But relative to inflation, we're all much better off. And "Mean" ages are 10.3% higher!

Yeah!

Hey ... wait a minute. I'm in Michigan. Working for a company based in North Carolina.

I'm screwed...

If the Democrats don't make that into a roadside billboard, they deserve to lose.

Happy Labor Day indeed. Wow, that's a discouraging map.

Interesting that DC saw slightly positive growth. Those that set the policies don't see the negative effects as strongly as all but a few sparsely populated states.

Americans need a new deal.

Median incomes have dropped?! Ohmigod! Che Guevara is no longer available to head the Revolution. Would Lopez Obrador be of any help?

RI has the greatest, almost the only, growth of median income in the country? Whoa. What is going on here?!?

So who are all these rich folks who moved to Wyoming? I want names.

But toys from China are cheap! Screw bread and circuses! We have nachos and Blackberrys! Double bacon cheeseburgers and iPods! Jumbo bags of chips and PS2s!

RI has the greatest, almost the only, growth of median income in the country? Whoa. What is going on here?!?

Not sure, but you'd think Lincoln Chaffee would be able to tell the voters that his efforts in the Senate have helped increase those numbers.

Oh, wait--wingnut alert! Lincoln Chaffee has been bad for RI. Ignore that part about rising incomes--he's bad, I tell you, bad!

(Yeah, I know all those toys don't come from China--you can keep the corrective posts, thanks!)

PaulinRI >"RI has the greatest, almost the only, growth of median income in the country? Whoa. What is going on here?!?"

Must be good times for the local Mafia branches

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact....Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - newshog@gmail.com

'nachos and Blackberrys?'

I love that line. Doggone illegal immigrants and their hispanic culture. They're to blame for the invasion of cheap Blackberrys...

It's an interesting map, but meaningless without additional data to put it in perspective. It's household income, after all, that people spend. If things are bad in Texas and Florida, why are people moving there? Do people in Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming feel prosperous? I bet not. If Utah and Mississippi are in such bad shape, how likely is it that they'll vote Democratic?

Paleoliberals like you push more and more data to show that Americans are just squeezing by, and yet they vote over and over again (by small margins, it's true) for Republicans. An op ed in the Post explained why the poor aren't all that poor. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/01/AR2006090101409.html

There's also a nice piece by Sebastion Mallaby about what can be done. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/03/AR2006090300741.html

Alan: Click the link. These numbers are for househould income. More than likely, the figures are even worse for individuals.

Alan,

Don't know about Florida, but a lot of people are moving to North Carolina because of the bad economy. The population booms are in the mountains and the coasts for reason.

A person who is solidly middle class can retire and sell their family home in New York and New Jersey and buy a near-beachfront mini-mansion in a gated community in places like Brunswick and New Hanover counties with enough left over to live in style for the rest of their days. In the mountains, the same is true, although the majority of newcomers come from Florida for some reason.

This doesn't do much for the locals, since the retirees don't start new businesses. They do drive up the prices of everything else, making owning a home impossible. This creates a lot of service industry jobs with low wages, but not much else.

Please note that the drops in mean income don't correspond to places where immigration, legal or otherwise, is highest. So I don't think you can dismiss the decreases as caused by immigration.

'00, '02', '04 . . . how's that working out for you, red states?

From the Wash Post 09/01 link:

"In 2001, the country's per capita income was far higher than in 1973 -- according to the Census Bureau, roughly 60 percent higher -- and unemployment rates were lower."

Isn't per capita income a method where you take all income and divide it by the total population? Useful for some issues but not for determining if median wages have been declining for 6 yrs? Couldn't we still have rising income disparity, and worse still a situation where the slice of the income pie going to the top 2% gets larger and larger, yet still have a per capita income figure that's rising?

Few facts can warm my heart more than
to see a 10.5% drop for the yokels in
Mormon Utah who were 75% Chimp last election
and who clearly support torture and
absolutel indifference to children as
casualties in Irag. Still not enough to
make me think there is a just god but
a bit of poetic justice in any case.

That minus 10% in Utah is exactly the amount that LDS members are required to tithe their church...

great story great post. perhaps someone might show this to all those perplexed economists who can't quite figure out why americans perceive the economy as poor despite all those neat numbers coming out of washington and wall street.

Some states are explainable:

Wyoming's having an oil and gas boom (the state government is making like a rockchuck, squirreling away money for the forthcoming recession).

The District of Columbia is gentrifying. The poor are slowly evacuating. Same thing happened in San Francisco, and is happening now in Portland, Oregon, where I suspect a new light rail line could be contributing to soaring home prices in the main historically-black neighborhood.

Florida has a lot of in-migration from retirees and second-home people, but locals, while almost all employed, don't get paid much. This is causing a lot of migration. Service workers are now bused to the Keys from the mainland. Teachers are moving out of Palm Beach County to escape the soaring cost of living, or just to be able to live in a bigger house someplace else. The Tampa Bay economy is thriving thanks to a lot of enterpreneurial activity and relocations from colder climates.

There's also a nice piece by Sebastion Mallaby

Oh, now there's where you step in it--Mallaby has been shown time and again to have little or no acquaintance with common sense or reality.

Shame on the Washington Post for employing that smarmy little hack.

from the original: The figures show Michigan's median household income fell more than any other state's during the last six years. It was $46,039 in 2005 -- 12% less than what it was in 1999 when adjusted for inflation.

1. the index of inflation is a linear function of increased prices in a large "basket" of goods and services, but median income is not a linear function of income. There is an intrinsic difficulty in comparing linear and nonlinear functions of the same underlying trends.

2. exactly what goods and services, made as literally equal as possible, have actually increased in cost over the last 6 years. Sure some kinds of medical procedures that are new are expensive, but magnetic resonance imaging for knee and head injuries is cheaper, and so is arthroscopic surgery (when you compare exactly the same inury and outcome in the two years.)

Over the past 8 year, the cost of similarly equipped Jeep Grand Cherokees has hardly changed, but the Grand Cherokees are now available with more features like side-impact airbags and ABS brakes.

Horses, farriers, cruises, and lots of stuff like that may be more expensive, but pork steaks cost the same. It's even cheaper to get a roll of ASA400 color film developed and prints made than it was, because of the newer equipment.

I do not know what products and services you guys buy in your economic universe, but all around me a median income buys more of almost everything than it did 6 years ago -- at least of those things that actually existed in the same form at both times.

Particular auto repairs are more expensive, but new cars are better, so the lifetime (or teen-year or 5-year) cost of repairs is lower than before.

The one item that is clearly more expensive is fuel. Luckily, the Pres and Congress worked for years on a bill to address the issue, it passed last year, consequent constructiion is underway, and effects will be felt soon. Between them, government and private industry have approximately tripled the output of biofuels this year over last.

Either you have a terrible bias against anything that isn't bad news, or else you have a terrible bias against anything that might not help the Democratic party.

Here is a rephrase of a question that I got from a site called the hayekcafe: For an equal income, even without the "inflation adjustment", would you prefer the goods, services, and prices of 6 years ago? Or do you prefer the goods, services, and prices of today? After making a thorough list of all the stuff that you want to buy, could you really by more of it for $40,000 six years ago than you can now? I don't think so.

And remember, for those 65% or so of people who do in fact own their own homes (or parts of them: you know the mortgage problem), inflation represents increased purchasing power, because the heaviest single item is housing costs.

RI has the greatest, almost the only, growth of median income in the country? Whoa. What is going on here?!?

It's "inflation-adjusted" income. This probably means that RI experienced a downturn in the market for high-priced houses. End of the "housing bubble" that Kevin Drum has been following.

More from the original.

• 19% of children in Michigan lived in poverty, up from six years ago.
...
• Almost a third of the state's African Americans lived below the poverty level.
...
• Detroit remained one of the poorest big cities in the country with almost a third of its residents living below the poverty line.
...
• Cities and townships posted drops in median household incomes ranging from 24% to 6% and poverty rates increased in all but three cities.

This might be why the incumbent Democratic governor of Michigan is facing re-election difficulties.

Note, by the way, that if median housing prices dropped faster than median wages, or if median wages at least didn't fall, then median earners can now afford better houses than before.

The absolute numbers here are also instructive. Of course, reality-based 'blue' states crowd the top of the chart, while the 'red' ones at the bottom supplement their meager incomes with healthy doses of fantasy.

These numbers are known to jump around quite a bit from year to year. Has anything special happened o Utah? It's dropped 10.5% and was low to start with. Did EVERYONE start tithing?

Anyway, here are the states with 2006 median family incomes, in order:

75541 Connecticut
75311 New Jersey
74879 Maryland
71655 Massachusetts
67354 New Hampshire
67084 Alaska
66472 Hawaii
65174 Virginia
64657 Rhode Island
63998 Minnesota
63863 Delaware
62470 Colorado
61476 California
61174 Illinois
60077 Washington
59686 New York
58647 Wisconsin
57277 Michigan
57170 Vermont
57079 Nevada
55904 Pennsylvania
55343 Wyoming
55073 Nebraska
54971 Iowa
54595 Utah
54086 Ohio
54077 Indiana
53998 Kansas
53744 Georgia
53103 North Dakota
52698 Oregon
52338 Maine
51477 Missouri
51458 Arizona
51411 District of Columbia
50465 Florida
50461 South Dakota
49769 Texas
49339 North Carolina
48775 Idaho
48100 South Carolina
47959 Montana
47950 Tennessee
46214 Kentucky
46086 Alabama
45990 Oklahoma
45730 Louisiana
44097 New Mexico
43134 Arkansas
42821 West Virginia
40917 Mississippi
20107 Puerto Rico

A troll promised me yesterday that median incomes are rising. [snark]I can't believe that a Conservative would lie to me.[/snark]

I sometimes think that Kevin's approach to economic policy analysis can be summed this way: 1. no cloud has a silever lining; 2. what looks like silver is a looming cloud; 3. silver is a myth.

The figure for California is -3.9%. I live in California, and everything that I buy is cheaper than it was except: my house, my farrier bill. Obviously, shoing a horse is a luxury of no general interest. I am a median income earner, and I am richer, and I have greater purchasing power.

Racehorses are more expensive, too, but they are not included in the inflation index and they are not bought by median income earners. Quarter horses of similar age and breeding are not more expensive.

The growth in Rhode Island is likely due to the influx of Massachussets workers moving to Rhody because of the high cost of housing in the Boston metro area. Providence is only sixty miles from Boston.

Perhaps the increase in Montana, N. Dakota, and Wyoming are from an influx of well paid energy workers added into sparse populations.

lessee, all you folks who think things are cheaper or prices haven't gone up: go to the grocery store. Go to the gas station. How often do you have to repair your car? Not very. How often do you have to buy gas? At least weekly. Gas has gone up about 100% in the last 4 years. So that price increase will have a large impact, whereas an increase in car (or human) surgery will have a lesser impact on what your money will buy. How often do you have to buy groveries? In my neck of the wood,real food groceries have gone up by 75% in the last 4 years. I suppose that is why many of the numbers normal folks deal with on a daily basis aren't used in the usual inflation calculations. Which is why a lot of us scratch our heads and are baffled when we hear inflation is about 3%. Real inflation is higher when median incomes go up slowly (3% a year in my case) and prices for every day goods go up fast (more than 3% a year).

"I do not know what products and services you guys buy in your economic universe, but all around me a median income buys more of almost everything than it did 6 years ago -- at least of those things that actually existed in the same form at both times."

Well, in my economic universe, the products and services I buy include:

food
clothes
electricity
natural gas
gasoline
airline fares
restaurant meals

All of these have gotten more expensive in St. Louis

I'm looking with great interest at college tuition and room/board, since my daughter is headed to college next year. These have gone up markedly in the past six years.

The good news is that my farrier bill, as well as my costs for racehorses and quarterhorses have remained absolutely stable at zero.

Would you rather be an average worker in the 1970s, or in 2006? I'd prefer this year, with much better healthcare, technology, and leisure. YMMV.

Hey republicrat, it's nice to know that the cost of developing a roll of film is down a bit. How about the cost of sending your kids to college? Or the cost of taking them to see a doctor if they get sick? How about the cost of the gas it takes to drive them to that doctor's office?

How about the cost of buying a house? Everybody with a camera wants their film developed, but not nearly so much as they'd like to sleep indoors tonight.

Film? People still use film?

another non-gloomy outlook, and comment on the deficiency of statistics.

I put this initially on the wrong thread:

alternative takes:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=090106B

http://blog.nam.org/archives/2006/09/unions.php

I suppose the Democratic strategy is to persuade swing voters that we are much worse off than we actually are, and to deny the actual gains of the last 6 years.

Admittedly the increased total federal budget is a problem. this year it will be 2% of GDP. If present trends continue it will be lower next year. But to assert that almost everything is worse for us in the middle of the income distribution is false.

Happy Labor Day indeed.

Every labor day should include a long visit to a large hardware/lumber store. Each Labor Day, millions of American, almost all of them non-rich and non-poor, indeed labor to improve their material wealth, and the hardwar/lumber store is where they translate their monetary earnings into stuff that they can employ to enhance their homes.

These huge stores full of DIY projects, and smaller stores as well, are almost uniquely American. What exists in other countries is a pale contrast. Excepting Canada, of course.

Among those DIYers whom I know, some are Republican, and some are Democrat, but none of them are convinced that they are worse off now than 6 years ago.

Labor Day, 2006
This Labor Day, workers actually have something to celebrate, though you'll detect precious little of it in the mainstream media coverage today:

-- 1.7 million new jobs have been created over the past year;

-- Employment has increased in 48 of the 50 states;

-- Manufacturing output is at an all-time high and production employment in manufacturing has increased by 117,000 over the past year -- the largest annual increase in over 8 years;

-- The economy has grown at 3.5% over the past year, while productivity has grown at 2.4%;

-- Real per capita disposable income has risen 9.2% since 2001;

-- Real compensation has risen 1.7%.

Labor for its part laments the state of the US economy -- again -- and points in its new study to how great things are in Europe. This is almost comical, considering the per capita US Gross Domestic Product (also known as the standard of living) is almost 50% higher than Europe's. The 3.5% GDP growth noted above is 35% faster than the EU's. The current 4.6% unemployment rate is half Europe's rate. US workers unemployed for over a year account for just 12% of the total, while in Europe, some 43% of all unemployed have been so for over a year. Finally, the percent of people starting new businesses is five times higher in the US than in France. Ask yourself this question: If you open the borders, which way will people flow -- toward Europe or toward the good ol' US of A? We think we know the answer.

So today, as you read all the wistful comparisons with Europe and read all the grim news about the US economy, just remember that this economy has come up off the economic mat from September 11 with a vengeance. We remain the largest economy in the world and the economic envy of the world.

And that gives us all something to celebrate this Labor Day.

You know, the Republicans on this thread are giving me a lot of hope. When people say they are feeling pain and the response from members of the ruling party is a list of the ways in which they are actually better off, you can be sure of one thing.

They won't be the ruling party for long.

How about the cost of sending your kids to college? Or the cost of taking them to see a doctor if they get sick? How about the cost of the gas it takes to drive them to that doctor's office?

for college, it depends on the college. the quality of instruction at cheap colleges like Community Colleges has increased a lot. In some places, scholarships have kept up with inflation for hard science majores. For doctor vists, the costs of many procedures have declined, even as they have become more reliable and widespread. Gasoline is more expensive. At every age in the age distribution, the medical cost of an additiona year of life has decreased; aggregate medical care costs have gone up because more people want more treatments. for example, of people aged 45 who suffer heart attacks, medical treatments now buy more years of life than before; heart attacks are not that common at age 45, but the same statement is true for every age.

joel, tens of millions of people still use film. For someone who bought a Canon EOS 8 years ago, getting CDs from Kodak is cheaper than making the transition to the Digital EOS. For someone new in the market, or for someone taking many more photos than I do, the benefit to cost ratio favors the Digital EOS.

It may be more expensive to "take a child to the dentist", but a filling is much higher quality and will last longer than before. Hence, the cost of a permanent, high quality repair of a cavity is lower than before.

Oh well, looks like I'm moving to the South Pacific and not the NW Pacific.

electricity

That's the easiest one of all. Electricity prices have increased, but the median income earners are buying more energy-efficient appliances and using them: compact fluorescent lightbulbs (soon to be replaced by broad-spectrum LED lights), microwave ovens, Energy-Star compliant computers (and flat screens instead of CRT monitors) and refrigerators.

I am surprized by how many people pay no attention to the energy consumption of light bulbes and appliances. nevertheless, they are more common, and the widespread adoption of them can reduce your monthly bills. Here in San Diego, SDG&E will subsidize your purchase of energy-efficient stuff because they reduce SDG&E costs.

if confirmed, here is another example of a reduction in the cost of achieving more "quality-adjusted life years" for a particular at-risk population:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5311598.stm

Never a number. Ain't republicrat anecdotal?

Here's republicrat getting a bank loan:

"You really should give me this loan, because I'm a very very good risk. Once, I borrowed a whole lot of money, and I paid it right back, and the interest too. And another time--I did the same thing! So what do you have to worry about?"

republicrat, I forgot to add that, in addition to electricity, the cost of new appliances has also increased in the past six years in St. Louis. So let's recap:

In the past six years, the cost of electricity has gone up, the cost of new appliances has gone up, and my electricity bill has increased. Any other ideas?

Yes, it does seem like the general message Democrats want to send is a gloomy one, painting a picture of an unfair, poverty-stricken America that most Americans just can't relate to and never see. Maybe it's because we're so far removed from each other classwise. Or maybe it's just that there's more general merchandise available for cheaper and cheaper so fewer people feel deprived.

You might not like the stuff they sell at Wal-mart, but it's good enough for most people, and it's really cheap.

While these numbers are multicausal, of course, I don't think you can dismiss mass illegal immigration as a partial cause. Sure, corporate greed is part of it, I grant you that. But adding a million or two unskilled illegals per year to an economy simply has to depress wages. I know you can show studies that say otherwise, but I've gotta take out Occam's Razor for that one: millions of unskilled workers = lower wages for laborers.

Yes, it does seem like the general message Democrats want to send is a gloomy one, painting a picture of an unfair, poverty-stricken America that most Americans just can't relate to and never see.

Alternatively, Democrats could be paying attention to what people say and think, instead of insisting on a Panglossian view. When a recent NY Times headline says, "Three polls find workers sensing deep pessimism," it's worth asking why.

Is this median personal income or household income?

Does it control for demographic shifts in age, etc.?

republicrat,

What's with the 10:1 posting ratio compared to everyone else? Are you afraid you haven't made your point?

Hogging a thread is just bad manners.

Spin harder,Repubs!!! They ain't buying it in Peoria!!

In 1973 my sister who was in her early 20s and had worked only a year or two at a clerical job bought a house in the SF bay area for $18,000.

Nate: There's a damn link as part of the post.

I turned to the comments and I fully expected the normal "wahhhhhhh" bbbut the total number of jobs are the greatest they have ever been." What was unexpected was he overwhelming number of posts from republicrat whining about how Kevin is looking at the glass half empty.

I happen to be in a high demand healthcare job and even I haven't seen much of a hike in my pay in the past 3yrs. My employer is picking up our insurance (that was considered the payraise this year) to help with recruitment but the insurance itself picks up less with higher copays(have a coworker who has surgery where his share came to $4,000) Yes, I am making more money but the reason for that is only because I am working essentially 2 fulltime jobs to save money for retirement. At least half the people I know have a second(part or fulltime) jobs just to get by. I also second the posts above - everything has gone up. Even my mom the bargain coupon clipper shopper has a harder time finding good deals. I could go out and grab a meal for 2 for under $25 easily - now under $35 is a rare bargain. And I am talking about hole in the wall places.

. I could go out and grab a meal for 2 for under $25 easily - now under $35 is a rare bargain. And I am talking about hole in the wall places.

Where the hell do you live? In Austin, I can get a good Vietnamese dinner for myself and my girlfriend for under $20, and that's tipping 20%. CA? NY?

Ergon, let's take Occams Razor out again: When education costs soar, and become too costly for the middle class - and Pell grants become more scarce - what do you think the eventual outcome will be?

Let me help you: More unskilled labor. You may point to those horrible brown people as depressing national wages, but we are in a downward spiral if we continue to make education a four-letter-word, and the subject of dirision.

GOP--
Do we have to go through this stupid list again?

First of all, let's take a closer look at the map. You see those nice little plusses and minuses. This kind of map is measuring the CHANGE in the median income over time.

All the things on your brilliant list are things that have existed for at least thirty years. You have to add them to the historic data as well as to the current data. What you haven't proven and what you have to prove is that these "non-money" incomes have grown significantly in the period of time that the map is referring to. Until you do that, what you are saying is bullshit.

Some of the items on your list probably have gone up, some others (like employer-provided health care and retirement benefits, school lunch programs, and general government non-money transfers) have certainly gone DOWN.

Have you forgotten the whole purpose of Republican rule was to cut down on these kinds of government transfers to the poor? Has this crusade been such a complete disaster that these kinds of transfers have actually INCREASED on the GOP's watch? Even if that were true (which is isn't) I'm not sure I'd want to crow about it when you are trying to paint a rosy picture of a capital-centric economy.

For example, using money income figures, the real median household income in 2003 was $43,318. But after making the adjustments listed above, real median household income in 2003 increases by almost $2,000, to $45,154.

How do your numbers look when comparing 2000 to
2006 ?

Why the 6 year comparison?

Oh, I get it. Bush. Everything is about Bush. (I was going to point out my own income is significantly higher than it was 6 years ago, but never mind.)

I noticed that median income in Hawaii only dropped 0.4%. But when one considers that our median income is already below the national average, that's certainly not saying much.

Hey, but look how well those 450,000 people dodging all those jack rabbits out in freaken Wyoming are doing. Dick paid everyone off out there.

Wyoming's rise is singularly due to Cheney's Haliburton windfall.

william Davis: "[Retirees moving to North Carolina don't] do much for the locals, since the retirees don't start new businesses. They do drive up the prices of everything else, making owning a home impossible. This creates a lot of service industry jobs with low wages, but not much else."

You've also managed to describe my state, and probably Arizona as well.

"After taking into account these adjustments, the income picture is very different. For example, using money income figures, the real median household income in 2003 was $43,318. But after making the adjustments listed above, real median household income in 2003 increases by almost $2,000, to $45,154."

Woot.

If adjusted income has continued to increase since 2003, as the money income data since 2003 suggests, then the real median household income now is likely higher than it was in 2000. But we won't know for sure until the Census Bureau updates its addjusted income figures.

Well, we know that employer-provided health insurance benefits have gone down and we know tht income less the other factors you've mentioned has gone down. We also know that if you take out the top earners then the income numbers look worse.

If things are bad in Texas and Florida, why are people moving there?

To be nearfamily, they can no longer afford housing where they are... Spin it anyway you like, it's still the economy, stupid.

Why the 6 year comparison?

Oh, I get it. Bush. Everything is about Bush. (I was going to point out my own income is significantly higher than it was 6 years ago, but never mind.)

Stuff it in your mattress. You will be unemployed soon and your McMansion will be in foreclosure.

It's irrelevant whether the data ARE true, gop ... they SEEM true, which is all truthiness requires.

repubs taught us that. :)

GOP--
So median money income does correlate with real income, or it doesn't? I'm confused here. If the money income is so "bogus" then why are you using it to predict what will happen with the great adjusted income measure?

joel: the cost of new appliances has also increased in the past six years in St. Louis.

Are they the same appliances? Americans tend over time to buy bigger and more powerful appliances. Bigger refrigerators with more ways to make ice water and ice cubes. For a given size, appliances are becoming more electricity-efficient and (in the case of washing machines) more water-efficient. Besides that, the lifetime cost of a simple refrigerator of a particular size has declined because they are made more reliable and need fewer repairs.

This is the "apples to apples" issue that people keep raising in different ways. An automatic transmission of a particular car for a particular engine might be more expensive than 6 years ago, or it might not, but it will get better fuel economy and the buyers will collectively pay lower maintenance costs while they own the vehicles.

Fuel is more expensive, but it is worth reminding everybody that the Republican Congress, Republican president, and the market are increasing the production of biofuels, whereas most Democrats in Congress opposed the federal effort to increase biofuels. So I don't see Democrats making good on this issue, except those like Clinton who switched and now support more biofuels.

Another note: median house prices have fallen in many areas where mean house prices have increased. The CPI is more closely related to the mean change than to the median change (the linear vs. non-linear issue that I raised above). Even as the "inflation-adjusted" median income is claimed to have less purchasing power, median earners are able to afford better homes.

They won't be the ruling party for long.

No, but we are still left with the mess to clean up after the "smash and grab". What are the chances that any of the loot will be recovered, or the perps get caught and do time?

It looks like the average drop in Blue states is somewhat larger than the average drop in Red states. Hmm, I wonder how that will play out.

Are restaurant meals more expensive?

Somebody check me on this: at TGI Fridays, the cost of a hamburger and fries, and the cost of a bowl of black bean soup with a chicken caesar salad, have stayed the same. This varies with location, and the product line has changed. At Denny's the cost of an omelette with a short stack of pancakes has stayed the same.

Anyone know how to check these? I don't eat often enough at the same place to know.

Oh, I get it. Bush. Everything is about Bush. (I was going to point out my own income is significantly higher than it was 6 years ago, but never mind.)

We do get the consolation of knowing that this fuckwit will get divorced by his bitch wife when his salary can no longer support her in the style she has become accustomed to, takes the kids with her and him to the cleaners and he ends up living in a small condo someplace working at half his current salary to support two households and drinking himself to death. You have to settle for what you can get.

Would you rather be an average worker in the 1970s, or in 2006? I'd prefer this year, with much better healthcare, technology, and leisure.

What good is better healthcare if you can't afford it? Healthcare back then was not only cheaper and more universally accessible but wasn't hobbled by micro-managing insurance companies, who now control the decisions about your health care instead of doctors.

Technology is better today, but is a side issue, consisting of nice distracting baubles, compared to the cost of necessities such food, energy, and housing. As for leisure, people work harder today than the 70s.

It's pretty clear to me that you were not living in the 70s or paying the bills back then.

Are you better off today than you were four years ago?

"Bigger refrigerators with more ways to make ice water and ice cubes. For a given size, appliances are becoming more electricity-efficient and (in the case of washing machines) more water-efficient. "

The cost of an item is the price on the item. The energy efficiency is not the purchace price. The purchace price is the price you pay when you buy the item. This has gone up. I'm sorry this is so hard for you. It is a measure of how detatched you are from the everyday reality of life in America.

Dennys and TGI Fridays prices have gone up in the last six years. It is proof that you are out of touch that you didn't notice.

Come back when you get back in touch with reality, republicrat. You haven't shopped in awhile, have you, bucko?

republicrat--

Current "biofuel" proposals are utter bullshit. In many cases, it takes more petroleum for the fertilizer to grow the corn, process it, etc., than you save by not just using oil straight-up.

As far as the apples-to-apples stuff goes, that is how economics measures things--by prices. Here is a good example. Consider a world where there are only two commodities. One of them, a box of food, has stayed pretty much the same in thirty years. The other one, a computer, has gotten much cheaper and much more powerful.

In 1970, a person would have spent 60% of their income on the computer and 40% of their income on the bag of food. Now, they spend 80% of their income on the bag of food and 20% of their income on the computer. What has changed? Is the computer less valuable than it used to be or more valuable? What about the bag of food?

People spend the vast majority of their income on things that are much more like the bag of food than the computer. Basically, we spend our money on housing, food, and health care.

As far as serious "technical improvements" go, only in health care has the last twenty years seen real serious improvements. And lo and behold, the price of health-care has skyrocketed, thus showing that these improvements really are considered "valuable" by consumers.

People like to talk about things like computers, because they obviously have changed our lives so much. But people are only willing to spend a very small percentage of their income on computers. This is money that would have been spent on 'entertainment' in the old days. Computers are not nearly as important to people as food, lodging, or health care, for obvious reasons.

Apart from health care (which has improved but not gotten cheaper), the other core needs for human life have neither gotten cheaper nor have they significantly improved by any other measure. Housing built today will not last as long as housing built 70 years ago. Clothing today doesn't seem better. Nor do the eating habits of Americans inspire much confidence in the miracles of food science. What about entertainment? More options, yes, but is that "better"? More people will end up watching shitty movies. Who can say if that is "better"? That's why economists use price as their measure...they don't want to get into these thorny questions.

If you really want to compare apples to apples, you have to actually look very hard at the apples. What might be "in style" might not be "better" in any "objective" sense. And once you start going off in that direction, you've left economics behind and entered the world of philosophy.

Word!

Is it just me, or is all this just a total replay of the trickle-down nightmare Reagan inflicted on us? Just like that horse's ass, Bush has given enormous tax cuts to the rich; measly, lip-service tax cuts for the middle class; and at the same time increased government spending like a drunken sailor/spoiled frat boy with a breath-taking sense of entitlement, which in turn creates the biggest deficits in the nation's history. Just like Reagan's trickle-down policies, Bush has achieved brief--VERY brief--inflated growth rates, at a spectacular cost, that will then be followed by a brutal contraction like the one Bush Senior inherited from Reagan.

God help the next president.

GOP: But after making the adjustments listed above, real median household income in 2003 increases by almost $2,000, to $45,154.

There you go again. What you fail to point out is that over 80% of that "almost $2,000" is due to imputed return on home equity, which is skewed towards the upper end of the income spectrum.

Moreover, without that adjustment, the experimental measures you cite show a lower median income than the standard measures for 1999-2002, and a nominal increase for 2003.

Thank the housing bubble, although anyone who's paying attention can imagine what it's likely to do to the 2006-2007 numbers. Of course by the time those stats are available, I'm sure you'll have found another set to cherry pick.

I don't care if I have to live with my family in a cardboard box under a bridge and eat sparrows cooked on an old curtain rod -- hell, I'll volunteer for the gig -- provided the Republicans can guarantee for me that the gay guy in the box on the right doesn't even get a curtain rod, and the black guy in the box on the left doesn't get have a sparrow.

God bless America, and nobody else.

What William Davis at 4:22 PM wrote is worth repeating:

When people say they are feeling pain and the response from members of the ruling party is a list of the ways in which they are actually better off, you can be sure of one thing...
They won't be the ruling party for long.

Spin, GOP, spin! Do you really think anything you say here will make any difference whatsoever? What a joke!

--
HRlaughed

Labor Day! Let's see, what's on Headline News tonight!

An hour of Nancy Grace, followed by an hour of Glenn Beck, followed by an hour of Showbiz Tonight, followed by an hour of Glenn Beck followed by an hour of Nancy Grace.

The only part that's news is Showbiz Tonight. It's the corporation telling you who you are.

GOP--

I still don't get it...something either correlates with something else or it doesn't. If there is a consistent correlation between increases in real income and increases in adjusted income (are you also calling this "real" income? Get your terminology straight), then why do you say it doesn't correlate? You are trying to have it both ways, saying basically that money income only correlates with adjusted income when money income is positive, and that the adjusted income will always increase at a greater rate than the real income....do you see why this doesn't make sense? Why would it be the case that real income would ONLY correlate with adjusted income when the real income growth has been positive? This is having it both ways.

And you have said you actually WANT us to use the increase in money income over 2003-2005 to PREDICT the increase in adjusted income over the same period. But then you say there is not even a correlation between the two. Except that there is. Maybe. Color me confused.

And of course, in your latest post, you pick a curious starting point for your comparison. 1979?! Why not just go all out and pick 1930? I'd bet you'd see real strong growth using that date as your starting point!

In any case, I find it amusing that a small government type like yourself would be touting the adjusted income as the proper measure. I thought that taxes and government benefits were theft!

real median household income in 2003 increases by almost $2,000, to $45,154.

Almost exclusively "net inputed return on equity
in own home "

exactly what goods and services, made as literally equal as possible, have actually increased in cost over the last 6 years. Sure some kinds of medical procedures that are new are expensive, but magnetic resonance imaging for knee and head injuries is cheaper, and so is arthroscopic surgery (when you compare exactly the same inury and outcome in the two years.)

in 1999, my health insurance costs, for myself and two dependents, in North Carolina, were about $40/month. The MRI i had on my shoulder cost me exactly $0 out of pocket.

in 2006, my health insurance costs, working at the same company, for the same two dependents, are roughly $300/month. The MRI i had on my head this year cost me approximately $750 out of pocket.

Welcome to the real world.

God help the next president. - chisholm

Nope, not gonna do it

Why should I ?

It would be interesting to know the median income of those who Troll-for-Pay. I think the neatest situation would be to have a government job with trolling as your primary duty. Think about it, you could get paid by taxpayers to tell them how stupid they are. War is peace.

...and yes, I saw the Louis Theroux program on the beleagered porn-stud who was "Gay-for-Pay."

Once you stop chuckling at True Believer's witty post, you are left more than a little bit dismayed that such post, like all good humor, is based in fact.

And, that that particular fact is what the Republican party, to its shame, I hope, basically has been using to get itself elected for some time.

Sure, there are other conservative values that actually have meaning. However, as those values don't result in a majority you need to add something else to your platform.

the troll responses on this thread are even more pathetic and impotent than usual--"I notice lots of people shopping at hardware stores on Labor Day."

Weak

Stephen--

Thanks for that little tidbit about the dominance of the housing equity "income" in the figures. Something was nagging at me about those adjusted figures, and there you go.

Of course, if one is going to take these kinds of things into account, one should also look at the other end of the ledger, especially the remarkable rise in indebtedness and lifetime interest payments on credit cards and loans.

In any case, the best way to measure change is with longitudinal surveys, and so far these have been rather limited in scope. Let's hope the Census puts more money into those kind of surveys, which tell you much more about how average Americans' lives are changing.

don't forget all the people who will be losing their homes and life savings due to the mortgage crisis.

