3 ms·

Lowest incomes, even inflation adjusted, certainly have been rising. Here's historical Census Data [1], Table H-1. Income Limits for Each Fifth and Top 5 Percen

Lowest incomes, even inflation adjusted, certainly have been rising. Here's historical Census Data [1], Table H-1. Income Limits for Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent. Maybe you have some large scale data you'd like to share? [1] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-income-households.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p...

Retric 9y ago
From the data you linked: lowest 5th 2001: 24,361 2016: 24,002 that's a net loss over the last 15 years. The numbers rise and fall but: 1979: 21,594 2014: 21,728 Is not what i would call meaningful progress.
- ChrisLomont 9y ago
  Yes, if you cherry pick all time highs (2001) then you can claim they've lost since then. Picking a second case (1979) and oddly comparing it to 2014 instead of 2016 is equally misleading. Instead of cherry-picking dates to suit a narrative, looking at all data, the 2016 income was higher than any year back to 1966 except the 3 years 1999,2000,2001. So of the 50ish years in the data, 2016 ranks in the top 4, and is 96% of the all time high. The trend since the recession is increasing, and if not for the recession, would probably be at all time highs. I would not be surprised if once 2017 or 2018 numbers were in all time values will be reached. So yes, wages are increasing. One reason low end stays mostly flat is it includes all people just starting careers, who have no skills, so it's not unreasonable that the inflation adjusted value they provide is not tremendously increased. Looking at values over this time frame also needs demographics figured in for this reason, and as the workforce becomes younger, wages are expected to become lower, while each individual person at point X in a career still has higher wages. Census reports cover this. Remember avg wages are static snapshots of a moving cohort.
  - Retric 9y ago
    The problem with your argument is the last 40+ years is +/- 10% of ~22,000. Yes there are highs and lows, but that's not progress that's just how well the economy is that year. Basically take 22,000 * a function of unemployment rate and the data is flat over time. PS: Looking at the highest income for a quintile also says very little about it as everyonone is making less than that. You really want the median of the quintile or the average of everyone within that range.
    - ChrisLomont 9y ago
      The mean is a bad metric for the reason I showed above. The median of the quintile is the decile which I was unable to find. However, if I chose the decile, you'd make the same complaint you're making now that it's the highest of that group, so somehow inadmissible as evidence.. As such, the quintile, which is also a median (of the bottom 40%), is a good measure. Plus I presented data for it - if you want another metric show the data. Another quite relevant factor, as I showed above, is as boomers retire, the bottom gets pulled down by people that are not poor. Given that this demographic has swelled the ranks of the bottom quintile over the recent decades, that the pay has slightly increased means for the truly poor the pay has increased even more than listed in this number. The evidence from the BLS I gave above shows that the mean income in the bottom quintile is ~$11K, but the mean expenditures are ~$25k. This is because of retirees, as can be found in Census and BLS reports with some digging. Factor that in :)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
So when I take the median wage by state table, there are 11 states with negative wage growth between 2009 and 2016 and another 16 states where the total inflation adjusted wage growth is less than 5% between those years. That's more than half the country that is either not feeling a recovery at all or is feeling a pretty damn slow one. Edit: Actually looking at this a little more, take the year 2000 (all inflation adjusted numbers.) The lowest fifth of workers have seen wages fall 8.6%. The second fifth of workers have seen wages fall 2.42% in that time, the third fifth has seen wages only rise 0.45%. This is not what I would call a strong time period for workers.
- ChrisLomont 9y ago
  See my reply below. Picking less than half the country population, ignoring the high end, treating small growth as insignificant, then complaining that the result is not the growth you wish it were, is terrible analysis. Instead of picking 2 dates out of 50, look at all dates. 2016 was the highest avg for the lowest quintile for all years back though 1967 except 1999,2000,2001. So out of 50, its #46, at 96% of all time high, has been increasing since the recession, and is headed to record highs. The same trend is true of each quintile.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    >Picking less than half the country population shows the bifurcation of outcomes, you can't just ignore that for half the people incomes haven't been rising >ignoring the high end This is literally how your previous comment begins: "Lowest incomes, even inflation adjusted, certainly have been rising" All I'm doing is demonstrating that no, they haven't really. >treating small growth as insignificant I'm literally giving examples of negative growth... >2016 was the highest avg for the lowest quintile for all years back though 1967 except 1999,2000,2001. Are we looking at the same graph? I see 2016 as being 12,943 for the lowest quintile. These years all beat that: 2008 $12,994 2007 $13,371 2006 $13,513 2005 $13,095 2004 $13,016 2003 $13,044 2002 $13,333 2001 $13,740 2000 $14,161 1999 $14,293 1998 $13,578 1997 $13,189 1996 $13,103 1995 $13,061 1989 $13,075 So out of 50, it's what? #35, 34? >has been increasing since the recession Now who's picking advantageous dates? Wages have been growing since the biggest downturn since the depression? Duh, but they've never caught up to where they were before. >at 96% of all time high It's at 99% of what it was way back in 1989, we can even move past the boom years in 2000/2001, in 2003 and 2004 wages were higher than they are now for this quintile. That's not really endearing to the idea of wage growth. EDIT: I realize that no, we're not looking at the same data, you're looking at the maximum on the range that is included in the lowest quintile whereas I'm looking at the mean of the lowest quintile. Table H-3. I believe mean is obviously going to be a better measure than upper limit of the range.

