced and conquered before.

It kind of ruins the appeal of getting a higher education if you are going to get replaced by machinery.
I am sceptical that employment that requires a college education is going to be broadly replaced.

I think doctors and legal assistants might be in trouble - comparatively formulaic employment - but the broadest source of graduate destinations requires a interpretation and understanding of implicits.

If they can go to other countries, then they will be working for much lower wages than current levels as well. The poor, they won't really have an option to leave and will just suffer as they have for millennia.
I figure this forecast is way too pessimistic.

Porpoise101
October 9th, 2016, 03:29 PM
This has been claimed for the last 200+ years, and the people who claimed it always lost.
Yet this time it is happening extremely fast, within a generation. Change didn't come as quickly as is happening now. To make things worse, our political and educational systems aren't quick and efficient enough to navigate the changes since they are short-sighted.

Vlerchan
October 9th, 2016, 04:15 PM
Yet this time it is happening extremely fast, within a generation.
The complete decimation of typical middle-class labour happened within the same time-frame (1980s - 2000s).

Though, I understand the point - agriculture is notable for being a particularly severe example though, by the necessity of its produce and the fact as a sector it accounted for almost complete employment.

To make things worse, our political and educational systems aren't quick and efficient enough to navigate the changes since they are short-sighted.
I'm sceptical that the education system, post-secondary, is human capital enhancing and the most important contribution of primary and secondary education is not the human capital enhancements it begets on students but the manner in which it teaches them to approach and absorb knowledge.

Nonetheless, if people cannot reskill fast enough then demand will falter and there is little reason for firms to engage in the costly investments required to automate production? Of course, it's very very unlikely technological progress would grind to a halt on the grounds of this, but it would slow it perhaps just as much.