Isn't per capita income a method where you take all income and divide it by the total population?
Actually, given a bunch of incomes - half are lower and half are higher. You are thinking of the average.

I was once in the same room with Bill Gates. The average net worth skyrocketed while he was there. I, however, was poorer when the event was over when I paid for parking.

Or the cost of taking them to see a doctor if they get sick?

If the issue is to compare the changing purchasing power of dollars, then it is important to compare like things or services to like.

1. Since 2000, the cost of effective treatment of HIV/AIDS has come down, and an equal dollar payment can buy drugs that have fewer side effects. both of those represent increased purchasing power of the dollar.

Unfortunately, the total population of HIV-infected in the US is rising. Worse, the incidence and prevalence of multi-drug-resistant HIV infections are both increasing. Thus, the cost of treating HIV/AIDS is increasing.

2. Every year, lots of people in the US tear the ligaments in their knees. The cost of effectively repairing these knee injuries (I emphasize the effective repair) has declined.

3. Every year lots of people in the US get cancer. For each type of cancer, the cost of a cure, or of bringing about an extra year of life when cure doesn't occur, is cheaper than before.

joel: The cost of an item is the price on the item. The energy efficiency is not the purchace price. The purchace price is the price you pay when you buy the item. This has gone up. I'm sorry this is so hard for you. Either you are ignoring the fact that the two refrigerators are not in fact the same, and hence can't be used as a basis for measuring changes in the purchae power of money; or you are ignoring the fact that what you are buying is refrigeration. Ignoring the cost of running the appliance over the time you own it only makes sense if you do not ever run it.

kokblok: Current "biofuel" proposals are utter bullshit. In many cases, it takes more petroleum for the fertilizer to grow the corn, process it, etc., than you save by not just using oil straight-up.
...
As far as the apples-to-apples stuff goes, that is how economics measures things--by prices.

Current biofuels proposals can be improved upon. However, a series of reviews in the Journal Science have shown that they do not in fact consume more energy than they consume.

When you make claims about the changes in the purchasing power of a fixed amount of money, prices are inded the correct measures, but you have to make sure that you are comparing the same "things". Or you have to look at the exact same amount of cash and compare what it can buy you. Consider what you can now get for $5000, compared to 6 years ago, in home communications and computing: the same nominal amount of cash buys more now.

As always, the really expensive "thing", compared to 6 years ago, is fuel. That increase in price was not caused by American fuel policy, Democrat or Republican, but by the remarkable economic growth of the rest of the world (at least that part that trades with the U.S.)

I live in California, and everything that I buy is cheaper than it was except: my house, my farrier bill.

What alternative-universe California do you live in?

In my state on planet Earth, the following have skyrocketed in the past 6 years, just to name a few: groceries, restaurant meals, gasoline, airline tickets, health insurance (with *less* coverage and higher copays and deductibles), car insurance, junior and UC college tuition. In my areas house purchase prices have more than doubled, while rents have jumped over 60%, with none of those magically-convenient "quality adjustments" you use to explain away any increase - they're the exact same properties, only slightly older and worse for wear.

Government biofuels programs are nice, but they haven't done jack to hold down the cost of gasoline, so they are as irrelevant to this discussion of consumer price inflation as your farrier bills, caviar prices, colonic services, Learjet leasing rates and whatever hell else you spend your money on.

Repubicrat, why do I get the feeling that if this data showed that incomes had risen at a good clip, you'd be posting 20 times trumpeting the veracity of the numbers and the stunning economic success of Our Lord Savior Kim Jong Bush?

kokblok: for biofuels go here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/311/5760/435?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=biofuels&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

but if you are really interested, go to a university library nearby and read back issues. some municipal libraries also carry Science, so check yours.

You can read all you want online if you join AAAS. otherwise you can read the summaries and then buy the full PDFs that you want.

tech98: I already addressed rising housing costs. For people who already own their own homes, about 65% of Americans, increased house prices are increased wealth, not decreased wealth.

health insurance

you have to check and see if the coverage is really exactly the same. If you are covered now for treatments that didn't exist back then, or if you pay out of pocket then and now for certain treatments like fluoxetine, then your purchasing power has not in fact decreased. Insurance premiums are "skyrocketing" because people are buying more and more care with their premiums.

food lots of little-processed or non-processed foods are cheaper than before. For me, eggs, milk, and pork steaks are cheaper.

GOP

What "statistics" do you have that tell you that houses are constructed better now than they used to be? They may be larger, yes, but that doesn't mean they are of better quality. We'll take a look in thirty years and see how many of these "well-designed" houses are still standing. They said the same thing in the 1970s--"oh, our ranch houses are much more solid than those old victorians!" Was that correct?

And even with size itself, the reason they can be larger is that they are further away from job centers. That's a cultural trade-off. Is it better to have a bigger house and less free time, or a smaller house closer to work and more free time?

New cars are probably better than old cars, especially if you take 1979 (your favorite year?) as your starting point (actually, many european cars of older eras had pretty good fuel economy and lots of cool features. Ever been in a Karmann Ghia?). But "cars" are not really a category of spending--"transportation" is. And we actually have less real transportation options than we did thirty years ago. Have you tried to take a train in this country recently? Have fun with that. Has airline service "improved"? How about city buses? I'd say it's a wash.

I conceded health care. We don't disagree, although of course sometime soon health care advances will also start to show diminishing returns.

Food is more varied, but its been varied enough for thirty years. Is the fact that you can now get morel mushrooms a sign of serious progress for the average person? Is a greater variety of food that great a thing after a certain point? Does the food we have today provide us with greater satisfaction and health than the food we had in 1980? How would you measure that? The health statistics sure don't look that good.

And does the entertainment we have today satisfy that human need for diversion better than the entertainment of thirty years ago? How would you measure that?

The broader question is, of course: If everything is getting cheaper and better, why on earth doesn't everyone have pockets full of cash and why isn't everyone screaming about how happy they are? Why is the national savings rate down so much? Why is everyone paying so much money to credit card companies? Just where is all that money going?

Obviously, something is going on other than the "march of progress" you describe.

Oh, on another note, have you figure out the word "correlate" yet?

because I am accused of hijacking the thread, I'll close:

1. look and what you can buy at the two time points, 2000 and 2006, for exactly the same cash.

2. look at exactly the same good or service, exactly the same good or service that you are intending to buy (dental health, refrigeration, computer functionality).

for people whose earnings are near the median, purchasing power is greater now than in 2006 for almost everything except fuel. for people who own their own homes housing inflation represents an increase in wealth.

republicrat,

Does anyone take you seriously, ever? Or is that not the point of your little exercise in futility? We have a troll like you on a legal blog that gets his ass beaten down by both sides because he is so out to lunch. He's actually an attorney. Who is paying you?

GOP

What "statistics" do you have that tell you that houses are constructed better now than they used to be?

