Off Topic Discussion about economics in the latter part of the 20th century

[boldbidder]

I was a kid growing up during the Nixon/Carter years. I remember the suffering my family went through as a result of hippie liberal politics. I also remember the growth and prosperity of the Reagan years as my lower middle class family prospered, moved to a better house, and then a better house, and I was able to get a degree at a university with relatively little debt.


Music, you should count your family as one of the fortunate one's who were successful during the Reagan era as it was in no way shape or form representative of the larger population. From 1980 - 2007 the inflation adjusted income of the wealthy grew 7X while the inflation income of the median household only grew 22%, less than half of what it had done during the previous 25+ years under the guidance of hippie policies.

[Doppelbock]

I'm largely fiscally conservative although I think government should provide a variety of social programs for its citizens, specifically in regards to education. On social issues I'm an unabashed liberal, history repeatedly demonstrates that social conservatives ultimately wind up on the wrong side of the argument, ALL people deserve to have the same freedoms and liberties as the privileged class.

You are largely fiscally conservative, but want government to provide a variety of social programs? Those two ideas are somewhat contradictory.

And as far as all people deserving to have the same freedoms and liberties as the privileged class, if by this you mean the same negative liberties (i.e., the right to not have your property confiscated, the right to not have your free speech impeded, etc.), they already do have the same rights. (Although rich people can afford better lawyers to defend their rights, but this is a problem with government and law, not with rich people, IMHO.)

If you mean positive liberties (i.e., the right to have entitlements paid for by other peoples' money) then they are increasingly getting that as well, and benefit from these far more than the rich people whose negative liberties (i.e., the right to not have their wealth confiscated) are violated to fund those social programs.

[boldbidder]

Grew up smack-dab middle class, and my parents never discussed politics so I had no real influences in terms of "up-bringing". I have always been strongly libertarian as long as I can remember although I have always voted Republican up until the last election (by which time it has become too distasteful).

What I would like for others to understand about libertarianism is that (I think) it encompasses a much broader spectrum of opinions than does liberalism (in the modern American "Democrat" sense of liberalism/progressivism) and conservativism (in the modern American GOP sense of conservativism). Not all libertarians are gun-toting secessionists, or anarchists, or Randian objectivists.





Doppelbock added to this post, 4 minutes and 57 seconds later...



You are largely fiscally conservative, but want government to provide a variety of social programs? Those two ideas are somewhat contradictory.

And as far as all people deserving to have the same freedoms and liberties as the privileged class, if by this you mean the same negative liberties (i.e., the right to not have your property confiscated, the right to not have your free speech impeded, etc.), they already do have the same rights. (Although rich people can afford better lawyers to defend their rights, but this is a problem with government and law, not with rich people, IMHO.)

If you mean positive liberties (i.e., the right to have entitlements paid for by other peoples' money) then they are increasingly getting that as well, and benefit from these far more than the rich people whose negative liberties (i.e., the right to not have their wealth confiscated) are violated to fund those social programs.

Being fiscally conservative doesn't mean you don't have any social programs, it just means you only have programs that have real merit and you don't fund them to the point that the administrators all bank 200K+. I'll give an example at a micro-level: ever do any volunteer work at a community center, take the kids from Sunday school no a picnic, loan a family member so money? All those are micro-level social programs, there is a cost associated with each, but doing so doesn't automatically put you in the poor house.

Regarding liberties, I was more referring to the right of gay people marry and discriminatory policies in general.

Your diatribe is aimed at the wrong place. If you were interested in specifics, you can just ask next time and save yourself some keystrokes.

[Doppelbock]

Being fiscally conservative doesn't mean you don't have any social programs, it just means you only have programs that have real merit and you don't fund them to the point that the administrators all bank 200K+. I'll give an example at a micro-level: ever do any volunteer work at a community center, take the kids from Sunday school no a picnic, loan a family member so money? All those are micro-level social programs, there is a cost associated with each, but doing so doesn't automatically put you in the poor house.

Regarding liberties, I was more referring to the right of gay people marry and discriminatory policies in general.

Your diatribe is aimed at the wrong place. If you were interested in specifics, you can just ask next time and save yourself some keystrokes.

You said, in your original post, "I think government should provide a variety of social programs" (emphasis mine). But the micro examples you gave here have nothing to do with government.

I'm sure every left-leaner believes their favorite social programs have "real merit". And I'm also sure that by their value system, most of them do. I'm only asking you to consider that for every positive right (e.g., right to affordable housing, right to health care, etc.), somebody's negative rights (i.e., right to not have their wealth confiscated) must be violated to pay for it. There must be a balance.

Regarding liberties, in your original post to which I responded, you said "ALL people deserve to have the same freedoms and liberties as the privileged class." Now you're saying that the liberties you are talking about include gay marriage. I agree, by the way. But I think this has nothing to do with a "privileged class". I'm pretty sure rich folks are no more allowed to have gay marriage than are poor folks.

[themuzicman]

Music, you should count your family as one of the fortunate one's who were successful during the Reagan era as it was in no way shape or form representative of the larger population. From 1980 - 2007 the inflation adjusted income of the wealthy grew 7X while the inflation income of the median household only grew 22%, less than half of what it had done during the previous 25+ years under the guidance of hippie policies.

