10 ms·

July 2018 Median Household Income in the U.S.

78 points by alecco 8y ago

endymi0n 8y ago
Looking at the graph, an at least equally accurate headline would be „inflation-adjusted median US income stays flat since the last 20 years while share of expenses for medical, housing, childcare and education costs skyrockets in the same time“
- tomhoward 8y ago
  I know the validity of the CPI is controversial, and I'm expressing no opinion on its makeup and accuracy, but in theory the CPI is meant to adjust for all those items. https://www.investopedia.com/university/releases/cpi.asp https://www.investopedia.com/university/releases/cpi.asp
  - sgc 8y ago
    Those are not CPI charts, but derived from them. And they are not accurate for the last few years due to methodological changes, where most of the supposed catch up has occurred. From a PEW study using the same numbers: "The 2015 ASEC utilized a redesigned set of income questions, so the household income figures reported for calendar year 2014 may not be fully comparable to earlier years. The 2014 ASEC tested the new redesigned income questions by offering five-eighths of the sample the traditional income questions and three-eighths of the sample the redesigned questions. Median household income for calendar year 2013 was $53,585 (in 2013 dollars) based on the redesigned income questions compared with an estimated $51,939 using the traditional income questions. The difference reflects both the different questionnaire and the different sampled households responding to the questionnaires." http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/methodology/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/methodology/ Nonetheless, even though these numbers attempt to take costs into account, and even if they were accurate, remaining stagnant over almost two decades of intense technological development indicates a societal failure.
    - politicalcalcs 8y ago
      Yes and no. The ASEC survey is capturing total money income, which is not the same as total compensation. It's an important difference, because total compensation includes things like the value of employer-provided health insurance that has never been included in the total money income measure. Also keep in mind that a lot of that intense technological development has resulted in falling costs for a wide variety of goods over time. http://www.aei.org/publication/the-chart-of-the-century-makes-the-rounds-at-the-federal-reserve/ http://www.aei.org/publication/the-chart-of-the-century-make... One of the bigger questions that society needs to answer is why the costs of the things that have been rising so much faster than incomes are doing so.
      - HarryHirsch 8y ago
        value of employer-provided health insurance that has never been included in the total money income measure How do you measure the value of that health insureance? You can of course post the sticker price, but the healthcare that the dollar buys you is difficult to measure. Life expectancy tells that the rest of the OECD is there with the US but pays 25 % of the costs. Also keep in mind that a lot of that intense technological development has resulted in falling costs for a wide variety of goods over time It's like a certain re-work of the Bible. Their version of Revelation 6 reads : "A pound of bread will now be 90 Euros. But the price of a Porsche will remain unchanged." And we all thought that the Apocalypse of St John was literature, not an accurate prediction of the future! Yes, technological progress can bring down the price of an i-Pad but won't do anything about the rent.
      - sgc 8y ago
        > One of the bigger questions that society needs to answer is why the costs of the things that have been rising so much faster than incomes are doing so. I don't really think it is a question that needs to be answered, but a problem that needs to be resolved. It's pretty well documented that income inequality in the US is at an all time high and will only get worse with more automation and recent changes to the tax codes.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- Shivetya 8y ago
  What do those four areas have in common, incredible levels of government manipulation and funding. Seriously, the areas where the government subsidizes, buries under regulation, or bleats about during election season, are all areas that suffer higher than normal costs increases.
  - seibelj 8y ago
    Yes, and a lot of left-leaning people continue to think that “just a bit more government regulation and subsidies” and they’ll get it right - this time for sure! Housing - build more and higher density. Healthcare - price transparency and make it easier to shop around. Incentivize frugality. Education - stop letting 18 year olds take out $200k in loans for poetry degrees. It’s almost like industries protected from essential market functions become disasters! Who would have thought?
    - prolikewh0a 8y ago
      >Education - stop letting 18 year olds take out $200k in loans for poetry degrees. This sounds like government regulation? >Housing - build more and higher density. How do you account for the fact that not really anybody is making housing for the poor or low income, affordable housing because it's not profitable? There's plenty of demand, but extremely low supply. Would that be accomplished with government regulation and subsidies? >Healthcare - price transparency and make it easier to shop around. Incentivize frugality. Richest country on Earth ever, and we need to be frugal and maybe skip our insulin prescription this month. I don't think Government is the problem, the extreme want for extraordinary wealth and power created by this system of unchecked runaway Capitalism and that very influence of corruption on almost every representative is the problem.
