Median income by state: changes under Bush

[Bosh]

A very interesting map this is, very interesting indeed...

from here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._09/009444.php

It shows the amount that the median income has changed in each state since Bush became president.

[SlowwHand]

I make the exact same thing, and that ain't good.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I make the exact same thing, and that ain't good.

Especially when indexed to inflation.

[Empress]

Could one possibly argue that the economic prosperity experienced during the Clinton administration was due to the "trickle down" of Reganomics and the decrease in incomes could be due to policies enacted during the Clinton era "trickling down?" Not to mention, the fact that since Bush took office, we've had a terrorist attack on US soil and a world-wide rise in the demand for raw materials & OIL.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Empress
Could one possibly argue that the economic prosperity experienced during the Clinton administration was due to the "trickle down" of Reganomics and the decrease in incomes could be due to policies enacted during the Clinton era "trickling down?" Not to mention, the fact that since Bush took office, we've had a terrorist attack on US soil and a world-wide rise in the demand for raw materials & OIL.

Could one argue that ponies, cute puppies and economic prosperity are always a result of the action of one political party? One could indeed!

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Bosh

Especially when indexed to inflation.

That's what I mean. Prices of all goes up, wages don't. If you're fortunate enough to even have wages. I'll take my same over none or less, and count myself lucky. What other realistic choice is there?

[DinoDoc]

Is it sad that I make more now?

[Bosh]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Is it sad that I make more now?

I make quite a bit more now too, but then living in a country where the local currency has gone up about 30% against the dollar since I moved here is nice...

[Dis]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I make the exact same thing, and that ain't good.

but (if I'm reading the map right), you are doing better than your fellow texans.

looks like the red states got hit the hardest. Coincidence? I think not.

[:) Smiley]

yet GDP has been growing every year... it's now about 20% higher than it was in 2000... while population is up less than 10%.

[Bosh]

Also the average person's income can increase without the state's median income increasing. If people who already were part of the workforce in 2000 make more money but people who'v entered the workforce since 2000 make crap money, the median income goes down...

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Smiley
yet GDP has been growing every year... it's now about 20% higher than it was in 2000... while population is up less than 10%.

Hmmmm, I wonder why...

[DanS]

That last graph doesn't tell the whole story. In truth, corporate profits and compensation have been in a tight band since the beginning of the great depression. The structure of our economy has changed very little in several generations.

[Kuciwalker]

And if you aren't assuming that corporate profits should make up no portion of the national income, then you have to somehow demonstrate that the previous levels were better than the current ones. It's possible for corporate profits to be too low.

(I'm not saying that is/was the case, but I don't see any compelling reason either way.)

[Bosh]

Originally posted by DanS
That last graph doesn't tell the whole story. In truth, corporate profits and compensation have been in a tight band since the beginning of the great depression. The structure of our economy has changed very little in several generations.

Well since the mid-70's wages have consistently grown at a rate that is lower than the rate of productivity growth (often markedly so, especially now as productivity is currently growing nicely but wages are relatively stagnant) that's not good and that's not sustainable.