Comments on: The Pernicious ‘No Real Economic Progress’ Myth http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/08/16/the-pernicious-no-real-economic-progress-myths/ The Business End of the Blogosphere Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:04:29 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: TBlumer http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/08/16/the-pernicious-no-real-economic-progress-myths/comment-page-1/#comment-123903 TBlumer Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:55:34 +0000 http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=7333#comment-123903 If you're referring to the second table, I think the cap gains flush-out referred to in the post largely solves that problem. If you're referring to the third, that already does the quintile thing, and I went to it specifically to overcome whatever objections might remain to the second. I don't think the Page 4 story you're referring to with Median HOUSEHOLD income going up by about 1/3 in 40 years refutes per-capita info. Both have weaknesses. Per-capita flushes away the problems with changes in household size, which is trending downward (how fast, I haven't looked, but I think it's pretty well-known that household size is quite a bit lower now than 40 years ago; it also doesn't take much of a household size reduction to cause a diff between per capita and household results). More recently in the Page 4 graph, 2005 and 2006 appear to be higher than 2001; 2005 appears to be higher than 2000. This table I believe DOES have cap gains in it (Census does, the BEA I used doesn't, IIRC), which, along with the options exercises, bubble-driven cap gains boom, and investment-firm windfalls of 1997-2000, would explain why 1998-2000 are showing as better. I think "the rich" garnered most of that excess, and that the "working people" trendline would be straighter through those years. Tom PS. Posted your e-mail and this one to the blog. Don't know why your problems are occurring. The comment spammers aren't having any problems.... If you’re referring to the second table, I think the cap gains flush-out referred to in the post largely solves that problem.

If you’re referring to the third, that already does the quintile thing, and I went to it specifically to overcome whatever objections might remain to the second.

I don’t think the Page 4 story you’re referring to with Median HOUSEHOLD income going up by about 1/3 in 40 years refutes per-capita info. Both have weaknesses. Per-capita flushes away the problems with changes in household size, which is trending downward (how fast, I haven’t looked, but I think it’s pretty well-known that household size is quite a bit lower now than 40 years ago; it also doesn’t take much of a household size reduction to cause a diff between per capita and household results).

More recently in the Page 4 graph, 2005 and 2006 appear to be higher than 2001; 2005 appears to be higher than 2000. This table I believe DOES have cap gains in it (Census does, the BEA I used doesn’t, IIRC), which, along with the options exercises, bubble-driven cap gains boom, and investment-firm windfalls of 1997-2000, would explain why 1998-2000 are showing as better. I think “the rich” garnered most of that excess, and that the “working people” trendline would be straighter through those years.

Tom

PS. Posted your e-mail and this one to the blog. Don’t know why your problems are occurring. The comment spammers aren’t having any problems….

]]> By: Invictus http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/08/16/the-pernicious-no-real-economic-progress-myths/comment-page-1/#comment-123902 Invictus Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:55:20 +0000 http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=7333#comment-123902 I would question the use of Real Per Capita Personal Income as most representative of true "economic progress." The Census Bureau has a footnote (#22) in this document (http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf) that states: "22 Unlike medians, per capita and means are affected by high incomes." So, to the extent that high incomes have gone higher, the per capita data may be skewed. I'm sure you're aware that the Median Household Income number (page 4 of that same publication) tells an entirely different story. I would question the use of Real Per Capita Personal Income as most representative of true “economic progress.”

The Census Bureau has a footnote (#22) in this document (http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf) that states: “22 Unlike medians, per capita and means are affected by high incomes.”

So, to the extent that high incomes have gone higher, the per capita data may be skewed.

I’m sure you’re aware that the Median Household Income number (page 4 of that same publication) tells an entirely different story.

]]>