General Discussion

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)

8. I don't see how that can be true

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 04:13 PM

Jun 2012

According to this, inflation adjusted median income was $43,479 in 1975 and was $49,445 in 2010.

Of course, this is 2012 and there has been a farily steady decline in the real median income since it peaked in 1999 at $53,252, except for coming back in 2007 to $52,823.

http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

113 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A two-income family today is poorer than a one-income family was in the 1970s [View all] kpete Jun 2012 OP

so we have to vote for neoliberals to keep the neoliberals out of power? MisterP Jun 2012 #1

Answer Dirty Socialist Jun 2012 #3

Just say no .... dtom67 Jun 2012 #78

I think it's important to note that they do NOT "create wealth for the few"... JHB Jun 2012 #2

'15% poorer than a one-income family of 40 years ago' tawadi Jun 2012 #4

True Dat! Phlem Jun 2012 #28

We married in 1970, had our first son in 1973..last son in 1978 SoCalDem Jun 2012 #105

k&r HiPointDem Jun 2012 #5

I just wonder what's still keeping the cups and saucers spinning in the air aint_no_life_nowhere Jun 2012 #6

They'll probably start fighting each other yellerpup Jun 2012 #9

We're already serfs. Debt Serfs, Wage Serfs TalkingDog Jun 2012 #45

Perhaps I should have used yellerpup Jun 2012 #53

My husband and I made our own way for 15 years, until.... PassingFair Jun 2012 #60

+1000! Single Payer = Freedom. nt SunSeeker Jun 2012 #86

That's a lot of it and a great example of lying with figures and statistics. Egalitarian Thug Jun 2012 #42

And workers could be making that kind of money before they graduated high school in 1973 NNN0LHI Jun 2012 #7

attacked? hfojvt Jun 2012 #10

and back then employers expected to train on the job and pay you while you learned SoCalDem Jun 2012 #106

That is 100% correct NNN0LHI Jun 2012 #107

I don't see how that can be true hfojvt Jun 2012 #8

I would think that median income when figured using the kind of wages the billionaires get would jwirr Jun 2012 #17

No, because the median averages that out hfojvt Jun 2012 #19

The real story here is not the median but the mode. The divide had expanded so far that those above Egalitarian Thug Jun 2012 #43

The entire all-consuming goal of the GOP is lower wages ... TahitiNut Jun 2012 #11

financial service tax, whenever a stock is "traded" KakistocracyHater Jun 2012 #40

Agreed. TahitiNut Jun 2012 #68

ever notice how easy they raise sales tax? but financial KakistocracyHater Jun 2012 #108

Even worse ... tax cigarettes. TahitiNut Jun 2012 #109

cig taxes are NOT Even worse, people have to put food KakistocracyHater Jul 2012 #113

We need to tax the rich Politicalboi Jun 2012 #12

We need to eat the rich, since they've tainted all our food anyway. nt valerief Jun 2012 #20

I'd be glad to help with the barbecue ... even though I'd avoid them in my diet. TahitiNut Jun 2012 #110

Dogs aren't fussy about what they eat and we 99%ers have lots of dogs. valerief Jun 2012 #111

We need to tax more than income, income tax is a canard to distract us from Egalitarian Thug Jun 2012 #44

This is true. DLevine Jun 2012 #13

I don't know what it will take to wake up tea party types to these facts. senseandsensibility Jun 2012 #14

"(T)ea party types"? We have a bunch right here. n/t Egalitarian Thug Jun 2012 #51

Overhead wasn't nearly the percentage of income back then either. ananda Jun 2012 #15

Many jobs could be accessed via public transportation, too. You know, that thing valerief Jun 2012 #21

So many "out of pocket" expenses raising children now, far more than before also newthinking Jun 2012 #67

And many jobs are more than the 8 hour day that was usual back then. jwirr Jun 2012 #16

k&r for the truth, however depressing it may be. n/t Laelth Jun 2012 #18

"Should I buy a Prius?" nt Romulox Jun 2012 #22

Supply side takes a while to work kenny blankenship Jun 2012 #23

This is brazenly untrue. mathematic Jun 2012 #24

Um, mathematic? Are those figures adjusted for purchasing power (you know, the cost of living?) Romulox Jun 2012 #25

If it is not adjusted then the census folks are pretty useless at giving us good information. dkf Jun 2012 #26

I don't think yours is a safe assumption. Moreover, guessing shouldn't be required. nt Romulox Jun 2012 #27

Yes, those figures are adjusted for inflation mathematic Jun 2012 #29

I'd like a link to your figures and methodology, please. nt Romulox Jun 2012 #30

Links-a-plenty. mathematic Jun 2012 #34

Let me understand the thesis implicit here: despite huge decreases in household wages, Romulox Jun 2012 #62

Poster won't be able to do that because the methodology for calculating inflation is not constant NNN0LHI Jun 2012 #35

+1 ArcticFox Jun 2012 #37

The poster most certainly was able to do that. mathematic Jun 2012 #38

I agree the author from the linked article does appear to be a crackpot NNN0LHI Jun 2012 #52

