PDA

View Full Version : US Income falls to 1989 levels



diverdog
9/12/2012, 09:20 PM
US incomes fall to 1989 levels. How did that happen?

A Census report signals that for much of America, the economic downturn has produced not one lost decade but two. But the data also show that federal safety-net programs helped keep people out of poverty.

By Mark Trumbull | Christian Science Monitor – 2 hrs 7 mins ago







The typical US household saw its income fall last year to 1989 levels.
That news, contained in a US Census Bureau (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/U.S.+Census+Bureau) survey released Wednesday, points to difficult questions of how the US can get back on a track of job growth and rising prosperity.
Median incomes fell 1.5 percent in 2011, while the official poverty rate remained essentially unchanged at 15 percent.
RECOMMENDED: Could 'fiscal cliff' push US into recession? 5 questions answered. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0523/Could-fiscal-cliff-push-US-into-recession-Five-questions-answered)
A family right in the middle of the income spectrum had an income of $50,054, which is actually lower than the 1989 median level of $50,624 expressed in 2011 dollars. The implication: For much ofAmerica the economy has produced not just one lost decade but two. Stagnation has even hit wealthier and more educated households (the 95th percentile in the Census data) for the past decade.
Why the hard times? And what can be done about it?
Those questions were already urgent before this latest data release. The presidential election campaign is pivoting largely around the economy and what role the government should play in it. This year, since the time period of the Census data, conditions have improved somewhat – with about a million Americans gaining jobs and hourly wages rising about 5 cents an hour. But the unemployment rate remains high, as does economic anxiety, even among people with jobs.
Economists haven't reached a consensus about what forces have caused the middle-class stagnation, but they have pointed to some that may be involved to varying degrees:


Globalization: The rest of the world is playing catchup to the nation that came to dominate in technology and sheer productive muscle during the 20th century. In theory, the US can still prosper as emerging nations from China (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/China) to Brazil (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Brazil) rise, but recent years have seen fierce global competition. America needs to boost its skills faster to stay in the game.



Technology: As with globalization, in theory this isn't a job-destroying force, just one that causes the nature of jobs to change. But some argue that rapid technological advances are having an especially hard impact on many middle-wage jobs that can be largely automated.



Inequality: A wage premium for the educated, the decline of labor unions, and the failure of the minimum wage to keep up with inflation have been among the factors widening the income gap between the rich and the middle class or poor. Some economists say that gap makes for a less vibrant nation. "Lack of opportunity means that its most valuable asset -- its people -- is not being fully used,"Joseph Stiglitz (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Joseph+Stiglitz) of Columbia University (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Columbia+University) has argued. When the rich are able to win big tax cuts it "leads to underinvestment in infrastructure, education and technology, impeding the engines of growth."



Debt and government: Another line of reasoning, taken by some conservative economists, is thateconomic growth is slowing as America becomes more of a European-style welfare state, with more people receiving public services and government spending accounting for a larger share of the economy. Some say the rising level of public debt, in particular, is emerging as an obstacle to be reckoned with. Others cite high levels of regulation and "crony capitalism," in which government policies favor some industries or companies at the expense of others.

Two other factors, mentioned by Census officials as affecting the recent data, are demographic aging of the population (income typically goes down as people hit retirement age) and a skewing of new jobs in 2011 toward the lower end of the wage spectrum.
The prescriptions for the road ahead depend on the diagnoses of causes, but many economists agree on the need for stronger education, better matching of skills with job opportunities, and an effort to overhaul the nation's fiscal policy, including taxes.
Some economists also argue for policies targeted to boost the level of innovation and entrepreneurship.
"Policymakers need to recognize that the United States (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/United+States) is engaged in a fierce race for innovation-based economic growth," write Robert Atkinson (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Robert+Atkinson) and several co-authors, in a report released Wednesday by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Information+Technology+%26+Innovation+Foundation) in Washington (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Washington%2c+DC). To enhance US science and entrepreneurship, they argue that political leaders should recognize "that both parties bring good ideas to the table."
"We do need to keep [government] debt from rising faster than the economy grows," Robert Greenstein (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Robert+Greenstein), president of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Center+on+Budget+and+Policy+Priorities) in Washington, said in a conference call about Wednesday's Census numbers.
The challenge, he said, is to set a long-term course away from huge deficits, while also avoiding the "fiscal cliff" – a $560 billion package of mandatory spending cuts and tax hikes that take effect at year's end, including the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, that could cause a recession unless Congress takes countermeasures to prevent a big drop in consumption.
Mr. Greenstein argues that, given that high-earning Americans have seen their share of national income grow, there is a "need for those at the top to share in the sacrifices that lie ahead." His viewpoint stands in contrast to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Mitt+Romney), who emphasizes low taxes for everyone as a key to reviving job creation.
While the Census data won't settle the debate over the proper size of government, it did provide some evidence that federal safety-net and social-insurance programs have helped to keep poverty lower than it would otherwise be.
Some 21.4 million Americans would be in poverty were it not for Social Security (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Social+Security) income, including 14.5 million people over age 65 and others who are on disability insurance, the report said.
Meanwhile, the Census report showed that the share of Americans who don't have health insurance declined in 2011, in part because of rising enrollment in Medicaid (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Medicaid), the federal-and-state program for the poor.
Programs including food stamps (now known as the SNAP program) and the Earned Income Tax Credit (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Earned+Income+Tax+Credit) have a significant impact. Although two Census gauges show similar levels of overall poverty in the US, the inclusion of SNAP and the EITC in a "supplemental poverty rate" suggest the more widely watched official poverty rate overstates the share of children in poverty.
By both measures, however, children in the US have a higher poverty rate than adults.

soonercruiser
9/12/2012, 09:33 PM
Isn't it the third Summer of Recovery?

diverdog
9/12/2012, 09:38 PM
Isn't it the third Summer of Recovery?

This has been trending this way for a long time Cruiser.

diverdog
9/12/2012, 09:39 PM
U.S. Income Gap Rose, Sign of Uneven Recovery

By SABRINA TAVERNISE (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/sabrina_tavernise/index.html)