What you're missing, here, is that 90% of those in the "poor" category in 1980 were no longer poor by 1989. It was one of the most economically mobile periods in history.

Also, in including the previous 25 years, you're including the fairly conservative economic times from 1955 to 1965, including the tail end of the manufacturing boom of the 1950s. The "hippie liberal" period really started with LBJ's social programs, Nixon's complete absence from the domestic agenda which combined with Carter for a disastrous decade of unemployment, high interest rates and protectionist policy.

Oddly enough, JFK's economic and social policy were more in line with Reagan than his own VP.

[boldbidder]

You said, in your original post, "I think government should provide a variety of social programs" (emphasis mine). But the micro examples you gave here have nothing to do with government.

I'm sure every left-leaner believes their favorite social programs have "real merit". And I'm also sure that by their value system, most of them do. I'm only asking you to consider that for every positive right (e.g., right to affordable housing, right to health care, etc.), somebody's negative rights (i.e., right to not have their wealth confiscated) must be violated to pay for it. There must be a balance.


Yes, my example did not involve government, I was trying to help it hit home for you. In truth my example doesn't need to involve the government by name as we are a democracy, of the people, by the people, and for the people, and all that jazz. Further, none of the rights you mentioned (affordable housing, etc...) were ever mentioned by me, so once again please direct those towards folks who espouse such things. The idea of balance I feel is pretty self-evident, if I loan my cousin a $1000 bucks to help with room and board this semester then I don't take that weekend with the boys to Vegas. Simple example, once again at the micro-level, but I see no reason why the same principle can't be applied at a larger macro level. I'd love to have that discussion with you if you disagree, but maybe we should create another thread?


Regarding liberties, in your original post to which I responded, you said "ALL people deserve to have the same freedoms and liberties as the privileged class." Now you're saying that the liberties you are talking about include gay marriage. I agree, by the way. But I think this has nothing to do with a "privileged class". I'm pretty sure rich folks are no more allowed to have gay marriage than are poor folks.

I think we have a bit of a terminology mangling on my part, when I use the term privileged class I use from the perspective that at various points of nation's history different groups of people have been treated as second class citizens, I wasn't referring specifically to the wealthy. Every citizen should have the same rights as every other citizen, that's why I threw in the example of gay marriage. Once again if we're talking about the graduated tax schedule or how to fund healthcare let's have that debate too, in another thread though, I can easily see us derailing this one from the OP's original intention.





boldbidder added to this post, 5 minutes and 54 seconds later...

What you're missing, here, is that 90% of those in the "poor" category in 1980 were no longer poor by 1989. It was one of the most economically mobile periods in history.


Not questioning the accuracy of the numbers you site, but if you are able can you provide a link to an article of some kind? I'd just be curious to see as I've never heard that before.

In the interest of fairness the numbers I quoted in my previous post came from an article that Paul Krugman wrote.

[Blse]

The "hippie liberal" period really started with LBJ's social programs

And it was during the 1960s that economic prosperity hit its highest highs. The kind of median household income growth and maximization of production capacity seen during those years was not even closely rivaled by Reagan. Median household income, adjusted for inflation, actually declined somewhat under Reagan's first term. In 1990, median household income - adjusted for inflation - was not much higer than in 1980. The only significant growth in real median household income occured in the late 1990s.

Now keep in mind that real median household income rose partially b/c of the increased prevelance of dual-earner households. The real median hourly wage today is not much higher than in 1973. During those "hippie policies" (and there was nothing hippie or Marxist about LBJs and JFKs Keynesianism - nor where hippies all that fond of LBJ; let's not confuse mainstream Keynesian democrats with Marxist radicals - the former have more in common with Adam Smith, take it from Keynesian who's attended a mostly Marixist college) the median hourly wage rose tremendously, as did median household income.

Bottom line: a household at the 50th percentile, like a worker at the 50th percentile, made little to no head-way during the 1980s. The 80s did mark the end of staglfation but were far from a boon for the average household and worker. Your family is the exception.

[Night Runner]

What you're missing, here, is that 90% of those in the "poor" category in 1980 were no longer poor by 1989. It was one of the most economically mobile periods in history.

And it was paid for by our children and grandchildren. Conservatives don't like to admit it, but it's a fact: Reagan's presidency was a disaster for our national debt - it went up by over a trillion dollars. You know, if you give me $1,000,000,000,000.00 I'll probably figure out a way or two to improve your standard of living, at least in the short term. In the long term, this is insanity - just like going on a trip and buying your tickets with a credit card that you can't pay off...

[phej]

Bottom line: a household at the 50th percentile, like a worker at the 50th percentile, made little to no head-way during the 1980s. The 80s did mark the end of staglfation but were far from a boon for the average household and worker. Your family is the exception.

Blse, most of your post is talking about median income growth. It's not the same thing as the 50th percentile (which is the mean). So, I don't know how to parse the data in the post.

[Blse]

Blse, most of your post is talking about median income growth. It's not the same thing as the 50th percentile (which is the mean). So, I don't know how to parse the data in the post.

huh? The mean is not the 50th percentile. It's the median that cuts a population in half; median is Q2 (Q1 = 25th and Q3 = 75th). Let me give you an example:

Person A: $10,000
Person B: $50,000
Person C: $70,000
Person E: $100,000
Person F: $560,000
Person G: $1,600,570

Median: $85,000 (half fall below, half above)
Mean: $341,510 (only two people, or 28.57%, make more - hardly the 50th percentile)

[phej]

gah. Mah head wasn't working. (I temporarily confused mode w/ median)

Since the shape of households has changed from the last hundred years or so, is it even fair to use household income as a way of making any conclusions about earning power? How did individual income change throughout the same time period?

[thod]

Since the shape of households has changed from the last hundred years or so, is it even fair to use household income as a way of making any conclusions about earning power? How did individual income change throughout the same time period?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

She argues that individual incomes have decreased. She says they the individual worker earns $800 less than his father did in 1970, despite inflation. The argument is that there have been no gains, all that happened is that women entered the workforce, so now two incomes are needed for family support. Whenever additional labour appears it drives down its price favouring capital. Household composition does not effect numbers because we can compare 2 parent, 2 child families then and now.

[themuzicman]

And it was paid for by our children and grandchildren. Conservatives don't like to admit it, but it's a fact: Reagan's presidency was a disaster for our national debt - it went up by over a trillion dollars. You know, if you give me $1,000,000,000,000.00 I'll probably figure out a way or two to improve your standard of living, at least in the short term. In the long term, this is insanity - just like going on a trip and buying your tickets with a credit card that you can't pay off...

Sorry, but this falls on the liberals in congress. More than once Reagan came to an agreement with the Congress that for every $1 of tax cuts there would be $2 of spending cuts, and the congress never kept their word. Reagan was concerned about the debt, but because he didn't have a line item veto or any chance of cutting spending in the house of reps, he took what he could get.





themuzicman added to this post, 6 minutes and 48 seconds later...

And it was during the 1960s that economic prosperity hit its highest highs. The kind of median household income growth and maximization of production capacity seen during those years was not even closely rivaled by Reagan. Median household income, adjusted for inflation, actually declined somewhat under Reagan's first term. In 1990, median household income - adjusted for inflation - was not much higer than in 1980. The only significant growth in real median household income occured in the late 1990s.

A lot of income growth was eaten up in health insurance benefits during the 1980s. People were moving from no health insurance to the third party tax avoidance system we have today, and incomes didn't move a lot.

Now keep in mind that real median household income rose partially b/c of the increased prevelance of dual-earner households. The real median hourly wage today is not much higher than in 1973. During those "hippie policies" (and there was nothing hippie or Marxist about LBJs and JFKs Keynesianism - nor where hippies all that fond of LBJ; let's not confuse mainstream Keynesian democrats with Marxist radicals - the former have more in common with Adam Smith, take it from Keynesian who's attended a mostly Marixist college) the median hourly wage rose tremendously, as did median household income.

JFK cut taxes to stimulate the economy. Only in 1969 did we start running a deficit on spending, something that ran continuously until 1997 when the GOP balanced the budget. The social programs paid for with higher taxes began the stagnation of the 1970s and early '80s. And given that it took 12 or so years to turn things around, it would take some time before improving economic conditions would result. It makes sense that median incomes (especially with the ever increasing cost of health insurance) wouldn't move a lot right away. But it did move.

Bottom line: a household at the 50th percentile, like a worker at the 50th percentile, made little to no head-way during the 1980s. The 80s did mark the end of staglfation but were far from a boon for the average household and worker. Your family is the exception.

I think there is something fishy about using "median", here. During the 1980s, the auto industry started faltering, and the UAW controlled many of the wages during this time. This was probably the height of UAW and union influence. So, having 300,000 workers in a troubled industry probably has something to do with this, as well as the advent of health "insurance" for the average worker.

If you take into account the total benefits package, I think you'll find your missing increases in income.

[phej]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

She argues that individual incomes have decreased. She says they the individual worker earns $800 less than his father did in 1970, despite inflation. The argument is that there have been no gains, all that happened is that women entered the workforce, so now two incomes are needed for family support. Whenever additional labour appears it drives down its price favouring capital. Household composition does not effect numbers because we can compare 2 parent, 2 child families then and now.

Haven't seen the video yet. I'll watch it after work. Is there an associated paper to skim through?

[RBM]

Haven't seen the video yet. I'll watch it after work. Is there an associated paper to skim through?


Skim ?

Well I guess a Google search (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) might have something that would only require some work/time, but doesn't require too much work/time.

But in case your priorities change she also has a book. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

All my experience with her work has been online, and that has included excerpts from her book.

[themuzicman]

Was thinking about median.. Median just means that not many people crossed the 50th percentile. (Or as many people crossed one way as the other.) It speaks potentially to a lack of increase for the middle class, but not the poor. If the median is $50,000, and everyone under $50,000 increases their pay from whatever it was to $49,999, the median remains the same.

The links I had on the number of people who were poor in 1980 vs. 1989 is long gone, btw. I'll have to search more to find if it is still out there somewhere.

[boldbidder]

The links I had on the number of people who were poor in 1980 vs. 1989 is long gone, btw. I'll have to search more to find if it is still out there somewhere.

The effort is appreciated, I'll do some poking around as well and post what I'm able to find.

[phej]

The best I could find was this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). It's data from the U.S. census of the median and mean incomes from 1974 - 2006 measured in constant 2006 dollars and nominal dollars. I was too frustrated to graph it (plus I've discovered that iWork can't make an X-Y plot, or if it can, I couldn't figure it out). The data doesn't seem to show that individual income has been stagnant, in fact, individual income has been growing in constant 2006 dollars.

