Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message
locked post

Median Household Income Down 3.1% Since “Economic Recovery” Began in June'09

Posted on 8/26/14 at 5:50 am
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123779 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 5:50 am
Hope and Change Baby!
Hope and Change!
aka "Reap what you sow"
quote:

Household Income Down by 3.1 Percent Overall Post Recession, but Many Groups Have Started to Recover Following 2011 Low-Point

Summary of Key Findings

Based on new estimates derived from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS), real median annual household income has fallen by 3.1 percent since the “economic recovery” began in June 2009. Adding this post-recession decline to the 1.8-percent drop that occurred during the recession leaves median annual household income now 4.8 percent below the December 2007 level. However, real median annual household income has begun to recover slowly during the past three years, June 2011 to June 2014.

After adjusting for changes in consumer prices, median annual household income declined during the officially-defined recession from $56,604 in December 2007 to $55,589 in June 2009, a decrease of 1.8 percent. During the first two years of the economic recovery, as the unemployment rate and the duration of unemployment remained high, median annual household income continued its decline to $51,913 in June 2011, a decrease of 6.6 percent. During the last three years of the economic recovery, between June 2011 and June 2014, real median annual household income increased from $51,913 to $53,891, an increase of 3.8 percent (seasonally adjusted estimates).

Compared to January 2000, the beginning point for our monthly statistical series, real median annual household income is now lower by 5.9 percent. The median was $57,288 in January 2000 and $53,891 in June 2014. (All income amounts in this report are before-tax money income and are presented in terms of June 2014 dollars).

According to Gordon Green of Sentier Research: “After the steep drop in real median annual household income during the first two years of the economic recovery some measurable recovery in median household income has taken shape over the period since June 2011. Real median household income is up by 3.8 percent overall since June 2011, but gains have not been shared equally by all groups.

In terms of percentage increases in median household income over the past three years: families have fared better than nonfamilies, the employed have obviously fared better than the unemployed, households with three or more earners have fared better than households with one or no earners, Whites and Blacks have fared better than Hispanics, medium-sized households have fared better than small or large households, households with few children have fared better than households with several children, the self-employed have fared better than private or government wage or salary workers, and households in the Midwest region have fared better than households in the other three regions.”

LINK
Posted by C
Houston
Member since Dec 2007
27816 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 5:53 am to
quote:

During the last three years of the economic recovery, between June 2011 and June 2014, real median annual household income increased from $51,913 to $53,891, an increase of 3.8 percent


3 years of increases. Chalk it up to whatever you like but we're moving I the right direction.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123779 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 5:54 am to
quote:

Median household income was $53,891, down from $55,589 in inflation-adjusted dollars when the economic expansion began in June 2009." So the middle class is poorer today than they were five years ago.

Scarier yet: that puts median household incomes today below where they were in 2000. "The middle-income American family is worse off, in other words, than it was 14 years ago," writes Irwin.

The numbers are, if anything, grimmer when you turn from income to wealth. A new US Census Bureau report shows that the median household's net worth fell from $106,591 in 2005 to $68,839 in 2011. That's a stunning drop.



Of course, 2011 isn't 2014. The numbers almost certainly look better now, though it will be some time before the data comes in that will tell us for sure. But there's little reason to believe that middle class wealth is anywhere near 2005 levels.

Three points:

1. There is a tendency to talk about the economic aftermath of the recession primarily in terms of the unemployed. And that's for good reason: the unemployed continue to bear the worst of the financial crisis's costs. But it can be easy to forget that middle-class households are still poorer — both in income and in wealth — than they were a few short years ago. In a country accustomed to nearly continuous economic progress, these numbers should shock.

2. In an age of sky-high inequality, averages can obscure more than they reveal. As Irwin notes, "measures of Americans' income that rely on averages paint a sunnier picture. For example, inflation-adjusted per-person disposable personal income is up 4.2 percent from mid-2009 to mid-2014. But averages like that can be distorted by strong income gains among the wealthiest, so looking at the median income can give a better sense of economic conditions faced by the majority of Americans."

3. Pretty much everyone laments how angry, bitter and zero-sum politics is these days. But viewed in light of this data, the surprise might be that American politics isn't much, much worse.