WASHINGTON — The income gap between the wealthiest 20 percent of American households and the rest of the country grew sharply in 2011, the Census Bureau (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/census_bureau/index.html?inline=nyt-org) reported, as an overwhelming majority of Americans saw no gains from a weak economic recovery in its second full year.
Income for the top fifth of American households rose by 1.6 percent last year, driven by even larger increases for the top 5 percent of households, said David Johnson, the Census Bureau official who presented the findings. All households in the middle of the scale saw declines, while those at the very bottom stagnated.
“You’re really struck by the unevenness of the recovery,” said Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard. “The top end took a whack in the recession, but they’ve gotten back on their feet. Everyone else is still down for the count.”
The numbers helped drive an overall decline in income for the typical American family. Median household income after inflation fell to $50,054, a level that was 8 percent lower than in 2007, the year before the recession took hold.
That drop poses a political challenge for President Obama (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/candidates/barack-obama?inline=nyt-per) as he presents himself as a champion of the middle class and defends his economic stewardship in a tightly fought presidential race. The Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, is likely to seize on the decline as evidence of the president’s failure to fix an ailing economy. Mr. Obama, for his part, has emphasized the potentially damaging effects of Republican policies on the middle class.
Obama administration officials said Wednesday that more recent data on job growth, unemployment and wages indicated that median income, adjusted for inflation, was growing this year. They pointed to the rise in income inequality (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/income/income_inequality/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) as proof that their policy priorities are even more urgent. Rebecca M. Blank, the acting United States commerce secretary, said in a statement (http://www.commerce.gov/blog/2012/09/12/2011-income-poverty-and-health-insurance-coverage-united-states-report) that the rise “underscores the fact we must enact policies that help rebuild our economy not from the top down, but from the middle out.”
It is an argument that conservatives, who contend that income inequality is not inherently harmful, largely reject.
“Over the long run, the disappearing middle class has moved up, not down,” said Douglas J. Besharov, a professor of public policy at the University of Maryland. “Too much redistribution will kill the goose that laid the golden egg.”
The Census Bureau reported that a standard measure of income inequality, the Gini index, registered the first year-on-year increase since 1993, a surprise for economists who say the measure, which has been rising for some time, usually changes so slowly that a statistically significant rise over the course of one calendar year is rare.
Two other of the report’s findings were promoted by the administration as achievements. The share of Americans without health insurance (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) declined, driven by a 2.2 percent drop in the portion of uninsured 19- to 25-year-olds, strong evidence of an impact from a provision in Mr. Obama’s Affordable Care Act that allowed children to stay on their parents’ insurance policies until age 26. The uninsured rate for the nation fell to 15.7 percent from 16.3 percent. And the percentage of Americans in poverty remained unchanged for the first time in four years, though economists had expected the rate to rise for a fifth straight year.
“If you have to guess what’s going on, 2011 was the year that we started making real gains in employment,” said Justin Wolfers, an economist at the University of Michigan.
Mr. Johnson, the census official, said the movement of people from part-time work to full-time work was most likely a major reason the poverty rate did not worsen. The number of people in poverty declined in the South and the suburbs, and among people who were not United States citizens.
“Looks like there’s a big shift from part time to full time, and the largest percent increase in full-time work was in the lowest quintile,” he said, referring to the bottom fifth of the income spectrum.
There were 46.2 million people in poverty in the United States last year, little changed from 2010. That figure represents 15 percent of the population, compared with 15.1 percent in 2010, census officials said, a change that was not statistically significant.
But the data still reflects the bleak state of the American labor market. Inflation-adjusted median household income fell by 1.5 percent in 2011. During the recovery, about 3 in 5 of the new jobs created have been low-skill and low-wage — taking people off the unemployment rolls and pulling some families out of poverty, but not providing a clear route to the middle class.
That trend helps explain how the poverty rate could stay flat while the median income went down. Middle-income earners, for instance manufacturing workers and middle managers, have fared worse in this economy than both lower-income workers and higher-income workers, a phenomenon economists refer to as the polarization of the labor market, Professor Katz said. As a result, income at the middle point of the spectrum went down, while remaining flat at the bottom, something that happened from the late 1980s to the early 2000s, he said.
Annie M. Lowrey contributed reporting.

FaninAma
9/13/2012, 04:23 PM
Diver, you needn't look any further than today's Fed action of announcing an open-ended QE-3 program for the primary cause of the income inequality.

Our economy is not built on sound economic principals of saving and investment. That may sound simplistic but ever since the government and fed have decided to hurry things along(i.e. stimulate the economy) by increasing access and amount of debt we have seen an explosion of new invesment vehicles the financial investment "experts" have come up with to take advantage of the increased liquidity that benfits primarily them and their employers.

As a result, a manufacturing/industrial based economy has been replaced by a consumer/debt stimulated economy. I know that we couldn't expect other countries like China to not use their cheap labor advantage over us forever. I do think we should have avoided the liberal free-trade policies of Clinton and Bush I.

If we had slapped a tariff on cheap imports I wonder if we would be better off or worse off right now.

Once again I think this is where the power elite who decide economic policy in this country lined up the American public to take another one on the chin for the good of the world.

I will also propose than any increase in median income under Obama has come with a heavy price....... massive deficit spending that will eventually have to be paid back.

XingTheRubicon
9/13/2012, 08:29 PM
Isn't it the third Summer of Recovery?

The 7th summer of recovery will be fun...baseball bats and trash can lids, Escape from New York style.