Is there a purchasing power parity index for wages somewhere? laundry_queen Jun 2012 #54

In what way do you find the CPI-U-RS to be insufficent as a "purchasing power index"? mathematic Jun 2012 #59

Well, for example, they're not arguing we *can afford* new cars as readily. They've decided instead Romulox Jun 2012 #63

Most who are old enough to have worked 30 years ago know that the government figures do not reflect newthinking Jun 2012 #66

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT Skittles Jun 2012 #79

Your criticism of quality adjustments and substitutions is not novel mathematic Jun 2012 #70

"All other things held constant" means ALL other things held constant. It's literal language. Romulox Jun 2012 #80

I stand by every last thing I said. mathematic Jun 2012 #83

"All things held constant" means the PRICE IS THE SAME. It's the *literal* meaning of the phrase. Romulox Jun 2012 #87

English is certainly my first language. mathematic Jun 2012 #90

You've done all that arguing only to concede the point? Romulox Jun 2012 #93

And you somehow try to use this as justification that CPI should not adjust for quality mathematic Jun 2012 #99

This message was self-deleted by its author Romulox Jun 2012 #101

I notice you skipped the parent's basement example, btw. It's an indictment of your methods, imo. nt Romulox Jun 2012 #81

Similarly, the *quality* of parent's basements is surely rising, what with broadband and all... Romulox Jun 2012 #64

I know what CPI is thanks laundry_queen Jun 2012 #76

You really should read the CPI documentation mathematic Jun 2012 #77

I'm in Canada laundry_queen Jun 2012 #84

Amazing mathematic Jun 2012 #91

Just *AMAZING* that anyone dare pose a question that you aren't able to answer. How rude! nt Romulox Jun 2012 #94

Fundamentalist? laundry_queen Jun 2012 #97

Since when do Keynesians reject price based inflation measures? mathematic Jun 2012 #100

Here is some reading material for you. Why CPI has understated inflation. newthinking Jun 2012 #102

Just to be clear: not being an "economist", I notice various factors are typically excluded from Romulox Jun 2012 #31

I took a look at the CPI links laundry_queen Jun 2012 #56

Agreed. It's based on the author's assessment of what consumers *should* want, not what they do-- Romulox Jun 2012 #65

I find it pragmatically useful to regard the CPI as a "Keep Up With The Joneses" Index. TahitiNut Jun 2012 #69

Hard to contextualize "keeping up" when workers are demonstrably *falling behind* though... nt Romulox Jun 2012 #89

Wow. Way to promote a factoid. TalkingDog Jun 2012 #46

Context? I gave PLENTY of context. mathematic Jun 2012 #57

In the initial post only provided data from census.gov TalkingDog Jun 2012 #73

Nice dodge but I provided all that information hours before your response mathematic Jun 2012 #74

Ok, I've reconsidered re: GMO grass link mathematic Jun 2012 #75

What did I start and how, exactly, did I start "it"? TalkingDog Jun 2012 #104

Link to the GMO cyanide grass is not GMO retraction story please. TalkingDog Jun 2012 #48

Do your calculations account for the increase in hours worked sans compensation? TalkingDog Jun 2012 #49

What's the mode? I saw it here (I think) a couple of weeks ago. Egalitarian Thug Jun 2012 #50

I found the data for households mathematic Jun 2012 #61

And one more rebuttal: TalkingDog Jun 2012 #71

This poster speaks with such confidence, but following the subthreads, it's all backpedaling. nt Romulox Jun 2012 #88

What an embarassing mischaracterization. mathematic Jun 2012 #92

There is NOTHING more embarrassing than a *sloppy* know-it-all. Work on your Romulox Jun 2012 #95

And everyone else you've insulted tonight? Are you embarrassed for them, too? Romulox Jun 2012 #96

You did not account for inflation nor increased living costs. NutmegYankee Jun 2012 #103

It's actually much worse: he's arguing that "QUALITY" of life today is higher, so it doesn't matter Romulox Jun 2012 #112

Vulture Capitalism Peaceful Protester Jun 2012 #32

Mafia Style Wall Street Scam Peaceful Protester Jun 2012 #33

Privatization and Deregulation Peaceful Protester Jun 2012 #36

Deregulation of the trucking indurstry cost the teamster union 300,000 good paying jobs. demosincebirth Jun 2012 #39

do they realize that the "public sector" is basically their nation? KakistocracyHater Jun 2012 #41

And the formula for the poverty rate... dajoki Jun 2012 #47

That's okay. The GOP is now working on making us all one-income families again AllyCat Jun 2012 #55

wow nt inna Jun 2012 #58

i wish it were only the repub party that was to blame; StarryNight Jun 2012 #72

repukes are FAR more responsible for the mess Skittles Jun 2012 #82

No kidding. n/t EFerrari Jun 2012 #98

And they tell us, with a shrug, to forget owning homes, or retiring. DirkGently Jun 2012 #85