Related Article
Posted by Vols&Shaft83
Throbbing Member
Member since Dec 2012
69895 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 5:54 am to
Well clearly your facts and math are racist.


Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123779 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 5:58 am to
quote:

3 years of increases.
quote:

we're moving I the right direction.
Despite the fact anticipated trajectory of recovery was upto 5-fold greater?
Posted by mmcgrath
Indianapolis
Member since Feb 2010
35361 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 6:05 am to
quote:

A new US Census Bureau report shows that the median household's net worth fell from $106,591 in 2005 to $68,839 in 2011. That's a stunning drop.
The housing bubble burst. Duh.

Were you expecting Obama to increase housing values to 2005 levels?!?
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123779 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 6:23 am to
quote:

Were you expecting Obama to increase housing values to 2005 levels?!?
Would you like to discuss the mechanics of housing values and current devaluation as related to employment?

Or would you prefer to stick with the simpleton "The housing bubble burst. Duh."?
Posted by Bestbank Tiger
Premium Member
Member since Jan 2005
70867 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 6:30 am to
Those middle class families are too dumb to understand that it's for their own good. Forward!
Posted by mmcgrath
Indianapolis
Member since Feb 2010
35361 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 6:43 am to
quote:

Would you like to discuss the mechanics of housing values and current devaluation as related to employment?

Or would you prefer to stick with the simpleton "The housing bubble burst. Duh."?
No. Because the 2005 market values were completely unsustainable. And by 2009 pretty much the entire bubble had deflated. Yet you post an article that groups the time between 2005 and 2011 as if it is a) timely and b) a consistent period of time.

This isn't rocket science, and the desperation to tie Bush's collapse to Obama is pathetic.
Posted by fleaux
section 0
Member since Aug 2012
8741 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 6:48 am to
quote:

This isn't rocket science, and the desperation to tie Bush's collapse to Obama is pathetic.


This is true, it should be tied to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, as Bush warned them about this a number of times but yall seem to conveniently forget that minor detail
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123779 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 6:53 am to
quote:

Because the 2005 market values were completely unsustainable
The 2005 "bubble" constituted an approximate 10% rise over long term moving averages. Over an ensuing 10-yr span, with even marginally decent employment, those values were wholly recoverable. Instead, they remain OFF BY THIRTY-FIVE PERCENT (35%)!
Posted by mmcgrath
Indianapolis
Member since Feb 2010
35361 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 6:54 am to
quote:

This is true, it should be tied to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, as Bush warned them about this a number of times but yall seem to conveniently forget that minor detail
I am guessing you are talking about something other than Frank-Dodd circa 2009. Do you mean the repeal of Glass-Steagall?
Posted by mmcgrath
Indianapolis
Member since Feb 2010
35361 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 6:57 am to
quote:

The 2005 "bubble" constituted an approximate 10% rise over long term moving averages.
Please link to some chart showing the housing bubble only 10% above long term averages. All I could find was this: LINK
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123779 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 7:02 am to
Posted by Vols&Shaft83
Throbbing Member
Member since Dec 2012
69895 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 7:09 am to
quote:





Well clearly the US Census Bureau is racist, what with their math and facts.
Posted by SirWinston
PNW
Member since Jul 2014
81331 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 7:11 am to
Bush was the horrible fiscal Prez.
This post was edited on 8/26/14 at 7:13 am
Posted by Vols&Shaft83
Throbbing Member
Member since Dec 2012
69895 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 7:15 am to
Ok, we agree on that.


Stop editing


This post was edited on 8/26/14 at 7:16 am
Posted by gthog61
Irving, TX
Member since Nov 2009
71001 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 7:23 am to
What I find disturbing is this mediocre crap is sold as "moving in the right direction" for political expediency because the media's side is in power and there is a large swath of participation trophy receiving stooges who will swallow that.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123779 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 7:25 am to
quote:

What I find disturbing is this mediocre crap is sold as "moving in the right direction" for political expediency because the media's side is in power and there is a large swath of participation trophy receiving stooges who will swallow that.
Posted by mmcgrath
Indianapolis
Member since Feb 2010
35361 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 7:34 am to
quote:

Well clearly the US Census Bureau is racist, what with their math and facts.
That looks like a lot more than 10% above long term averages, which is what I asked for.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram