Household Income

I just finished a post that explained, in part, the rise of income levels of the 1%:

…the primary source of income of the wealthy is the market and not salary.

It’s important to point this out as our current administration continues to rail against income disparity all the while pushing for policies that help contribute to the “problem” all the while.

But check out a recent post from AEI:

During his economic speech yesterday, President Obama again suggested that the typical US middle-class family has seen no economic progress over the past 30 years:

Because even though our businesses are creating new jobs and have broken record profits, the top 1 percent of Americans took home 20 percent of the nation’s income last year, while the average worker isn’t seeing a raise at all. In fact, that understates the problem. Most of the gains have gone to the top one-tenth of 1 percent. So in many ways, the trends that have taken hold over the past few decades of a winner-take-all economy, where a few do better and better and better, while everybody else just treads water or loses ground, those trends have been made worse by the recession.

Now I have debunked this claim several times. And now so has the US Census Bureau. The above chart, from the agency’s new income and poverty report, clearly shows real median household income indeed rose over the Long Boom of 1983 through 2007. And remember, the Census Bureau is just tracking pre-tax, pre-transfer, non-fringe benefit market income. As agency itself concedes: “The money income measure does not completely capture the economic well-being of individuals and families.”

091713census1-600x198Leading up to the recession, real median income was rising.  It’s only been since Obama’s time in the White House that such incomes are dropping.

5 responses to “Household Income

  1. Leading up to the recession, real median income was rising. It’s only been since Obama’s time in the White House that such incomes are dropping.

    Except that the recession started in 2007 under GWB’s watch. And even if it started on January 21, 2009, recessions don’t spring up out of nowhere, you usually need years of build-up, which happened under Bush (and possibly Clinton to an extent). Meanwhile, the President’s fiscal policies (and, really, all his policies) have been opposed and cut back by a hostile Congress, so you can’t even really point at his policies as being a sole cause of anything.

    Where’s the blame really lie, Pino? I get that your only response is “Blame Obama!” but I don’t see how you overlook these basic facts.

    • Where’s the blame really lie, Pino?

      With policies that reduce wages for the low end minimum wage and Obamacare combined with pumping $1 trillion a year into the stock market [where wealthy people earn their income] would you expect anything but a widening of the gap?

      Let’s leave Obama out of it. Let’s just blame liberal democrat policies.

  2. Up till the recession, median income rising. During recession, median income falling. Recession happens during Bush’s presidency after 7 years of Bush’s policies. Therefore liberal democrats? Or do you think the recession is entirely unrelated to that decline?

    • Therefore liberal democrats? Or do you think the recession is entirely unrelated to that decline?

      Sure, the recession plays a part. But do you think that a recovery should reflect an improvement?

      At what point does Obama have to claim responsibility for his own policies?

      • I’d say right after the Congress stops voting to defund every one of his policies just out of spite, or after they pass a proposal without insisting on tax reductions, or the moment they stop insisting on sequesters because they are willing to let the country go belly up.

        Basically, as soon as the GOP recognizes their role in a divided government, then maybe you can start putting blame on Obama.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *