http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center … revise.pdf
Over 50% of all Americans who were in the bottom 20% of earners moved up to a higher bracket between 1996 and 2005.(Table 1 in link)
50% of Americans in the second quintile moved up to a higher bracket.
30% of Americans in the middle quintile moved up to a higher bracket.
In addition, 50% of Americans in the bottom 20% saw an increase of pay of over 100%, with the mean income increase being 232%.
The median wage increase of Americans, adjusted for inflation over this period, was 24%. This is contradictory to studies that only look at income changes per bracket over time. The reason is that this study by the treasure compares individuals to themselves. The studies that only look at groups(with different people in the group every year) have the problem of having to include a constant influx of new illegal immigrants who are generally paid low wages.
The US is still a land of opportunity, and wages have increased, even with the decline-of-unions 'problem'.
You do realise of course that for everyone who moved up, one moved down!
Think about it, if one moves away from the bottom 20% they must be replaced by somebody else or the bottom 20% is no longer the bottom 20%.
No, that's not what is happening.
New influx into the workforce replaces the bottom rung, for the most part.
These are largely consisting of teens and illegal immigrants.
If you care to read the actual information I provide, the report shows how many move down as well.
17% of the second quintile moved down, 7% of the middle, 4% of the fourth, and 2.5 % of the highest. Of existing workers only 30% moved down to bottom quintile.
In total, 27% of the new bottom quintile consists of people who are new to the workforce.
Quite, upwards mobility is illusory isn't it? When the bottom 20% are replaced by 27% of new entrants to the workforce, then the rest are bound to move up aren't they?
You just aren't listening.
The bottom 20%'s median income increased by almost 100%. It's not that they are getting pushed up due to averages. They are actually moving up.
Or, is doubling your income(adjusted for inflation) not 'moving up'?
Not if it can't keep up with the cost of living....
You can honestly say that people in the 60's made less, but had more!
Yes, there are lies, then damned lies but then come statistics!
If someone doubles their income in a decade, adjusted for inflation, are they moving up or not?
It's a simple question.
If the cost of living more than doubles then no, they are not moving up.
That's right....and the cost of living has way more than doubled.
A study was done here in Mass years ago. Their analysis said it would take $14.00 an hr JUST to break even.
Minimum wage here in 2012 is $7.25 an hr.
How many times do I have to say this?
Cost of living and inflation have moved up almost identically.
I would go get the exact figures, but I'm sure you would just ignore them like any other figures I present
Few issues with that
#1 how exactly is the Treasury department or any other income analysis group measuring the income of illegals? The very definition of paying an illegal is that it's under the table and cannot be found in any official transactions. So how exactly could low paid illegals be affecting the numbers.
#2 How exactly are the results of this study surprising. Yes of course people who have been in the workforce for ten years generally make more than when they made when they started out as teenagers but that does not mean that because this is true things are going well, it specifically means the youth is getting screwed up.
#3 The study picked a very opportune time in the US economy when it was in an artificial boom or bubble which popped just two years or less after the study ended.
I was under the impression that those figures are estimated. Regardless, this study shows that it isn't the same workers who aren't increasing wages, rather it is new workers who come into the workforce who pick up the low wages.
Not really. Minimum wage, or near to it, is still good enough for a student to put himself through school.
This study shows that wages for experienced workers are actually increasing over time, not vice versa. How else could all income groups have a median increase in income?(to be fair, the top 1% always has a median decrease in income).
Actually, this study was done a decade previously, and another one should be coming in a few more years. The report compares 1996-2005 to the 1986-1995 period, and the story is the same. Wages are increasing with time, adjusted for inflation.
This whole study is nigh on irrelevant to asses whether the situation of he American people is improving, we expect that people will make more money as they get more experience and promotions etc. in the workplace, this study shows that is true, excellent.
What it does not show is that things are getting worse for people in general including those people who entered the workforce in the ten years that the study was running. Forgetting about illegals because I don't see how they could be getting into the numbers anyway. According to the US census Bureau average household income from 1993 to 2003 (similar timing) increased by only $4,143 that's before inflation or increase of CPI so really the average household income decreased even during the boom.
Yet, before the next study is finished, you know the results? Unfortunately, things will be skewed by the recession, but why do you think a documented 20-year trend of wage increases would suddenly stop?
Which is the point of pointing out this study. Average Household Income doesn't tell you what happens to people on an individual level. The claim is that people don't have the opportunity to move up anymore, that they are stuck in the disappearing middle class and lower class. But in reality, people have tremendous opportunities to increase their income and wealth.
Besides, the Census Bureau shows the following, inflation-adjusted increases from 1996-2005.
