- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Wapo: CBO report indicates income stagnation is a myth
Posted on 11/26/18 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 11/26/18 at 1:47 pm
Some interesting numbers
Study also tracked real incomes since 2000 (incomes adjusted for inflation)
What the CBO understands that so many people don't is that when you are trying to study the material well-being and income trends of Americans, it makes zero sense to look at pre-tax, pre-transfer numbers, nor to ignore non-wage benefits such as health insurance, retirement plans, etc. The American tax code is fairly redistributive and transfer payments in the form of welfare and public assistance make up a significant % of income to the bottom half of Americans. You shouldn't ignore those.
quote:
Well, it’s not so. That’s the message — perhaps unintended — from the Congressional Budget Office, which reports periodically on the distribution and growth of the nation’s income. It recently found that most Americans had experienced clear-cut income gains since the early 1980s.
This conclusion is exceptionally important, because the CBO study is arguably the most comprehensive tabulation of Americans’ incomes.
Most studies of incomes have glaring omissions. Some examine only before-tax income; others, after-tax. Many don’t include some government benefits — for example, food stamps, Medicare or Medicaid (health programs for the elderly and the poor). Others exclude employer-paid health insurance, which is a big item. The CBO study covers all of these areas.
quote:
But it’s not true that no one else had gains. If the bottom 99 percent experienced stagnation, their 2015 incomes would be close to those of 1979, the study’s first year. This is what most people apparently believe.
quote:
The study found otherwise. The poorest fifth of Americans (a fifth is known as a “quintile”) enjoyed a roughly 80 percent post-tax income increase since 1979. The richest quintile — those just below the top 1 percent — had a similar gain of nearly 80 percent. The middle three quintiles achieved less, about a 50 percent rise in post-tax incomes.
Why then the belief in stagnation?
One plausible theory is that the gains in any one year are so small that most people don’t recognize them. Instead, they feel they’re marching in place. The demands on their income — for housing, food, college tuition, vacations and much else — swamp tiny gains.
Study also tracked real incomes since 2000 (incomes adjusted for inflation)

quote:
All the numbers seem complex and confusing. Piercing the statistical fog is essential to anchor our debates in reality and not in journalistic or political mythology. It may seem that, except for the fortunate few, hardly anyone is getting ahead. That’s convenient rhetoric, but it just ain’t so.
What the CBO understands that so many people don't is that when you are trying to study the material well-being and income trends of Americans, it makes zero sense to look at pre-tax, pre-transfer numbers, nor to ignore non-wage benefits such as health insurance, retirement plans, etc. The American tax code is fairly redistributive and transfer payments in the form of welfare and public assistance make up a significant % of income to the bottom half of Americans. You shouldn't ignore those.
Posted on 11/26/18 at 1:56 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
The difference between the Second Richest and the Richest is massive. I guess the super-rich are skewing that difference.
Posted on 11/26/18 at 2:10 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
My salary has tripled since 1995 and I've been with the same company the whole time since I got out of the navy. Can't imagine having wage growth that low for that long.
Posted on 11/26/18 at 3:12 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
That's an awesome study. I have a lot of liberal friends that asked me why non-managerial wages were stagnating for a few decades and my guess was due to how they only measure salaries excluding other benefits like health care. I'm glad the CBO completed this and put this myth to bed. It's good data to have for debates.
Posted on 11/26/18 at 3:29 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
ya well im no expert but if the richest people in america only make $200k a year then we are a 3rd world country 

Posted on 11/26/18 at 4:34 pm to nhale623g
quote:
My salary has tripled since 1995
Mine has more than tripled since 2006. A'int no stagnation in my house. I also don't have a degree.
Posted on 11/26/18 at 4:40 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Just a nitpick, but the headline should read "total compensation" rather than "income". This shouldn't surprise anyone that paid attention to total compensation growth and distribution, although I'd be interested to see how they arrived at their transfer calculations.
Posted on 11/26/18 at 5:09 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
CBO, aka, the agency that said Obamacare would be affordable before implementation and then after implementation said oops, we were wrong. It's going to cost you a fricking arm and a leg.
Back to top