That's total crap, except where code upgrades were fought tooth and nail in Florida after Andrew. Face it, chumps. Spin till your dizzy. You've lost the House. One heartbeat and one failed pacemaker away from President Pelosi.

GOP--
If the equity income accounts for 80% of the increase, there is not much else left. And almost all housing experts agree that the housing market will slow to a considerable degree: they differ on whether it will be a "hard" or "soft" landing. As far as your comparison to the stock market bubble, well, what's your point? It WOULD have been stupid if you made a prediction of stock market income for 2002 based on the highly inflated 1999 numbers. Which is exactly what you're doing here. Some forms of income are steady and solid, others arise out of strange short-term historical quirks. Equity income is of the latter category.

The number of trolls here spinning the pitiful economy is very interesting.

Plame, anyone?

GOP,

If spin could feed more people than just your family, you might not be out of a job soon, but shit only floats for so long. Someone finally flushes. Enjoy the ride on the waterslide.

GOP--

"The correlation is weak, as you can see from the fact that the 2002-2003 income change was negative under money income but positive under adjusted income."
.....

If money income has increased since 2003 (and it has), then it is likely that adjusted income has also increased. Between 1979 and 2003, every year that money income increased, adjusted income also increased."

...........

"But changes in money income do not correlate with changes in adjusted income. That's one reason why the money income data is bogus. For example, using money income, the real median household income fell between 2002 and 2003. But using adjusted income, the real median household income increased between 2002 and 2003. And it has likely continued to increase since 2003."

Straight from the horse's mouth. I confess I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. Is the correlation "weak" or does it not exist? This whole thread started with a discussion of the drop in money income between 1999-2003. You want to use a different measure, the adjusted income, to prove that things really aren't getting worse. But then you admit that the trends for adjusted income has in fact followed along rather nicely with the money income, except for in the year 2003, when they diverged. You first use this divergence as proof that the economy is doing better than we think (money income is a baaad measure), then turn around and use some pathetic gains in money income to predict that there will be significant gains in adjusted income. Do you see why this doesn't make any sense? Why it is sort of a bait-and-swiitch?

Can you tell that a republican is in the White House ? Obvious to me looking at the CRISIS. OH MY GOD another CRISIS.Why didnt you go back TEN or Twelve Years. Surely Clinton had nothing to do with the Numbers Prior to Jan 20 2001. The first day BUSH took office everyones income dropped, hasnt come up wont never come up.But when the Seventh Seal is broken and the LIBERALS take over the Senate. THE SECRET PLAN.Harry Reid has a secret plan to rid the whole world of poverty. Not just Americans but the whole world. More money for all & fair taxes (unless you make over $35000 per year) then you will be classified as rich.Tax the rich, feed the poor taxes will solve all our problems Robin Hood will return. When Dinjy Harry breaks the SEVENTH SEAL the scripture says "on his left arm he will have a code to bear fruit to all and on his right arm will be a key to un lock Algores box and all will see the glory of AL"
The problem is people think that the GOVERNMENT will be the savior, never look at yourself to solve a problem sit on your dead ass and say " I cant OH OH I cant" say it long enough and some DEMOCRAT will come and tell you its George W Bushs fault and vote for me . BEEN THERE DONE THAT. At least when a Republican puts his hand in your pocket he will tickle your nuts but a Democrat will chew them off (slowly).

Wyoming's rise is singularly due to Cheney's Haliburton windfall.

This map shows the drop most states had over the last six years, yet Wyoming is notable for having had the second largest increase over that span. And, as noted, six years ago is when Cheney changed his official residency from Texas to Wyoming. Coincidence? You make the call!

GOP--

Average commutes have certainly risen in the last thirty years. I'm sure DOT has statistics on that, it's fairly common knowledge.

Hours worked have increased. This should be obvious based merely on the mass entry of females into the workplace in the years 1960-1990. But this is even true for males. I believe the latest Census data release has this info in it as well (this was even on the USA Today headline).

Vacation time is down.

More hours worked plus longer commute equals less free time.

I don't actually have any empirical proof that houses built TODAY are more flimsy than houses built sixty years ago. That's anecdotal, just like your assertions that they are "better-built". However, houses built twenty years ago are definately more flimsy than houses built sixty years ago. To find this out, all you have to do is look at the housing stock of any major city. Census also collects data on housing age in the regular population census (look at the purple book). You have a bunch of old housing in the center, then areas where more recent housing in being demolished and replaced by new housing. Check the correlation between age of house and house value in the Census tables. Pretty interesting.

Contractors would generally agree that housing material quality has gone down in the last thirty years generally speaking. People are more interested in using their home as a short-term investment, not in staying there for the long term. There is a loss of craftsmanship that is well-known. Even the very wealthy often must put up with shoddy materials. They aren't as involved in the home-building process as they used to be.

Lets see, I've been unemployed for over a year.

My plight is not unusual just read this from yesteredays St. Louis post dispatch:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/workplace/story/155F2B7A2E6A95CE862571DC007D96AA?OpenDocument

I have over 15 years as a systems analyst for fortune 500 companies. I recently earned a law degree (a doctorate).

I can't get employment as an analyst despite massive amount of experience because there are over 500,000 h1b worker visas in the U.S. (equal to the number unemployed) and Bush recently signed and executive order creating 200,000 just in case a company might be forced to have to hire an American.

I am on the threshold of losing everything I've ever worked for, including my doctorate in law, thanks to the economic policies of the 4th reich.

Bitter? in a word, Yes.

There are 18 mega rich families that have sponsered the activity to undo the inherentence tax, they are the ones who paid focus groups moterators to come up with 'death tax'. Republicans won't pass an increase in the minimum wage unless they pass a Paris Hilton relief act against the inherentence tax.

In short, there are 300 million Americans. Of these 300 million, the republicans represent 18 families.

Think about that.

18 Families control the entire Republican party. The republican party puts 18 families ahead of the 300 million american electorate.

That ought to be all the public needs to know to kick these people out of office.

18 versus 300 million.

boggles the mind really.

" At least when a Republican puts his hand in your pocket he will tickle your nuts"

Only if you are younger than, say, age 12. Any older, and they are just fishing for your change.

GOP--

But this started as an 'apples vs. apples' argument. In the case of transportation, there really is less choice than there used to be, for whatever reason. You have to factor that in. Maybe in some cases the apples really aren't getting better.

Also if you're going to factor in something as nebulous as the pleasure gained by having the choice of a morel mushroom, you should definately also factor in the pain caused by the dissolution of strong local family and friend networks commented upon by the APA and others who actually look at the psychological costs of our "progress". Both are very nebulous, but only the morel pleasure is measured by our current economic indicators.

This is getting very far afield, though, off the topic of the thread, which is median income.

GOP: No, there you go again. First, the income figure is the MEDIAN household income, so your claim that it is "skewed towards the upper end of the income spectrum" is just nonsense.

