Recent Census Data - Household Income - Spinning Bad News

[taquinas101]

I remember reading a press release last month about how the US Census reported that US median household income has risen over the past year. Of course, this idea of robust growth did not seem to comport with my experiences in my community. Well, it turns out that median household income did grow, but when you compare growth under Bush to growth under Clinton, there simply is no comparison.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

For example, on page 11, the graph shows that real median household grew by over $5,000 under Clinton. However, under Bush, real median household income has yet to recover the levels reached under Bush. Bottom line: Americans are earning less when adjusted for inflation.

Page 47 of the census is even more damning, since it breaks out real income growth by quintiles.

Under Clinton (1992 to 2000):
1. The real income threshold for the top 5% of Americans grew from $135K in 1992 to $164K in 2000.
2. The top 20% of American households saw their real income grow from $124K in 1992 to $161K in 2000.
3. The middle 20% of American households saw their real income grow from $41K in 1992 to about $48K in 2000.
4. The bottom 20% of American households saw their real income grow from about $10K in 1992 to about $11.5K in 2000.

Bottom line: All Americans enjoyed real growth in income during the Clinton years, particularly the top 20%.

Under Bush (2000-2005):
1. The real income threshold for the top 5% of Americans grew from $164K in 2000 to $166K in 2005.
2. The top 20% of American households saw their real income FALL from $161K in 2000 to $159K in 2005.
3. The middle 20% of American households saw their real income FALL from $48K in 2000 to $46K in 2005.
4. The bottom 20% of American households saw their real income FALL from $11.5K in 2000 to $10.5K in 2005.

Bottom line: Only the top 5% of American households enjoyed any real income growth, while most Americans are poorer now then they were at the beginning of Bush's presidency. Moreover, the growth in income of the top 5% was at a substantially lower rate of growth then they enjoyed under Clinton.

The frustrating thing, of course, is that Bush will point to the anemic growth in non-inflation adjusted income enjoyed in the past year or so, and declare that his tax cuts are working, which is kind of like how freedom is winning in the war on terror.

[papau]

1. Data behind your link show income after inflation adj decreased since 2000

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p01ar.html

Table P-1. CPS Population and Per Capita
Money Income, All Races: 1967 to 2004

(Population as of March of the following year. Income
in current and 2004 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars 28/)
__________________________________________________________
Per capita income
______________________
Year..................Number.........Current $.....2004 $
2004..................291,155 ..... $23,848 ..... $23,848
2003 .................288,280 ......23,276 .......23,902
2002 .................285,933 ......22,794....... 23,943
2001 .................282,082 ..... 22,851....... 24,384
2000 .................279,517...... 22,346....... 24,511
1999 .................276,804 ..... 21,239 ...... 24,074
1998 271,743 20,120 23,286
1997 269,094 19,241 22,582
1996 266,792 18,136 21,739
1995 25/ 264,314 17,227 21,204
1994 24/ 262,105 16,555 20,872
1993 23/ 259,753 15,777 20,310
1992 22/ 256,830 14,847 19,589
1991 251,434 14,617 19,770
1990 248,886 14,387 20,162
1989 246,191 14,056 20,678
1988 243,685 13,123 20,135
1987 21/ 241,187 12,391 19,704
1986 238,789 11,670 19,190
1985 20/ 236,749 11,013 18,440
1984 19/ 234,066 10,328 17,869
1983 231,852 9,494 17,082
1982 229,587 8,980 16,828
1981 227,375 8,476 16,824
1980 225,242 7,787 16,908
1979 18/ 223,160 7,168 17,282
1978 215,935 6,455 17,026
1977 214,159 5,785 15,915
1976 17/ 212,566 5,271 15,426
1975 16/ 211,140 4,818 14,909
1974 16/15/ 209,572 4,445 14,894
1973 207,949 4,141 15,250
1972 14/ 206,302 3,769 14,749
1971 13/ 204,840 3,417 13,783
1970 205,214 3,177 13,384
1969 202,189 3,007 13,278
1968 200,139 2,731 12,585
1967 12/ 198,120 2,464 11,809

[taquinas101]

2. Shouldn't This Be The Focus . . . All The Republicans Can ...

Offer is fear to obscure their pathetic record on safeguarding the interests of American families. The Democrats can offer hope. And it does not take a rocket scientist to fix things. For example:

1. Stop with tax cuts aimed the richest 5% such as the estate tax cut. As the figures show, they are the only ones whose real income did not fall during the Bush years.

2. Stop providing tax "incentives" to oil companies to encourage exploration, they have had their most profitable years on record. Perhaps they need to feel a profit pinch to encourage them to be more creative.

3. National Security is intrinsically related to a well thought out energy policy that goes beyond simply "drill more." California has enacted laws encouraging energy conservation, as have other states. Why is the federal government dragging its feet? Repeal the exception for SUVs.

There are so many concrete things that the Bush administration has done to hurt Americans: (1) the bankruptcy law changes, (2) attempts to abrogate social security as we know it, and (3) relaxation of and failure to enforce environmental protections, most notably the suppression of the toxic hazards generated by the 9/11 attack.

The Republicans can only offer the boogie man, and say inane things like Saddam Hussien wants you to vote for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. What are we? In preschool? Here's the facts, American families are worse off under Republican rule. Its time for a change. Reject fear. Vote for hope.

Vote Democrat in this election and the 2008 presidential election.

[papau]

3. I agree - but the same old personal smear game is planned by the GOP n/t

n/t