      - seibelj 8y ago
        > >Education - stop letting 18 year olds take out $200k in loans for poetry degrees. > This sounds like government regulation? No - the reason students can take outrageous loans is that the government enforces that they always get paid back. There is no bankruptcy discharge for student debt. Consequently, universities increase prices as the government allows students to take more debt. No bank in the world would provide a $200k loan for a poetry degree if it could be discharged in bankruptcy. > >Housing - build more and higher density. > How do you account for the fact that not really anybody is making housing for the poor or low income, affordable housing because it's not profitable? There's plenty of demand, but extremely low supply. Would that be accomplished with government regulation and subsidies? The amount of red tape and bureaucracy required for building new housing, and other requirements like minimum lot sizes, makes it more economical to build higher-end units. But even with that, more total supply filters down and helps stabilize prices, including the lower end. The ultimate left-wing fantasy is rent control, as if regulating prices by government fiat magically solves the problem. > >Healthcare - price transparency and make it easier to shop around. Incentivize frugality. > Richest country on Earth ever, and we need to be frugal and maybe skip our insulin prescription this month. No, but if you were able to shop around for a major, but scheduled, surgery such as a hip replacement, you may choose a cheaper option if you were appropriately incentivized. People already fly to foreign countries to get procedures done, because travel, hotel, and the procedure are still cheaper and higher-quality than the American healthcare system.
zaroth 8y ago
It’s entirely expected that unemployment this low will increase wage growth. What’s different this time is that inflation has been so tame this far into the process. At this point in the 2000s boom cycle we saw inflation was ticking over 5%, whereas today it remains tame under 3%. This means for the first time in a long time the higher wage growth is actually making a significant difference in people’s real income. Another factor that’s not widely reported is that the insurance marketplaces seem to be stabilizing and rate increases for 2019 are single-digit and some areas are even seeing decreases. Compared to the 20, 30, 40% increases in the early years of the marketplace that makes a huge difference.
- mikhailt 8y ago
  Except inflation mask the deeper issues, housing and health care has been increasing faster than inflation rate in many years. PcW reports health care (employee only) at 5.5-7.5 rate annually since 2010. They expect 2019 to have 6% rate. It is interesting how you see that since I see it differently; 1. It is not a significant difference in real income since the costs of housing and health care cost has been increasing much faster than inflation. 2. The "rate" of the marketplace "premium" may be smaller, that does not mean the value of the plan is the same. They've been crippling the plans every year in my marketplace to remove max costs, so that in the long run, you will end up paying much more in medical costs. A few years ago, I wouldn't have to pay anything after a certain amount, drugs are covered, and now, for nearly 20% more monthly premium, I have to pay for all drugs, 20% of all medical costs even after deductible. 3. Insurance mandate expires in 2019. I'll just drop insurance as it's already too expensive even if the "premium" is only 10% higher than last year. It would've been cheaper before the ACA with some decent plans.
- adventured 8y ago
  Student borrowing has also flattened off to single digit increases, similar to healthcare cost increases. Either those things have nearly maxed out their cost potential, or it's the strong dollar (the dollar imploded during the disastrous Bush years, which sent nearly everything priced in dollars skyrocketing that wasn't nailed down (consumer prices and wages were largely nailed down)). Might be a combination of those things. The average student debt acquired for a four year degree, has been nearly flat for six years, after soaring from $20k to $30k in six or seven years (between the years '05-06 and '11-12). This six year span is the longest period of flat growth in individual student debt accumulation in a quarter century.
dis-sys 8y ago
trump is going to take full credit of that and mention it many many times.
- xienze 8y ago
  And he'd be right to get mileage out of it. The media would certainly hang it around his neck if the opposite were true. Can you imagine the media saying "now let's be fair to President Trump, the current economic situation is due to Obama-era policies" if we were in the middle of a recession right now?
  - claydavisss 8y ago
    Like what? TARP, for example, came out of the tail end of the Bush administration (literally and figuratively)
