4 ms·

According to BEA, "State personal income increased 4.4 percent in 2019, after increasing 5.6 percent in 2018". This is not median data, so the median would like

According to BEA, "State personal income increased 4.4 percent in 2019, after increasing 5.6 percent in 2018". This is not median data, so the median would likely have increased even less. [1] https://www.bea.gov/news/2020/state-annual-personal-income-2019-preliminary-and-state-quarterly-personal-income-4th https://www.bea.gov/news/2020/state-annual-personal-income-2...

bhupy 6y ago
The linked FRED data is median data.
- shakethemonkey 6y ago
  Why is it at such variance with the BEA data? That is my question.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Oh you’re not talking about the FRED data, which examines real median personal income over time (which has been constantly increasing). You’re talking about why the BEA data doesn’t line up with the US Census Bureau data for 2019. That’s probably because the BEA data is average growth while the US Census data shows the median income growth. For year 2019, we noticed that wage growth was largely driven by the lower quintiles: https://www.hiringlab.org/2019/03/05/february-jobs-report-preview/ https://www.hiringlab.org/2019/03/05/february-jobs-report-pr... This can largely explain the discrepancy. In other words, the assertion that “median would have increased even less” actually turned out to not be true, empirically.
    - shakethemonkey 6y ago
      Ah, so a one-off anomaly. Over time it seems that median income is considerably underperforming. [1][2] [1] https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-1.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-1.html [2] https://www.fastcompany.com/90550015/we-were-shocked-rand-study-uncovers-massive-income-shift-to-the-top-1 https://www.fastcompany.com/90550015/we-were-shocked-rand-st...
      - bhupy 6y ago
        Sure, we have seen "anomalous" years for median earners from time to time, but it's important to remember that over time real median income has still been increasing as a function of the business cycle — I.e. the first derivative has always been positive during bull economies (see: FRED historic data). Sometimes the second derivative is also positive, which isn't uncommon. In 2019, the second derivative was not only positive, it was very positive.

bhupy 6y ago

The linked FRED data is median data.

shakethemonkey 6y ago
Why is it at such variance with the BEA data? That is my question.
- bhupy 6y ago
  Oh you’re not talking about the FRED data, which examines real median personal income over time (which has been constantly increasing). You’re talking about why the BEA data doesn’t line up with the US Census Bureau data for 2019. That’s probably because the BEA data is average growth while the US Census data shows the median income growth. For year 2019, we noticed that wage growth was largely driven by the lower quintiles: https://www.hiringlab.org/2019/03/05/february-jobs-report-preview/ https://www.hiringlab.org/2019/03/05/february-jobs-report-pr... This can largely explain the discrepancy. In other words, the assertion that “median would have increased even less” actually turned out to not be true, empirically.
  - shakethemonkey 6y ago
    Ah, so a one-off anomaly. Over time it seems that median income is considerably underperforming. [1][2] [1] https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-1.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-1.html [2] https://www.fastcompany.com/90550015/we-were-shocked-rand-study-uncovers-massive-income-shift-to-the-top-1 https://www.fastcompany.com/90550015/we-were-shocked-rand-st...
    - bhupy 6y ago
      Sure, we have seen "anomalous" years for median earners from time to time, but it's important to remember that over time real median income has still been increasing as a function of the business cycle — I.e. the first derivative has always been positive during bull economies (see: FRED historic data). Sometimes the second derivative is also positive, which isn't uncommon. In 2019, the second derivative was not only positive, it was very positive.