(the data isn't complete)

Historical Income Tables - People

Table P-10. Age--People (Both Sexes Combined--All Races)
by Median and Mean Income: 1974 to 2006

(People 15 years old and over begining with March 1980, and people
14 years old and over as of March of the following year for previous
years. Income in current and 2006 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars 28/)
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Number Median income Mean income
Age and year with _____________________ _____________________
income Current 2006 Current 2006
(thous.) dollars dollars dollars dollars
__________________________________________________ ______________________
15 YEARS OLD AND OVER

2006 208,491 $25,795 $25,795 $37,517 $37,517
2005 207,231 24,325 25,123 35,499 36,663
2004 35/ 205,157 23,214 24,779 33,859 36,141
2003 203,482 22,672 24,854 32,976 36,150
2002 202,275 22,118 24,789 32,222 36,113
2001 200,814 21,934 24,979 32,099 36,556
2000 30/ 200,208 21,516 25,191 31,199 36,528
1999 29/ 198,099 20,584 24,908 29,677 35,911
1998 193,642 19,953 24,648 28,236 34,880
1997 191,615 18,756 23,493 27,022 33,846
1996 189,997 17,587 22,504 25,466 32,586
1995 25/ 188,073 16,775 22,037 24,211 31,805
1994 24/ 186,402 15,943 21,448 23,278 31,316
1993 23/ 184,611 15,427 21,197 22,199 30,502
1992 22/ 183,692 14,902 20,982 20,758 29,227
1991 181,222 14,688 21,205 20,280 29,278
1990 180,465 14,383 21,509 19,842 29,673
1989 178,852 13,856 21,754 19,348 30,376
1988 177,177 12,935 21,184 18,049 29,559
1987 21/ 175,374 12,103 20,549 17,041 28,933
1986 172,293 11,546 20,265 16,174 28,388
1985 20/ 170,163 11,008 19,671 15,323 27,382
1984 19/ 167,738 10,417 19,254 14,412 26,638
1983 164,739 9,720 18,701 13,362 25,708
1982 162,227 9,143 18,342 12,709 25,495
1981 161,828 8,532 18,149 11,909 25,332
1980 159,487 7,944 18,507 10,998 25,622
1979 18/ 158,050 7,254 18,775 10,121 26,196
1978 147,473 6,813 19,323 9,451 26,805
1977 139,422 6,429 19,036 8,886 26,311
1976 17/ 135,945 6,002 18,906 8,242 25,962
1975 16/ 132,041 5,664 18,865 7,704 25,660
1974 16/15/ 130,505 5,335 19,241 7,255 26,166




15 TO 24 YEARS

2006 27,360 $9,906 $9,906 $13,796 $13,796
2005 27,666 9,294 9,599 13,231 13,665
2004 35/ 27,792 8,817 9,411 12,818 13,682
2003 27,831 8,614 9,443 12,038 13,197
2002 27,704 8,578 9,614 12,311 13,797
2001 28,350 8,329 9,485 12,479 14,212
2000 30/ 28,729 8,371 9,801 11,884 13,914
1999 29/ 28,074 7,348 8,891 10,664 12,904
1998 27,954 7,190 8,882 10,818 13,363
1997 27,531 6,862 8,595 10,105 12,657
1996 27,518 6,403 8,193 9,150 11,708
1995 25/ 27,351 6,071 7,975 8,932 11,734
1994 24/ 27,026 6,232 8,384 8,764 11,790
1993 23/ 27,294 5,860 8,052 8,417 11,565
1992 22/ 27,967 5,706 8,034 8,166 11,498
1991 26,702 5,711 8,245 7,973 11,511
1990 27,724 5,565 8,322 7,853 11,744
1989 28,332 5,409 8,492 7,914 12,425
1988 29,105 5,024 8,228 7,575 12,406
1987 21/ 29,835 4,845 8,226 7,091 12,039
1986 29,740 4,610 8,091 6,703 11,765
1985 20/ 30,343 4,328 7,734 6,441 11,510
1984 19/ 30,778 4,086 7,552 6,122 11,315
1983 31,041 3,832 7,373 5,726 11,017
1982 31,537 3,806 7,635 5,714 11,463
1981 32,888 2,497 5,312 5,590 11,891
1980 33,348 3,769 8,780 5,377 12,527
1979 18/ 34,208 3,459 8,953 5,015 12,980
1978 33,228 3,030 8,594 4,458 12,644
1977 31,774 2,725 8,069 3,966 11,743
1976 17/ 31,191 2,498 7,869 3,665 11,545
1975 16/ 30,091 2,340 7,794 3,429 11,421
1974 16/15/ 30,567 2,189 7,895 3,233 11,660