politicalcalcs 8y ago
Here's the update for August 2018: http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2018/10/august-2018-median-household-income.html http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2018/10/august-201...
- alecco 8y ago
  Excellent job there. Thanks.
CzechTech 8y ago
And it'd only going to get better. Once Trump gets that Nobel prize for defusing North Korea, we are going to see leftists jumping off buildings. What a sight! You don't even need helicopters.
cygx 8y ago
Personally, I like to check the ratio of median to mean household income as a crude measure of socio-economic polarization. It's not pretty: https://i.imgur.com/58MIBxB.png https://i.imgur.com/58MIBxB.png edit: here's an alternative version for those who think letting the y-axis start at 70 is too confusing: https://i.imgur.com/zSNjZY2.png https://i.imgur.com/zSNjZY2.png
- klipt 8y ago
  Enlightening, but terrible choice of axes ... I thought it was trending down to 0 at first!
  - cygx 8y ago
    Letting the y-axis start at 0 loses too much detail.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      If you’re interested in the yearly swings, convert it to a annual % change graph (and start that at 0). What you really means is that using an honest scale makes the trend look less dramatic.
      - cygx 8y ago
        I just googled the data[1], removed the duplicate entry for 2013 from the Excel spreadsheet when the methodology changed (shoddy on my part, I know) and made a graph from it that was readable in the five minutes before I posted my comment. Feel free to post a better presentation of the data. [1] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2018/demo/income-poverty/p60-263.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2018/demo/income-poverty/...
        chmln 8y ago
        The parent post has a point. Five minutes or not, it is ultimately deceptive. What really is a ~22% drop since 1970s looks like a 100% drop on first sight.
rory096 8y ago
Required reading for any discussion on median household income. Note in particular compositional effects - household size and mix have changed over time. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where-has-all-the-income-gone https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where...
- rayiner 8y ago
  It’s fascinating to me how much of our discourse is based on “facts” that simply aren’t true.
  - rory096 8y ago
    I think it's overstating the case to say there's "no there there" in income stagnation - other and more recent data point to alarming trends in total individual compensation and in overall inequality. But it's important to take into account the flaws in certain metrics we use.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      I’m not suggesting there is no “there there.” Just that here is this basic shibboleth, trotted out multiple times a week by the media, that’s just not true. Does it mean everything is fine? No. Does it suggest that we’re living with the mixed results of various well intentioned policies, rather than the outcome of actual cartoon villany? I think so.
      - rory096 8y ago
        Agreed. Didn't mean to suggest that's what you were saying, just to address the general point.
  - IkmoIkmo 8y ago
    This frustrates me to no end. I'm quite alright with being exposed to extreme left and right wing opinions on a daily basis. But I simply can't stand all blatant misinformation which is fuelling seemingly ever increasing levels of indignation about issues that aren't even really real issues. I get particularly disheartened when I see clickbait titles such as 'income flat again: 10 years straight' from traditionally trustworthy public news channels (those EU institutions that have been around for many decades, aren't funded by advertising and have social, not commercial motives). And then I think, no way, I click, and all the way down the article it has a brief memo where it says 'some economists say this is merely an interpretation, as we were referring to household income being flat, even though the number of people who lived in the household decreased. This could also be interpreted as rising incomes and everyone having more real estate per person'. At that point it just strikes me that they intentionally made good news look bad, an organisation looking only to inform the public, not get clicks. It's like the disaster industry isn't even dependent on commercial incentives anymore, it's like this cultural trait journalists seem to have. (or I dare say get the impression, have developed as of late, but I'd probably be myopic to say that.)
droidist2 8y ago
Uh oh, better raise those interest rates. Can't have inflation creeping up. Now that the middle class is starting to get a bit of the gains, the business cycle needs to be reset.
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  Don't make any mistake, the middle class still isn't getting any gains.
  - hak8or 8y ago
    How isn't it making any gains? Anyone who has retirement savings invested properly (in stocks, not under a mattress or in a bank) is making use of these gains.
    - prolikewh0a 8y ago
      They don't have stocks and probably not much of a retirement. Those things are reserved for the already wealthy. http://time.com/money/5054009/stock-ownership-10-percent-richest/ http://time.com/money/5054009/stock-ownership-10-percent-ric...