Bullshit. Home ownership, and hence the benefit from imputed return on home equity, is significantly higher among the upper quintiles. E.g., for 1999-2003 the top quintile's (quintile 5) benefit from imputed return on home equity was, on average: >4.0x quintile-1; >2.6x quintile-2,; >2.0x quintile-3,; and >1.4x quintile-4.

No, as I said, the adjusted income is higher even without taking the return on home equity into account. And there is no consensus amoung economists or real estate experts that there is a national housing bubble anyway.

Bullshit. It is not higher for except for 2003. As for "no consensus amoung economists or real estate experts that there is a national housing bubble", the question is not whether there has been a housing bubble, but how hard or soft the landing will be.

But if you're going to play that game, we may "thank the stock market bubble" for much of the income gains among the rich, so if income casually attributed to "bubbles" is to be excluded, then the apparent rise in income inequality in recent decades is an illusion.

Bullshit. An analysis shows that the median income figure, as with the imputed return on home equity, is distorted by the gains in the upper quintile. E.g., for 1999-2003, the top quintile's (quintile 5) benefit from capital gains was, on average: >490x quintile-1; >210x quintile-2; >60x quintile-3; >11x quintile-4.

GOP--
I think income inequality is bad for people at both ends of the income spectrum. It is bad for reasons that are very different than the reasons absolute poverty are bad. Some liberals equate the two too often. This is somewhat understandable, but it is misleading. Ending absolute poverty should be the first goal, making sure everyone has the minimum for a dignified life. After you have accomplished that (and I think we have done fairly well at this so far, largely thanks to government programs that you probably want to cut), then you can start thinking about the evils of inequality, which are more subtle but which also cause problems that are just as serious for the people who encounter them.

People think in relative terms. Always have, always will. Rockefeller in the 1950s was happier with his position than a middle-class schmuck today, even though that schmuck has the internet. Extreme inequality breeds very bad moral outcomes, no matter what absolute level you are at.

Arguing that our standard of living has improved is a double-edged sword. As the poor get wealthier, the less moral claim they have on society's assistance. But at the same time, as the rich get wealthier, the more ability and moral obligation they have to assist society. It's like a chinese finger trap, and its why even if our nation gets richer as a whole, that doesn't mean bad things for "liberal" economic policy.

BTW, I'm not changing my mind about the current, empirical state of the median wage. I'm just saying that my political philosophy does not compel me to trumpet doom and gloom where it doesn't exist. It just happens to exist in this case. Frankly, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for liberal policies if this nation really was getting wealthier overall. It might be bad for the environment, but that's a different story.

You know, the competition is stiff but I think GOP's post at 7:32 would be of interest to theoretical physicists. Near as I can tell it offers proof positive that some humans (such as GOP) live in an
alternate universe right here.

"You know, you keep making all sorts of empirical claims for which you provide no evidence and justifying them with an "everyone knows it's true" wave of the hand. I'm not going to bother going through them showing that they're false."

You mean like claiming that houses are better constructed today than in the past?

I appreciate the artiful way in which you unilaterally redefined the question of hours work as pertaining only to production workers.

You're hardly in a position to be critiquing the methodology of others.

Didn't David Letterman buy a ranch in Montana? That alone probably accounts for the increase in median income in that state.

That's the easiest one of all. Electricity prices have increased, but the median income earners are buying more energy-efficient appliances and using them: compact fluorescent lightbulbs (soon to be replaced by broad-spectrum LED lights), microwave ovens, Energy-Star compliant computers (and flat screens instead of CRT monitors) and refrigerators.

I am surprized by how many people pay no attention to the energy consumption of light bulbes and appliances. nevertheless, they are more common, and the widespread adoption of them can reduce your monthly bills. Here in San Diego, SDG&E will subsidize your purchase of energy-efficient stuff because they reduce SDG&E costs.

TRANSLATION:
While it may be true that people can't afford as much food as they used to, they're actually richer now because the new belts can be cinched much tighter.

On old houses and cars:

Victorian houses carry a premium because they were built before the complete destruction of the tradesmen. While unions still use the terminology of journeyman to master, they are not equivalent.

The master tradesman of the pre-modern era was not working class. They were more akin in prestige and training to physicians and the professorate. A master carpenter ran a shop of journeymen and apprentices not because they had the capital to start a factory, but because they had earned the prestige and respect of their trade. There is simply no equivalent to them in modern society.

As for cars, would anyone really say that a modern Ford was the equal to the Fords of the '50s and '60s? There's a reason that there are more "classic" cars on the road than there are cars of the '70s and '80s. When the last of the plastic and tin vehicles made in Detroit today are rusting in the junkyard, people will still be driving '65 Mustangs.

The Arab cabby who took me picked my up at Lowe's and took me to Applebees for a wonderful dinner of meatloaf (under $20 including tax & tip) in morally upright Franklin County told me he was much better off now that he could buy airfreshners in bulk at a low, low prices thanks to NAFTA.

GOP--

OK, read the damn USA Today cover story on the Census from this past Wednesday. I read it at the airport. There's your source for the working hours data. Is that too hard? Sorry, I'm not your damned librarian.

"Production Workers". Ha! That's funny. How is it that you went to look at all the data and only came back with that little cherry-picked datum? Could it be perhaps because in today's economy, "production workers" are one of the few job categories that is actually shrinking in terms of its significance for the national economy? Don't tell me you went to all that trouble to find the BLS site and could only find that pitiful subset of data.

How stupid do you think I am?

In the 1970s, it was unheard of for anyone but top executives to work more than 60 hours a week. Now it is commonplace. There are so many sources that attest to this, I find it insulting that I actually have to lead you by the nose to some specific table. It wouldn't matter anyway, you'd go to BLS or Census and find the one table that supports your view. Forget it.

Some things you read about a few times, see some tables, and say, yep that's what's happening. Increasing work hours is one of those things. Increased commuting is another. I must have read 200 news reports on these topics over the years. Even those who have very different points of view than me concede that these things are happening. What next, do I have to guide you to an original copy of Copernicus to prove the earth goes around the sun?

Yeah,Glyn it's the Democrats who increased payroll taxes. Uhm,wait, was Ronnie Raygun a Democrat? The same payroll taxes that were supposed to take care social security and then Alan Greenspan,uhm,wait he's a Democrat right? with George W.Bush,uhm another Democrat who stole the surpluses of working folks and gave them to the super wealthy. And uhm, GWB was working with a Democrat Congress right? NOT. I won't even go back to the 30s with FDR or 60s with LBJ. No, lets get this straight, the Dems might supposedly chewy your nuts but the Repubs will get them in a vice grip and let them turn blue and then chop them off and then you will have to go the ER and have some hack M.D. take care of the medical ussues and you'll pay your medical bills which you won't be able to claim bankruptcy for even though you'll be out of work for several months and then to rub salt in the wound you won't even be able to sue the republicant or the quack doc for damages.