25 TO 34 YEARS OLD

2006 36,196 $28,709 $28,709 $35,558 $35,558
2005 35,955 27,075 27,963 32,997 34,079
2004 35/ 35,762 26,676 28,474 32,041 34,201
2003 35,840 26,212 28,735 32,189 35,288
2002 36,031 26,337 29,517 31,461 35,260
2001 35,900 26,086 29,708 31,673 36,071
2000 30/ 36,252 25,559 29,925 31,109 36,423
1999 29/ 36,492 24,293 29,396 29,406 35,583
1998 36,103 23,147 28,593 27,527 34,004
1997 37,017 21,821 27,332 25,968 32,526
1996 37,835 20,909 26,755 24,428 31,258
1995 25/ 38,473 19,723 25,909 23,326 30,643
1994 24/ 39,150 18,815 25,312 22,296 29,995
1993 23/ 39,750 18,015 24,753 21,458 29,484
1992 22/ 40,181 17,602 24,783 20,646 29,069
1991 40,345 17,401 25,122 20,097 29,014
1990 40,891 17,089 25,556 19,755 29,543
1989 41,207 16,890 26,517 19,454 30,543
1988 41,140 16,299 26,693 18,534 30,354
1987 21/ 40,971 15,285 25,951 17,464 29,651
1986 40,396 14,755 25,898 16,855 29,584
1985 20/ 39,765 14,264 25,489 16,287 29,104
1984 19/ 38,793 13,449 24,858 15,197 28,089
1983 37,721 12,526 24,100 14,221 27,361
1982 36,806 12,054 24,182 13,699 27,482
1981 36,550 11,652 24,786 13,032 27,721
1980 35,646 11,173 26,029 12,225 28,480
1979 18/ 34,644 10,388 26,887 11,442 29,615
1978 30,790 9,801 27,798 10,711 30,379
1977 28,736 9,336 27,644 10,170 30,113
1976 17/ 27,621 8,754 27,575 9,541 30,054
1975 16/ 26,315 8,369 27,875 8,981 29,913
1974 16/15/ 25,316 7,880 28,420 8,466 30,533




35 TO 44 YEARS OLD

2006 39,574 $35,036 $35,036 $47,094 $47,094
2005 40,118 32,729 33,802 43,570 44,999
2004 35/ 40,349 31,628 33,760 42,547 45,415
2003 40,791 30,914 33,890 40,561 44,465
2002 41,466 30,218 33,867 40,204 45,058
2001 41,813 30,404 34,625 40,359 45,963
2000 30/ 42,354 30,149 35,299 39,148 45,835
1999 29/ 42,426 28,023 33,909 36,363 44,001
1998 42,509 27,127 33,510 34,979 43,209
1997 42,265 25,897 32,437 33,228 41,619
1996 41,818 25,149 32,181 32,557 41,660
1995 25/ 41,231 23,915 31,416 30,922 40,621
1994 24/ 40,517 22,809 30,685 29,817 40,113
1993 23/ 39,615 22,344 30,701 28,758 39,514
1992 22/ 39,012 21,799 30,693 26,783 37,710
1991 38,034 21,582 31,158 26,211 37,840
1990 37,300 21,344 31,919 26,114 39,052
1989 35,766 20,841 32,720 25,525 40,074
1988 34,444 20,194 33,072 24,376 39,921
1987 21/ 33,268 19,202 32,602 23,169 39,337
1986 32,208 18,075 31,725 21,801 38,265
1985 20/ 30,965 17,073 30,509 20,687 36,967
1984 19/ 29,711 16,400 30,312 19,473 35,992
1983 28,449 15,210 29,264 18,171 34,961
1982 27,143 14,168 28,422 17,065 34,234
1981 25,901 13,543 28,808 16,289 34,649
1980 24,635 12,254 28,548 14,986 34,912
1979 18/ 23,976 11,476 29,703 14,000 36,236
1978 22,095 11,030 31,283 13,177 37,373
1977 20,472 10,717 31,733 12,613 37,347
1976 17/ 19,685 9,895 31,169 11,613 36,581
1975 16/ 19,214 9,214 30,689 10,815 36,022
1974 16/15/ 18,791 8,883 32,037 10,313 37,195




45 TO 54 YEARS OLD

2006 40,562 $36,002 $36,002 $49,609 $49,609
2005 40,071 35,172 36,325 47,795 49,362
2004 35/ 39,392 32,867 35,083 45,116 48,157
2003 38,721 32,583 35,719 43,980 48,214
2002 38,065 31,856 35,702 43,647 48,917
2001 37,481 31,738 36,145 42,977 48,944
2000 30/ 36,875 31,409 36,774 42,789 50,098
1999 29/ 35,716 30,707 37,157 40,845 49,425
1998 33,736 29,573 36,531 38,464 47,514
1997 32,433 28,131 35,235 37,427 46,879
1996 31,441 26,477 33,880 35,806 45,817
1995 25/ 30,060 25,710 33,774 33,888 44,517
1994 24/ 29,380 24,993 33,623 33,381 44,907
1993 23/ 28,089 23,677 32,533 32,331 44,423
1992 22/ 26,942 22,907 32,253 29,371 41,354
1991 25,836 22,047 31,829 28,026 40,461
1990 24,488 21,485 32,130 27,479 41,094
1989 24,095 20,729 32,544 27,107 42,558
1988 23,389 19,674 32,221 24,931 40,830
1987 21/ 22,578 18,843 31,992 23,829 40,457
1986 21,756 17,719 31,100 22,310 39,158
1985 20/ 21,380 16,392 29,292 20,914 37,373
1984 19/ 21,037 15,275 28,233 19,538 36,112
1983 20,857 14,525 27,946 18,343 35,292
1982 20,670 13,249 26,579 17,150 34,405
1981 20,882 12,498 26,585 16,056 34,154
1980 21,084 11,927 27,786 15,095 35,166
1979 18/ 21,239 11,002 28,476 13,800 35,718
1978 20,235 10,759 30,515 13,324 37,790
1977 19,409 10,308 30,522 12,651 37,460
1976 17/ 19,535 9,637 30,357 11,734 36,962
1975 16/ 19,383 9,105 30,326 10,998 36,631
1974 16/15/ 19,623 8,587 30,970 10,357 37,353




