5 ms·

That is quite the abuse of statistics! US GDP (edit: inflation-adjusted) was $5 trillion in 1970, and $19 trillion in 2019. The income percentage of the middle

That is quite the abuse of statistics! US GDP (edit: inflation-adjusted) was $5 trillion in 1970, and $19 trillion in 2019. The income percentage of the middle three quintiles went down from 53% to 45%, but 45% of $19 trillion is still much, much more than 53% of $5 trillion. Income for this group did not shrink, it just grew more slowly than other groups. The income was "lost" relative to a hypothetical world in which the economy was the same size as in 2019 but the middle quintiles had a larger income fraction, not the actual world in 1970 or any other past year.

freepor 6y ago
Please familiarize yourself with the terms “per capita” and “inflation.”
- apsec112 6y ago
  The numbers I used were inflation-adjusted. I gave total income because that's what the parent comment referenced, but per capita income has grown too, although not as much (US population is up 60%, compared to total income growth for this group of 223%). Also, "please familiarize yourself" is a slightly rude way of putting it.
  - abfan1127 6y ago
    English might be his/her second language. Thank you for shining a light on the middle class income.
economicslol 6y ago
Speaking of abuse of statistics, lumping the bottom 20-40% with the top 60-80% of wage earners is extremely deceptive. It's well known that income growth is wildly different for those groups. Inflation adjusted wages for the median worker only increased by 9% from 1973 to 2014.
- stanfordkid 6y ago
  True. But how much did the productive output of the average American increase? Can we really expect things to "always increase" -- including wages? To me this seems like an absurd idea. The end goal should be improving the median quality of life, through improving the efficiency of factors of production -- lower cost of goods... not through the expectation that the wages should arbitrarily grow linearly with GDP.
  - toiletfuneral 6y ago
    increasing efficiency isn't going to help wildfires in Australia, reduce the amount of plastic in the pacific or save any glaciers but wow, congrats on getting shoes for $11 instead of $16
  - owenmarshall 6y ago
    > But how much did the productive output of the average American increase? Around one hundred percent. https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm
    - Aunche 6y ago
      They probably meant median productive output. Sam Walton and Bezos made their supply chains 100% more efficient. It’s not as if warehouse workers suddenly were able to lift 100% more weight.
      - taurath 6y ago
        Standardized pallets and forklifts can make them lift a hell of a lot more weight
        Aunche 6y ago
        The people who load pallets are moving just as many boxes as they used to. Sure they play a part in the productivity, but I don't see how it's unfair if they make the same amount for the same work.
igravious 6y ago
> Income for this group did not shrink, it just grew more slowly than other groups Another way of saying that it grew more slowly than other groups is that it shrank.
- apsec112 6y ago
  If your first child grows four inches and your second child grows six inches, you don't say that the first kid shrank.
  - seisvelas 6y ago
    Wow, this simple comment completely changed my point of view on this argument. What a beautiful, almost laconically effective analogy. edit: not being sarcastic, I just really admire effective communication (to whoever downvoted me </3)
    - ALittleLight 6y ago
      I don't think it should have. Height is objective. I don't get taller or shorter based on other people's heights. Money isn't like that. If the amount of money in a system increases without a commensurate increase in the amount of goods and services, that could be decrease my purchasing power. Another way of phrasing it: child 1 used to be the tallest. The other children grew and now 1 is the shortest. The objective height of 1 may have increased, but relative stature declined. The figure to think about is purchasing power. How much stuff can you buy with your money, whatever the numerical quantity of that money is. Purchasing power has been roughly flat for the past 40 years for the middle class [1]. The economy is growing, but almost all of that growth is captured by the upper class. Things that the middle class mostly spend their money on, healthcare, education, housing - has all been getting disproportionately more expensive too. So it's not just that the effective earnings aren't increasing, it's also that the things middle class families spend on are getting more expensive. It's complicated to think about, but that's partly why you shouldn't trust pithy analogies that try to make stagnant income for the middle class seem acceptable. As the saying goes - for every hard problem there's an answer that's simple, elegant, and wrong. "Everyone is getting richer, just at different rates, like your children grow at different rates" is one such answer. In reality, your upper class child is gigantic, fat, and eating more while the other children haven't developed in years. 1 - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...