78 points by alecco 8y ago

Looking at the graph, an at least equally accurate headline would be „inflation-adjusted median US income stays flat since the last 20 years while share of expenses for medical, housing, childcare and education costs skyrockets in the same time“

tomhoward 8y ago
I know the validity of the CPI is controversial, and I'm expressing no opinion on its makeup and accuracy, but in theory the CPI is meant to adjust for all those items. https://www.investopedia.com/university/releases/cpi.asp https://www.investopedia.com/university/releases/cpi.asp
- sgc 8y ago
  Those are not CPI charts, but derived from them. And they are not accurate for the last few years due to methodological changes, where most of the supposed catch up has occurred. From a PEW study using the same numbers: "The 2015 ASEC utilized a redesigned set of income questions, so the household income figures reported for calendar year 2014 may not be fully comparable to earlier years. The 2014 ASEC tested the new redesigned income questions by offering five-eighths of the sample the traditional income questions and three-eighths of the sample the redesigned questions. Median household income for calendar year 2013 was $53,585 (in 2013 dollars) based on the redesigned income questions compared with an estimated $51,939 using the traditional income questions. The difference reflects both the different questionnaire and the different sampled households responding to the questionnaires." http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/methodology/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/methodology/ Nonetheless, even though these numbers attempt to take costs into account, and even if they were accurate, remaining stagnant over almost two decades of intense technological development indicates a societal failure.
  - politicalcalcs 8y ago
    Yes and no. The ASEC survey is capturing total money income, which is not the same as total compensation. It's an important difference, because total compensation includes things like the value of employer-provided health insurance that has never been included in the total money income measure. Also keep in mind that a lot of that intense technological development has resulted in falling costs for a wide variety of goods over time. http://www.aei.org/publication/the-chart-of-the-century-makes-the-rounds-at-the-federal-reserve/ http://www.aei.org/publication/the-chart-of-the-century-make... One of the bigger questions that society needs to answer is why the costs of the things that have been rising so much faster than incomes are doing so.
    - HarryHirsch 8y ago
      value of employer-provided health insurance that has never been included in the total money income measure How do you measure the value of that health insureance? You can of course post the sticker price, but the healthcare that the dollar buys you is difficult to measure. Life expectancy tells that the rest of the OECD is there with the US but pays 25 % of the costs. Also keep in mind that a lot of that intense technological development has resulted in falling costs for a wide variety of goods over time It's like a certain re-work of the Bible. Their version of Revelation 6 reads : "A pound of bread will now be 90 Euros. But the price of a Porsche will remain unchanged." And we all thought that the Apocalypse of St John was literature, not an accurate prediction of the future! Yes, technological progress can bring down the price of an i-Pad but won't do anything about the rent.
    - sgc 8y ago
      > One of the bigger questions that society needs to answer is why the costs of the things that have been rising so much faster than incomes are doing so. I don't really think it is a question that needs to be answered, but a problem that needs to be resolved. It's pretty well documented that income inequality in the US is at an all time high and will only get worse with more automation and recent changes to the tax codes.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Shivetya 8y ago
What do those four areas have in common, incredible levels of government manipulation and funding. Seriously, the areas where the government subsidizes, buries under regulation, or bleats about during election season, are all areas that suffer higher than normal costs increases.
- seibelj 8y ago
  Yes, and a lot of left-leaning people continue to think that “just a bit more government regulation and subsidies” and they’ll get it right - this time for sure! Housing - build more and higher density. Healthcare - price transparency and make it easier to shop around. Incentivize frugality. Education - stop letting 18 year olds take out $200k in loans for poetry degrees. It’s almost like industries protected from essential market functions become disasters! Who would have thought?
  - prolikewh0a 8y ago
    >Education - stop letting 18 year olds take out $200k in loans for poetry degrees. This sounds like government regulation? >Housing - build more and higher density. How do you account for the fact that not really anybody is making housing for the poor or low income, affordable housing because it's not profitable? There's plenty of demand, but extremely low supply. Would that be accomplished with government regulation and subsidies? >Healthcare - price transparency and make it easier to shop around. Incentivize frugality. Richest country on Earth ever, and we need to be frugal and maybe skip our insulin prescription this month. I don't think Government is the problem, the extreme want for extraordinary wealth and power created by this system of unchecked runaway Capitalism and that very influence of corruption on almost every representative is the problem.
    - seibelj 8y ago
      > >Education - stop letting 18 year olds take out $200k in loans for poetry degrees. > This sounds like government regulation? No - the reason students can take outrageous loans is that the government enforces that they always get paid back. There is no bankruptcy discharge for student debt. Consequently, universities increase prices as the government allows students to take more debt. No bank in the world would provide a $200k loan for a poetry degree if it could be discharged in bankruptcy. > >Housing - build more and higher density. > How do you account for the fact that not really anybody is making housing for the poor or low income, affordable housing because it's not profitable? There's plenty of demand, but extremely low supply. Would that be accomplished with government regulation and subsidies? The amount of red tape and bureaucracy required for building new housing, and other requirements like minimum lot sizes, makes it more economical to build higher-end units. But even with that, more total supply filters down and helps stabilize prices, including the lower end. The ultimate left-wing fantasy is rent control, as if regulating prices by government fiat magically solves the problem. > >Healthcare - price transparency and make it easier to shop around. Incentivize frugality. > Richest country on Earth ever, and we need to be frugal and maybe skip our insulin prescription this month. No, but if you were able to shop around for a major, but scheduled, surgery such as a hip replacement, you may choose a cheaper option if you were appropriately incentivized. People already fly to foreign countries to get procedures done, because travel, hotel, and the procedure are still cheaper and higher-quality than the American healthcare system.