55 TO 64 YEARS OLD

2006 29,978 $31,895 $31,895 $45,187 $45,187
2005 29,004 30,589 31,592 43,263 44,681
2004 35/ 27,678 28,543 30,467 40,868 43,623
2003 26,520 28,068 30,770 40,735 44,656
2002 25,675 26,749 29,979 38,472 43,117
2001 24,359 25,801 29,383 38,002 43,278
2000 30/ 23,142 24,415 28,586 35,923 42,059
1999 29/ 22,650 23,239 28,120 35,420 42,860
1998 21,646 22,209 27,435 33,646 41,563
1997 20,968 21,349 26,740 33,322 41,737
1996 20,186 20,260 25,925 29,915 38,279
1995 25/ 19,877 19,314 25,372 28,726 37,736
1994 24/ 19,652 17,453 23,479 26,863 36,139
1993 23/ 19,640 16,772 23,045 24,912 34,229
1992 22/ 19,486 16,707 23,523 23,737 33,421
1991 20,050 16,420 23,705 23,580 34,042
1990 20,327 15,721 23,510 22,697 33,942
1989 20,133 15,256 23,952 22,299 35,009
1988 20,351 14,295 23,411 20,360 33,344
1987 21/ 20,526 13,541 22,990 19,462 33,043
1986 20,576 13,035 22,879 18,733 32,880
1985 20/ 20,734 12,394 22,148 17,737 31,695
1984 19/ 20,897 11,770 21,755 16,978 31,381
1983 20,733 11,215 21,577 15,709 30,224
1982 20,639 10,832 21,730 15,146 30,384
1981 20,661 10,179 21,652 14,127 30,050
1980 20,422 9,420 21,945 13,030 30,355
1979 18/ 20,145 8,564 22,166 12,052 31,194
1978 18,417 8,487 24,071 11,532 32,707
1977 17,564 8,014 23,729 10,888 32,239
1976 17/ 17,028 7,644 24,079 10,047 31,648
1975 16/ 16,727 6,995 23,298 9,198 30,636
1974 16/15/ 16,419 6,599 23,800 8,654 31,211




65 YEARS OLD AND OVER

2006 34,821 $17,045 $17,045 $26,621 $26,621
2005 34,418 15,696 16,211 25,747 26,591
2004 35/ 34,184 15,200 16,225 23,966 25,582
2003 33,779 14,664 16,076 23,198 25,431
2002 33,334 14,251 15,972 21,802 24,434
2001 32,910 14,152 16,117 22,210 25,294
2000 30/ 32,856 13,748 16,096 21,603 25,293
1999 29/ 32,741 13,819 16,722 21,461 25,969
1998 31,694 13,223 16,334 20,777 25,666
1997 31,401 12,744 15,962 19,788 24,785
1996 31,199 12,214 15,629 18,314 23,435
1995 25/ 31,081 11,871 15,595 17,604 23,126
1994 24/ 30,676 11,283 15,179 16,709 22,479
1993 23/ 30,223 10,808 14,850 15,845 21,771
1992 22/ 30,104 10,362 14,590 15,160 21,345
1991 30,256 10,331 14,915 15,130 21,843
1990 29,734 10,174 15,215 15,029 22,475
1989 29,320 9,578 15,037 14,307 22,462
1988 28,747 9,087 14,882 13,145 21,528
1987 21/ 28,196 8,729 14,820 12,529 21,272
1986 27,617 8,154 14,312 12,074 21,192
1985 20/ 26,976 7,884 14,088 11,449 20,459
1984 19/ 26,522 7,519 13,897 11,126 20,564
1983 25,938 6,974 13,418 10,094 19,421
1982 25,432 6,593 13,226 9,715 19,489
1981 24,947 5,886 12,520 8,737 18,585
1980 24,353 5,213 12,145 7,614 17,738
1979 18/ 23,838 4,673 12,095 6,719 17,391
1978 22,709 4,172 11,833 6,287 17,831
1977 21,467 3,856 11,418 5,853 17,331
1976 17/ 20,886 3,632 11,441 5,446 17,155
1975 16/ 20,311 3,408 11,351 5,070 16,887
1974 16/15/ 19,789 3,107 11,206 4,782 17,247

.
.
.

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements





phej added to this post, 12 minutes and 44 seconds later...

Also, the Census Bureau has historical poverty data over here:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[themuzicman]

So, in constant dollars, we see median AND mean income falling from 1974 to 1981, and then rising steadily with exceptions for the 1991-1992 recession from the tax increases Bush Sr. said he'd never do, and 2001-2002 with the .com bubble/oil market fluxuation/Sept 11 '01 attack recession.

Looks as though Reaganomics worked.

[Profit]

Looks as though Reaganomics worked.