Bottom 20% - $2,600
Second 20% - $7,000
Middle 20% - $11,700
Fourth 20% - $20,400
Top 20% - $46,000
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/d … household/
So even adjusting for inflation, you can see mean increases among each group.
This means that each group's income is increasing, and individuals within the lower two brackets have a high rate of upward mobility.
So, tell me, where is the problem?
The problem is clear, yes as we all know people make more money as they gain seniority experience etc, nothing surprising about it but the falling average wages show very clearly that the average trend is downwards and the situation of the average America is getting worse and worse.
Actually, I just showed that over the time period of the report, all quintiles enjoyed increasing wages, adjusted for inflation.
So where are you getting your downward trend?
Let's look at average wages over the years 2008-2009-2010 compared to 1998-1999-2000
1st 20 2nd 20 3rd 20 4th 20 5th 20
1,649 4,805 9,008 16,051 35,495
So, every group looks to be going up. Who is going down?
My boss is starting people at 1 dollar an hour less than last year....it's a thing the owners are doing now.
Guess they can claim hardship--and pay less.
Meanwhile, Exxon/Mobil made more than the GDP of Bahrain.
"how's the tanker, Condi??"
Interesting, given the discussion:
Fox News: "poor are getting richer"
"While it is true that the poor make 17% more than they did in the 60's, "Stimpy" deliberately ignores the fact that the cost of living has risen by over 25% in the same amount of time"
Blimey the cost of living in the UK has risen by far more than that since the sixties and far more than wages have as well.
LMC, 'the poor' is talking about an ever-changing group of people.
The average person in the bottom 20% of Americans in 1996 doubled his income by 2005.
We're talking about upward mobility. The average poor person in the 60s would have moved out of the 'poor' group by the 70s.
Even I can remember when $50.00 would buy a lot of groceries...
Here guys. If someone made $20,000 in 1996, then increased that by 100% by 2005, adjusted for inflation, that means they made $49,679 in 2005.
CPI(cost of living factor) in 1996 was 1.569.
CPI in 2005 was 1.953
So, the 'real' value of this person's income, expressed in 1983 dollars, would be the following:
1996 - 20,000/1.569 = $12,746
2005 - 49,679/1.953 = $25,437
These numbers account for inflation and cost of living. That was the kind of change that the bottom 20% averaged from 1996-2005.
I fully understand the numbers and what you try to say. Does basically the numbers and formulas the politicians have been using. But the numbers do not reflect reality. The cost of products have far outpaced the rise of salaries. While it is true that low income earners have had you just percentage of increase in salaries, everything is relevant. For example if you are making $20,000 and salaries were raised 50% you would now be making $30,000. If you are making $1 million and salaries were raised 50% we now be making $1,500,000. One person is making $10,000 more, the other is making $500,000 more, huge difference yet in percentages it's the same.
But if you look at the cost of products from say the 1980s to now you would find that the cheapest of products prices have gone up a minimum 500%. So in 1980 with your $20,000 salary you can purchase a car for $5000, but today with your $30,000 salary the same car now costs $25,000. Making that car payment today is now much harder
I wrote a whole article on this and your are more than welcome to read it.
From 1980 to now, the cost of living has increased ~270%.
by rhamson 6 years ago
Two trains of thought are being bantered back and forth. Does a raising of the minimum wage create job loss and lower profits and more unemployment or does it increase disposable income thereby jump starting the economy and increasing hiring?
by deb douglas 5 years ago
My husband is a disabled vet and I could not believe the notice he got in the mail this last month. Social Security informed him that the cost of living has actually remained the same or even maybe went down, according to the government, therefore they are charging him with an overpayment for...
by Kathryn L Hill 6 weeks ago
Marxist governments, such as China, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea rely on the money and labor of their citizens, through taxation, redistribution of wealth and work camps.This reliance, I consider a con.What are some other cons and what are the pros?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 3 months ago
What can be done to save the American middle class? Can the middle class be saved or will some sectors of the middle class be absorbed into the very lower upper class & other sectors of the middle class be absorbed into the lower socioeconomic classes?
by Josak 9 years ago
Wages have not been keeping up with the cost of living for a long time now in the US and the primary reason is the weakening of the unions, the problem really began during the presidency of Ronnie the union buster Reagan, unions began to lose ground against other movements and many were in fact...
by Scott Belford 3 years ago
To answer that you need to ask what year. Is it 2019 or 2022 or 2027? Because my wife and I are over 65 and we itemized, chances are good we will pay MORE in taxes from the get go.That said, more than 60% of us think their taxes will ultimately go up. That assessment agrees with...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|