zaroth 8y ago

It’s entirely expected that unemployment this low will increase wage growth. What’s different this time is that inflation has been so tame this far into the process. At this point in the 2000s boom cycle we saw inflation was ticking over 5%, whereas today it remains tame under 3%. This means for the first time in a long time the higher wage growth is actually making a significant difference in people’s real income. Another factor that’s not widely reported is that the insurance marketplaces seem to be stabilizing and rate increases for 2019 are single-digit and some areas are even seeing decreases. Compared to the 20, 30, 40% increases in the early years of the marketplace that makes a huge difference.

mikhailt 8y ago
Except inflation mask the deeper issues, housing and health care has been increasing faster than inflation rate in many years. PcW reports health care (employee only) at 5.5-7.5 rate annually since 2010. They expect 2019 to have 6% rate. It is interesting how you see that since I see it differently; 1. It is not a significant difference in real income since the costs of housing and health care cost has been increasing much faster than inflation. 2. The "rate" of the marketplace "premium" may be smaller, that does not mean the value of the plan is the same. They've been crippling the plans every year in my marketplace to remove max costs, so that in the long run, you will end up paying much more in medical costs. A few years ago, I wouldn't have to pay anything after a certain amount, drugs are covered, and now, for nearly 20% more monthly premium, I have to pay for all drugs, 20% of all medical costs even after deductible. 3. Insurance mandate expires in 2019. I'll just drop insurance as it's already too expensive even if the "premium" is only 10% higher than last year. It would've been cheaper before the ACA with some decent plans.
adventured 8y ago
Student borrowing has also flattened off to single digit increases, similar to healthcare cost increases. Either those things have nearly maxed out their cost potential, or it's the strong dollar (the dollar imploded during the disastrous Bush years, which sent nearly everything priced in dollars skyrocketing that wasn't nailed down (consumer prices and wages were largely nailed down)). Might be a combination of those things. The average student debt acquired for a four year degree, has been nearly flat for six years, after soaring from $20k to $30k in six or seven years (between the years '05-06 and '11-12). This six year span is the longest period of flat growth in individual student debt accumulation in a quarter century.

dis-sys 8y ago

trump is going to take full credit of that and mention it many many times.

xienze 8y ago
And he'd be right to get mileage out of it. The media would certainly hang it around his neck if the opposite were true. Can you imagine the media saying "now let's be fair to President Trump, the current economic situation is due to Obama-era policies" if we were in the middle of a recession right now?
- claydavisss 8y ago
  Like what? TARP, for example, came out of the tail end of the Bush administration (literally and figuratively)

politicalcalcs 8y ago

Here's the update for August 2018: http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2018/10/august-2018-median-household-income.html http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2018/10/august-201...

alecco 8y ago
Excellent job there. Thanks.