Hold on there.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Night Runner]

So, in constant dollars, we see median AND mean income falling from 1974 to 1981, and then rising steadily with exceptions for the 1991-1992 recession from the tax increases Bush Sr. said he'd never do, and 2001-2002 with the .com bubble/oil market fluxuation/Sept 11 '01 attack recession.

Looks as though Reaganomics worked.

And it was paid for by our children and grandchildren. Conservatives don't like to admit it, but it's a fact: Reagan's presidency was a disaster for our national debt - it went up by over a trillion dollars. You know, if you give me $1,000,000,000,000.00 I'll probably figure out a way or two to improve your standard of living, at least in the short term. In the long term, this is insanity - just like going on a trip and buying your tickets with a credit card that you can't pay off...

:rolleyes:

[Causa Mortis]

So, in constant dollars, we see median AND mean income falling from 1974 to 1981, and then rising steadily with exceptions for the 1991-1992 recession from the tax increases Bush Sr. said he'd never do, and 2001-2002 with the .com bubble/oil market fluxuation/Sept 11 '01 attack recession.

Looks as though Reaganomics worked.


1. The role of monetary policy is at least important in growth/inflation as is fiscal policy. Monetary policy in the US was terrible during the 1970s and exceptional under Mr. Greenspan's tenure. Don't overstate the importance of fiscal policy relative to monetary polity.
2. You should consider the change in the rate of technological innovation and how this influences growth in mature economies. Technological innovation was minimal in the 1970s (fuel injectors?), but very robust in the 1980s and 1990s especially. These changing innovation rates were part of what explains the robustness of the 1983-2007 growth cycle. They don't have anything to do with American conservative or liberal politics.
3. The excess of savings relative to investment in Asia during this period that kept global interest rates low. This allowed governments in the US and Europe to borrow at very low rates and eliminated or minimized most of the problems traditionally associated with large-scale government borrowing (ie a rise in the real interest rate and corresponding decrease in real investment).
4. I don't think you can easily state that the 91-92 recession was caused by the tax hikes. Its more complex than that. There was a war around this time, there was a pop in the oil price, there was a generally gloomy sentiment, inflationary pressures were present and the fed was very hawkish on inflation during this time.


Finally, for the record the large-scale tax cuts were largely irrational from a purely macroeconomic perspective. They served to spike aggregate demand while the Fed was working very hard to reduce aggregate demand to control inflationary pressures. This is why interest rates went to 21% in the early 80s when they've traditionally hoovered between 3 and 6 percent. Some of the micro-level decisions (ie airline deregulation) were clearly beneficial, but the macro level impact of the policies asserted by the Republican party in the 1980s were not well-reasoned from a macro level.

Fiscal stimulus makes a lot more sense when the Fed is stimulating the economy to promote employment and growth, particularly when the Fed has dropped nominal rates to near-zero and therefore running out of options.

And it was during the 1960s that economic prosperity hit its highest highs. The kind of median household income growth and maximization of production capacity seen during those years was not even closely rivaled by Reagan. Median household income, adjusted for inflation, actually declined somewhat under Reagan's first term. In 1990, median household income - adjusted for inflation - was not much higer than in 1980. The only significant growth in real median household income occured in the late 1990s.

Now keep in mind that real median household income rose partially b/c of the increased prevelance of dual-earner households. The real median hourly wage today is not much higher than in 1973. During those "hippie policies" (and there was nothing hippie or Marxist about LBJs and JFKs Keynesianism - nor where hippies all that fond of LBJ; let's not confuse mainstream Keynesian democrats with Marxist radicals - the former have more in common with Adam Smith, take it from Keynesian who's attended a mostly Marixist college) the median hourly wage rose tremendously, as did median household income.

I don't actually think that politics explains all or even most of these comparative wage growth changes. Changing per hour productivity growth associated with rapid advances in technology, a huge increase in Ls with the addition of women and minorities, and factor price equalization under current trade policies explains the very poor wage growth seen since the 1970s. I don't think any of these changes were significantly influenced by Rep/Dem politics.

[themuzicman]

Hold on there.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sorry, I go with the numbers over opinions.





themuzicman added to this post, 8 minutes and 35 seconds later...

1. The role of monetary policy is at least important in growth/inflation as is fiscal policy. Monetary policy in the US was terrible during the 1970s and exceptional under Mr. Greenspan's tenure. Don't overstate the importance of fiscal policy relative to monetary polity.

I'm sure there were lots of factors. I think cutting the top marginal rate from 79% to 28% was key...

2. You should consider the change in the rate of technological innovation and how this influences growth in mature economies. Technological innovation was minimal in the 1970s (fuel injectors?), but very robust in the 1980s and 1990s especially. These changing innovation rates were part of what explains the robustness of the 1983-2007 growth cycle. They don't have anything to do with American conservative or liberal politics.

You could make a similar case from the '60s to the 70s. In the '70s, computers came to be more widely used in making financial systems more efficient. This trend continued in the '80s, but that technological advancement wasn't able to overcome the dismal failure that was fiscal and political policy of the 1970s.

3. The excess of savings relative to investment in Asia during this period that kept global interest rates low. This allowed governments in the US and Europe to borrow at very low rates and eliminated or minimized most of the problems traditionally associated with large-scale government borrowing (ie a rise in the real interest rate and corresponding decrease in real investment).

ok.