freepor 6y ago

Please familiarize yourself with the terms “per capita” and “inflation.”

apsec112 6y ago
The numbers I used were inflation-adjusted. I gave total income because that's what the parent comment referenced, but per capita income has grown too, although not as much (US population is up 60%, compared to total income growth for this group of 223%). Also, "please familiarize yourself" is a slightly rude way of putting it.
- abfan1127 6y ago
  English might be his/her second language. Thank you for shining a light on the middle class income.

economicslol 6y ago

Speaking of abuse of statistics, lumping the bottom 20-40% with the top 60-80% of wage earners is extremely deceptive. It's well known that income growth is wildly different for those groups. Inflation adjusted wages for the median worker only increased by 9% from 1973 to 2014.

stanfordkid 6y ago
True. But how much did the productive output of the average American increase? Can we really expect things to "always increase" -- including wages? To me this seems like an absurd idea. The end goal should be improving the median quality of life, through improving the efficiency of factors of production -- lower cost of goods... not through the expectation that the wages should arbitrarily grow linearly with GDP.
- toiletfuneral 6y ago
  increasing efficiency isn't going to help wildfires in Australia, reduce the amount of plastic in the pacific or save any glaciers but wow, congrats on getting shoes for $11 instead of $16
- owenmarshall 6y ago
  > But how much did the productive output of the average American increase? Around one hundred percent. https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm
  - Aunche 6y ago
    They probably meant median productive output. Sam Walton and Bezos made their supply chains 100% more efficient. It’s not as if warehouse workers suddenly were able to lift 100% more weight.
    - taurath 6y ago
      Standardized pallets and forklifts can make them lift a hell of a lot more weight
      - Aunche 6y ago
        The people who load pallets are moving just as many boxes as they used to. Sure they play a part in the productivity, but I don't see how it's unfair if they make the same amount for the same work.

igravious 6y ago

> Income for this group did not shrink, it just grew more slowly than other groups Another way of saying that it grew more slowly than other groups is that it shrank.

apsec112 6y ago
If your first child grows four inches and your second child grows six inches, you don't say that the first kid shrank.
- seisvelas 6y ago
  Wow, this simple comment completely changed my point of view on this argument. What a beautiful, almost laconically effective analogy. edit: not being sarcastic, I just really admire effective communication (to whoever downvoted me </3)
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    I don't think it should have. Height is objective. I don't get taller or shorter based on other people's heights. Money isn't like that. If the amount of money in a system increases without a commensurate increase in the amount of goods and services, that could be decrease my purchasing power. Another way of phrasing it: child 1 used to be the tallest. The other children grew and now 1 is the shortest. The objective height of 1 may have increased, but relative stature declined. The figure to think about is purchasing power. How much stuff can you buy with your money, whatever the numerical quantity of that money is. Purchasing power has been roughly flat for the past 40 years for the middle class [1]. The economy is growing, but almost all of that growth is captured by the upper class. Things that the middle class mostly spend their money on, healthcare, education, housing - has all been getting disproportionately more expensive too. So it's not just that the effective earnings aren't increasing, it's also that the things middle class families spend on are getting more expensive. It's complicated to think about, but that's partly why you shouldn't trust pithy analogies that try to make stagnant income for the middle class seem acceptable. As the saying goes - for every hard problem there's an answer that's simple, elegant, and wrong. "Everyone is getting richer, just at different rates, like your children grow at different rates" is one such answer. In reality, your upper class child is gigantic, fat, and eating more while the other children haven't developed in years. 1 - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...