[.cnI redruM]

>>>According to the Census Bureau, the percentage of all households with an income below $25,000 per year (in 2005 dollars) fell to 27.1 percent last year, from 27.6 percent in 2004.

So, if # of households is a reasonable analogy to population size, the US economy had 150,000 fewer poor people than it did last year. (Assuming a poulation of 300M)

>>>>the percentage of households that are considered well-to-do -- those with an income above $75,000 (in 2005 dollars) -- rose to 28.3 percent last year, from 27.9 percent in 2004.

The number of rich people went up by 120,000.

Sounds like GWB is busily creating a Red State Nation.

On a tangent, I realize Bartlett ran up against his word limit, but I wish he gotten into the roll of investments and asset ownership in the improvement of the average American's lot. It's not just what you get payed, it's what you do with the money.

[BillM]

It's not just what you get payed, it's what you do with the money.

Amen.
Low interest rates have lowered the cost of housing, car ownership etc.

Low costs at places like Walmart have reduced the cost of consumption.

In other words MORE DISPOSABLE/INVESTABLE money!

[Stallone]

Americans realize we are overpaid relative to world labor, and that Ford and GM are the sad poster children of union interference in free market economies.

It also helps that ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/PBS continue to propagate the lie that the U.S. economy is floundering, lowering wage expectations. Great for business and the markets!

[tickmeister]

What these boneheads can't seem to understand is that the people making $275 per week now aren't the ones who were making $275 in 1999. Those currently making $275 were making a lot less in 1999, or weren't working at all. Those who made $275 then are making a lot more now if they kept working and tried to improve themselves.

Get any job in the country, show up and do your best for 7 years, and your wages will likely double or more in that time.

[A. Pole]

According to recently released information, median annual earnings for men fell to $41,386 in 2005 from $43,158 in 2003 (in 2005 dollars), despite steady economic growth. Male earnings in 2005 were lower than in every year since 1997. Female earnings also fell in 2005 to $31,858 from $32,285 a year earlier and were lower than in any year since 2000.

See my tagline

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The more people there are in the $75,000-plus income category, the more people there are who are receptive to the Republican message of low taxes.

Don't ask me for a link, but it wasn't so long ago that I saw an article on FR which indicted that the breakeven income above which a white man was more likely to vote Republican than Democrat was not $75,000 but more like $20,000. Wish I had the link . . .

[Alberta's Child]

Bartlett hits on one key point an misses another big one . . .

1. Comparing wages over long periods of time makes no sense at all from an economic/statistical standpoint. Instead, total compensation should be included in all of these comparisons. If a worker who earned $50,000 five years ago is earning $51,000 today, his "wages" have grown only 2% over that period of time and he's basically lost ground to inflation. But if his employer-paid benefits have increased from $4,000 to $8,000 in that same period of time, then he's actually earning $5,000 more today than he was back then -- a 10% increase.

2. "Household income" is one of the most misleading statistical measures used in political economics these days. The single most important factor in the "stagnation" or "decline" of household income over the years has been the reduction in average household size, and in the number of income-producing workers per household. This is mainly a function of two things: a) a steep increase in the number single-parent families (which explains why most of the "stagnation" in household income occurs at low-income levels where single parenthood is more common); and b) retirees living independently for longer periods of time after they retire.

[CPOSharky]

If the pay for a job, not an employee, stays the same, in 1982 dollars, over the years, isn't that a good thing?

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

"Still another explanation is that the changing demographics of the population have eased the transition to an economy with slower wage growth. Many baby boomers have just seen the last of their children finish college and leave home. Suddenly, they have had a huge increase in their discretionary income, as the enormous costs of tuition and child care that they have borne for decades have now disappeared. They may not be any better off in terms of their family income, but they feel a lot better off financially."

THIS IS VERY TRUE. My Wife and I put three through college, finishing up with the last about 7 years ago. Since then our net worth has advanced tremendously.

As for the so called "wage gap" between rich and poor. The sad fact is that if you drop out of HS and/or have children as a teen, your future is not likely to be bright. The HS drop out rate is still high (somewhere around 30% in GA, I believe). The more technologically advanced our society becomes, the more it will require skills and education. That coupled with all the illegals that work in jobs that depress low skilled pay even more, is not a sign that free enterprise has failed.

[HeartlandOfAmerica]

One argument is that labor union membership has fallen sharply over the last generation and, consequently, workers have no organizational mechanism through which to bargain for higher wages

I depend on a superior skill set to bargain for higher wages. Not union thuggery and extortion.

Thanks to this philosophy, my life has shown a dramatic rise in wages since '82.

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, if # of households is a reasonable analogy to population size, the US economy had 150,000 fewer poor people than it did last year. (Assuming a poulation of 300M)

You dropped a decimal. With 300 million people (100 million households, IIRC) 0.5% is 1.5 million people or 500,000 households.

The number of rich people went up by 120,000

0.4% would be 1.2 million people or 400,000 households.

[doc30]

Indeed, the rising cost of health benefits is a key reason for the flatness of wages. From the point of view of employers, their total labor costs have risen sharply. But all of the increase has gone into benefits, with nothing left over to raise wages. Workers may not like this fact, but accept its reality. According to the BLS, wages and salaries have fallen from 72.6 percent of total compensation in 2000 to 70 percent in June of this year. At the same time, health benefits have risen from 5.9 percent of compensation to 7.7 percent.

The flip side is that there is a lot of money in the health care sector. Not just for health care workers, but the companies that make and supply medical equipment and pharmaceuticals.

[Physicist]

In other news, despite being touted as "people movers", almost no escalator in the United States has budged so much as an inch upwards from where it was installed...

[B-Chan]

There is no simple explanation for worker passivity in the face of income stagnation... [a] possibility is that workers have been so beaten down by layoffs and give-backs in recent years that they are just grateful to have jobs at all.

This is the correct answer.

[El Cid]

I think it is also disingenuous to make the comparison to wages from 7 years ago -- at the peak of the dot-com Potemkin Village economy. Many people were overpaid at jobs that didn't really deserve to exist. We went through a very painful several year correction. The last few years have been good, which is why most workers are (or should be) content with the current economy. Trying to talk-down the current economy by comparing current wages to the peak of the dot-com era is just number juggling with the intent to mislead.

[Teacher317]

Illegals making lower wages (which drags down these averages) doesn't seem to bother Dems... but they can't resist any chance to try to rile up their base.