4. I don't think you can easily state that the 91-92 recession was caused by the tax hikes. Its more complex than that. There was a war around this time, there was a pop in the oil price, there was a generally gloomy sentiment, inflationary pressures were present and the fed was very hawkish on inflation during this time.

And raising taxes was a key element both in the fed's concern about interest rates AND the gloomy sentiment.

Finally, for the record the large-scale tax cuts were largely irrational from a purely macroeconomic perspective. They served to spike aggregate demand while the Fed was working very hard to reduce aggregate demand to control inflationary pressures. This is why interest rates went to 21% in the early 80s when they've traditionally hoovered between 3 and 6 percent. Some of the micro-level decisions (ie airline deregulation) were clearly beneficial, but the macro level impact of the policies asserted by the Republican party in the 1980s were not well-reasoned from a macro level.

Ummm... Interest rates were already around 21% when Reagan took office. The tax cuts didn't take effect until 1982. That's when interest rates began to come down. I think you're missing the cause/effect, here.

Fiscal stimulus makes a lot more sense when the Fed is stimulating the economy to promote employment and growth, particularly when the Fed has dropped nominal rates to near-zero and therefore running out of options.


And yet, somehow, we had job growth and economic expansion for almost 20 years, with the exception of the 91-92 blip as a result of a variety of factors, including Reagan's fiscal policies (and in spite of Congress' lack of control in spending...)

So, you can bring in all sorts of other factors, but you cannot eliminate the effect that Reaganomics had on pushing the economy along. We'd have done even better if congress would have kept its word on cutting spending....

[Causa Mortis]

I'm sure there were lots of factors. I think cutting the top marginal rate from 79% to 28% was key...

How did cutting taxes on the extremely wealthy have a significant impact on the state of the economy during the 1980s?

How are countries that have higher rates of taxation growing at roughly the same long run rate that we are?

You could make a similar case from the '60s to the 70s. In the '70s, computers came to be more widely used in making financial systems more efficient. This trend continued in the '80s, but that technological advancement wasn't able to overcome the dismal failure that was fiscal and political policy of the 1970s.

How was fiscal policy during the 1970's "dismal"? It wasn't particularly enlightened, but it wasn't, say, running large peactime deficits during a period of robust growth either.

Monetary policy, a rise in country risk in the USA relative to several other countries, the end of Brenton Woods, and oil shocks largely explain the stagflation during this period. Fiscal policy didn't help, but it wasn't the main culprit.

And raising taxes was a key element both in the fed's concern about interest rates AND the gloomy sentiment.

You dramatically overstate the importance of taxation in an economic outlook. Its probably less important than monetary policy, trade/capital flows, and government spending.

Ummm... Interest rates were already around 21% when Reagan took office. The tax cuts didn't take effect until 1982. That's when interest rates began to come down. I think you're missing the cause/effect, here.

My thesis would be that the robustness of the 1983-2007 is explained by Paul Volker's disinflation, Greenspan's masterful management of monetary policy, trillions in free capital from Asia, a handful of intelligent reforms by the Regan and Clinton administrations, responsible fiscal management under the Clinton administration, and an uptick in technological change.


And yet, somehow, we had job growth and economic expansion for almost 20 years, with the exception of the 91-92 blip as a result of a variety of factors, including Reagan's fiscal policies (and in spite of Congress' lack of control in spending...)

You're of the mistaken opinion that government taxing and spending destroys jobs. Its nowhere near that simple. Raising taxes doesn't always destroy jobs, and spending can create jobs or cause an inflation.

One has to at least integrate considerations of inflation, unemployment, and a fiscal policy's impact on net exports before you can discuss a policy's overall impact on growth and job creation. An enlightened discussion of the subject will also include considerations of real interest rates, labor elasticity, country risk, expectations about the future, and migration.

So, you can bring in all sorts of other factors, but you cannot eliminate the effect that Reaganomics had on pushing the economy along. We'd have done even better if congress would have kept its word on cutting spending....

Reagan's macro policies were not particularly capable regardless of whether you view them from a classical or Keynesian view of the macroeconomy. Had it not been for a mercantalistic obsession in Asia during this period and a highly competent and tough fed chief, these poor macroeconomic policies would have led to serious problems in the economy.

[themuzicman]

The most serious errors of the 1980s were in the congress, who failed to keep its promises to cut spending $2 for every $1 of projected tax cuts (something Reagan negotiated with them.) That would have given the economy a further boost. But, as you say, they saw the capital available in Asia and decided to create deficits instead.

[Hamburglar]

it's hard to cut the budget of one of your largest constituencies...the military-and its support industries

[Causa Mortis]

The most serious errors of the 1980s were in the congress, who failed to keep its promises to cut spending $2 for every $1 of projected tax cuts (something Reagan negotiated with them.) That would have given the economy a further boost. But, as you say, they saw the capital available in Asia and decided to create deficits instead.

So all the spending bills in the 1980s were veto overrides? Come on, he barely put up a fight in regards to spending, and the macro implications - certainly after 1983 - would have been crippled real investment if not for Asian trade policy and Mr. Greenspan's exceptional management of the money supply.

Throw in a mixed bag on micro level policy - wise deregulation in many industries, questionable deregulation in others, and terrible decisions to subsidize low value added industries in which we lacked comparative advantage - and I'd say that his overall economic management was somewhere between "below average" and "poor". It wasn't "facepalm" as management from 2001-2009 was, but it was only marginally better.