Retric 9y ago

From the data you linked: lowest 5th 2001: 24,361 2016: 24,002 that's a net loss over the last 15 years. The numbers rise and fall but: 1979: 21,594 2014: 21,728 Is not what i would call meaningful progress.

ChrisLomont 9y ago
Yes, if you cherry pick all time highs (2001) then you can claim they've lost since then. Picking a second case (1979) and oddly comparing it to 2014 instead of 2016 is equally misleading. Instead of cherry-picking dates to suit a narrative, looking at all data, the 2016 income was higher than any year back to 1966 except the 3 years 1999,2000,2001. So of the 50ish years in the data, 2016 ranks in the top 4, and is 96% of the all time high. The trend since the recession is increasing, and if not for the recession, would probably be at all time highs. I would not be surprised if once 2017 or 2018 numbers were in all time values will be reached. So yes, wages are increasing. One reason low end stays mostly flat is it includes all people just starting careers, who have no skills, so it's not unreasonable that the inflation adjusted value they provide is not tremendously increased. Looking at values over this time frame also needs demographics figured in for this reason, and as the workforce becomes younger, wages are expected to become lower, while each individual person at point X in a career still has higher wages. Census reports cover this. Remember avg wages are static snapshots of a moving cohort.
- Retric 9y ago
  The problem with your argument is the last 40+ years is +/- 10% of ~22,000. Yes there are highs and lows, but that's not progress that's just how well the economy is that year. Basically take 22,000 * a function of unemployment rate and the data is flat over time. PS: Looking at the highest income for a quintile also says very little about it as everyonone is making less than that. You really want the median of the quintile or the average of everyone within that range.
  - ChrisLomont 9y ago
    The mean is a bad metric for the reason I showed above. The median of the quintile is the decile which I was unable to find. However, if I chose the decile, you'd make the same complaint you're making now that it's the highest of that group, so somehow inadmissible as evidence.. As such, the quintile, which is also a median (of the bottom 40%), is a good measure. Plus I presented data for it - if you want another metric show the data. Another quite relevant factor, as I showed above, is as boomers retire, the bottom gets pulled down by people that are not poor. Given that this demographic has swelled the ranks of the bottom quintile over the recent decades, that the pay has slightly increased means for the truly poor the pay has increased even more than listed in this number. The evidence from the BLS I gave above shows that the mean income in the bottom quintile is ~$11K, but the mean expenditures are ~$25k. This is because of retirees, as can be found in Census and BLS reports with some digging. Factor that in :)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

So when I take the median wage by state table, there are 11 states with negative wage growth between 2009 and 2016 and another 16 states where the total inflation adjusted wage growth is less than 5% between those years. That's more than half the country that is either not feeling a recovery at all or is feeling a pretty damn slow one. Edit: Actually looking at this a little more, take the year 2000 (all inflation adjusted numbers.) The lowest fifth of workers have seen wages fall 8.6%. The second fifth of workers have seen wages fall 2.42% in that time, the third fifth has seen wages only rise 0.45%. This is not what I would call a strong time period for workers.

ChrisLomont 9y ago
See my reply below. Picking less than half the country population, ignoring the high end, treating small growth as insignificant, then complaining that the result is not the growth you wish it were, is terrible analysis. Instead of picking 2 dates out of 50, look at all dates. 2016 was the highest avg for the lowest quintile for all years back though 1967 except 1999,2000,2001. So out of 50, its #46, at 96% of all time high, has been increasing since the recession, and is headed to record highs. The same trend is true of each quintile.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >Picking less than half the country population shows the bifurcation of outcomes, you can't just ignore that for half the people incomes haven't been rising >ignoring the high end This is literally how your previous comment begins: "Lowest incomes, even inflation adjusted, certainly have been rising" All I'm doing is demonstrating that no, they haven't really. >treating small growth as insignificant I'm literally giving examples of negative growth... >2016 was the highest avg for the lowest quintile for all years back though 1967 except 1999,2000,2001. Are we looking at the same graph? I see 2016 as being 12,943 for the lowest quintile. These years all beat that: 2008 $12,994 2007 $13,371 2006 $13,513 2005 $13,095 2004 $13,016 2003 $13,044 2002 $13,333 2001 $13,740 2000 $14,161 1999 $14,293 1998 $13,578 1997 $13,189 1996 $13,103 1995 $13,061 1989 $13,075 So out of 50, it's what? #35, 34? >has been increasing since the recession Now who's picking advantageous dates? Wages have been growing since the biggest downturn since the depression? Duh, but they've never caught up to where they were before. >at 96% of all time high It's at 99% of what it was way back in 1989, we can even move past the boom years in 2000/2001, in 2003 and 2004 wages were higher than they are now for this quintile. That's not really endearing to the idea of wage growth. EDIT: I realize that no, we're not looking at the same data, you're looking at the maximum on the range that is included in the lowest quintile whereas I'm looking at the mean of the lowest quintile. Table H-3. I believe mean is obviously going to be a better measure than upper limit of the range.