CzechTech 8y ago

And it'd only going to get better. Once Trump gets that Nobel prize for defusing North Korea, we are going to see leftists jumping off buildings. What a sight! You don't even need helicopters.

cygx 8y ago

Personally, I like to check the ratio of median to mean household income as a crude measure of socio-economic polarization. It's not pretty: https://i.imgur.com/58MIBxB.png https://i.imgur.com/58MIBxB.png edit: here's an alternative version for those who think letting the y-axis start at 70 is too confusing: https://i.imgur.com/zSNjZY2.png https://i.imgur.com/zSNjZY2.png

klipt 8y ago
Enlightening, but terrible choice of axes ... I thought it was trending down to 0 at first!
- cygx 8y ago
  Letting the y-axis start at 0 loses too much detail.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    If you’re interested in the yearly swings, convert it to a annual % change graph (and start that at 0). What you really means is that using an honest scale makes the trend look less dramatic.
    - cygx 8y ago
      I just googled the data[1], removed the duplicate entry for 2013 from the Excel spreadsheet when the methodology changed (shoddy on my part, I know) and made a graph from it that was readable in the five minutes before I posted my comment. Feel free to post a better presentation of the data. [1] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2018/demo/income-poverty/p60-263.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2018/demo/income-poverty/...
      - chmln 8y ago
        The parent post has a point. Five minutes or not, it is ultimately deceptive. What really is a ~22% drop since 1970s looks like a 100% drop on first sight.

rory096 8y ago

Required reading for any discussion on median household income. Note in particular compositional effects - household size and mix have changed over time. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where-has-all-the-income-gone https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where...

rayiner 8y ago
It’s fascinating to me how much of our discourse is based on “facts” that simply aren’t true.
- rory096 8y ago
  I think it's overstating the case to say there's "no there there" in income stagnation - other and more recent data point to alarming trends in total individual compensation and in overall inequality. But it's important to take into account the flaws in certain metrics we use.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    I’m not suggesting there is no “there there.” Just that here is this basic shibboleth, trotted out multiple times a week by the media, that’s just not true. Does it mean everything is fine? No. Does it suggest that we’re living with the mixed results of various well intentioned policies, rather than the outcome of actual cartoon villany? I think so.
    - rory096 8y ago
      Agreed. Didn't mean to suggest that's what you were saying, just to address the general point.
- IkmoIkmo 8y ago
  This frustrates me to no end. I'm quite alright with being exposed to extreme left and right wing opinions on a daily basis. But I simply can't stand all blatant misinformation which is fuelling seemingly ever increasing levels of indignation about issues that aren't even really real issues. I get particularly disheartened when I see clickbait titles such as 'income flat again: 10 years straight' from traditionally trustworthy public news channels (those EU institutions that have been around for many decades, aren't funded by advertising and have social, not commercial motives). And then I think, no way, I click, and all the way down the article it has a brief memo where it says 'some economists say this is merely an interpretation, as we were referring to household income being flat, even though the number of people who lived in the household decreased. This could also be interpreted as rising incomes and everyone having more real estate per person'. At that point it just strikes me that they intentionally made good news look bad, an organisation looking only to inform the public, not get clicks. It's like the disaster industry isn't even dependent on commercial incentives anymore, it's like this cultural trait journalists seem to have. (or I dare say get the impression, have developed as of late, but I'd probably be myopic to say that.)

droidist2 8y ago

Uh oh, better raise those interest rates. Can't have inflation creeping up. Now that the middle class is starting to get a bit of the gains, the business cycle needs to be reset.

prolikewh0a 8y ago
Don't make any mistake, the middle class still isn't getting any gains.
- hak8or 8y ago
  How isn't it making any gains? Anyone who has retirement savings invested properly (in stocks, not under a mattress or in a bank) is making use of these gains.
  - prolikewh0a 8y ago
    They don't have stocks and probably not much of a retirement. Those things are reserved for the already wealthy. http://time.com/money/5054009/stock-ownership-10-percent-richest/ http://time.com/money/5054009/stock-ownership-10-percent-ric...