Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I looked this up because I so often run into the perception that people in the United States have gotten "worse off" over time in terms of income. It's just not true.

If you go to http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/d ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and click on the "All Races" link under "Table P-8", you will get an Excel file to open.

What you will see is that, while there have been variations up and down in inflation adjusted terms, the general trend in median individual income has been up for both men and women. The first year of the table is 1947 and the last year is 2009. In 2009 dollars, the median income of males in 1947 was $18,732 per year and the median income of females was $8,543 per year. In 2009 the median income of males was $32,184 per year and that of females was $20,957 per year.

This thing in popular mythology whereby people think that there has been some kind of dramatic plunge in the incomes of "typical" Americans as compared to the "glory days" just isn't true.

JohnStOnge wrote:I looked this up because I so often run into the perception that people in the United States have gotten "worse off" over time in terms of income. It's just not true.

If you go to http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/d ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and click on the "All Races" link under "Table P-8", you will get an Excel file to open.

What you will see is that, while there have been variations up and down in inflation adjusted terms, the general trend in median individual income has been up for both men and women. The first year of the table is 1947 and the last year is 2009. In 2009 dollars, the median income of males in 1947 was $18,732 per year and the median income of females was $8,543 per year. In 2009 the median income of males was $32,184 per year and that of females was $20,957 per year.

This thing in popular mythology whereby people think that there has been some kind of dramatic plunge in the incomes of "typical" Americans as compared to the "glory days" just isn't true.

Consumer spending drives the economy. Each generation dreams about a higher standard of living for their children. Those children expect at least an equal standard of living as their parents. The generation that came back to work after WWII had the GI Bill to provide them with an education, a healthcare plan for affordable medical care, and a pension which enabled them to retire with dignity.

JohnStOnge wrote:I looked this up because I so often run into the perception that people in the United States have gotten "worse off" over time in terms of income. It's just not true.

If you go to http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/d ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and click on the "All Races" link under "Table P-8", you will get an Excel file to open.

What you will see is that, while there have been variations up and down in inflation adjusted terms, the general trend in median individual income has been up for both men and women. The first year of the table is 1947 and the last year is 2009. In 2009 dollars, the median income of males in 1947 was $18,732 per year and the median income of females was $8,543 per year. In 2009 the median income of males was $32,184 per year and that of females was $20,957 per year.

This thing in popular mythology whereby people think that there has been some kind of dramatic plunge in the incomes of "typical" Americans as compared to the "glory days" just isn't true.

I have no doubt you are correct, income has risen over the years. However, inflation adjustment seems a poor science. For example, inflation adjusted median income for males in 1947 was $18,732, exactly as you reported. Unadjusted, this same income is listed as $2,230, enough to purchase two cars (avg. new car price in 1947 ~1,100) or a long way to owning a home. Sure, homes and cars are much improved........ but are people really better off?

In other words, I would much rather live in 1947 with my $2,230 than $18,732 today..... all else being equal.

JohnStOnge wrote:I looked this up because I so often run into the perception that people in the United States have gotten "worse off" over time in terms of income. It's just not true.

If you go to http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/d ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and click on the "All Races" link under "Table P-8", you will get an Excel file to open.

What you will see is that, while there have been variations up and down in inflation adjusted terms, the general trend in median individual income has been up for both men and women. The first year of the table is 1947 and the last year is 2009. In 2009 dollars, the median income of males in 1947 was $18,732 per year and the median income of females was $8,543 per year. In 2009 the median income of males was $32,184 per year and that of females was $20,957 per year.

This thing in popular mythology whereby people think that there has been some kind of dramatic plunge in the incomes of "typical" Americans as compared to the "glory days" just isn't true.

Yes it is true. While income in true dollars adjusted for inflation may have remained relatively the same or increased, what a family can purchase with the dollars they earned have dropped dramatically. Basic needs like a house or car are now a much greater percentage of a family income regardless of an adjusted increase in income. The fact is that basic needs take up a much greater percentage of the average family's money today vs. 50 years ago.

Franks Tanks wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I looked this up because I so often run into the perception that people in the United States have gotten "worse off" over time in terms of income. It's just not true.

If you go to http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/d ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and click on the "All Races" link under "Table P-8", you will get an Excel file to open.

What you will see is that, while there have been variations up and down in inflation adjusted terms, the general trend in median individual income has been up for both men and women. The first year of the table is 1947 and the last year is 2009. In 2009 dollars, the median income of males in 1947 was $18,732 per year and the median income of females was $8,543 per year. In 2009 the median income of males was $32,184 per year and that of females was $20,957 per year.

This thing in popular mythology whereby people think that there has been some kind of dramatic plunge in the incomes of "typical" Americans as compared to the "glory days" just isn't true.

Yes it is true. While income in true dollars adjusted for inflation may have remained relatively the same or increased, what a family can purchase with the dollars they earned have dropped dramatically. Basic needs like a house or car are now a much greater percentage of a family income regardless of an adjusted increase in income. The fact is that basic needs take up a much greater percentage of the average family's money today vs. 50 years ago.

Ah, how quickly we forget.

"Basic needs". What EXACTLY does that mean? I come from a family of 10 kids and we lived in a 1,400 square foot home with 3 bedrooms. Somehow we survived, but most Americans today wouldn't be caught DEAD in a 1,400 square foot home....anything less than 2,000 square feet is considered "spartan". In fact, according to Google answers, the average single family home size increased steadily from 1000 square feet in 1950 to 2300 square feet in 2001 and today is over 2350 square feet.

We had ONE car (a 6-year old station wagon) that we got around in. Today, 58% of households have 2 cars and can't IMAGINE getting by with only one car, and many buy a new car every three years. The automobile has become a disposable asset.

From Wikipedia:

The number of motor vehicles in the US has risen by 157 million (212.16%) since 1960, while the population of licensed drivers grew by 109 million (125.28%).

In 1960 there were 87 million drivers but only 74 million cars. By 2003 there were 196 million drivers but over 231 million cars....hmmm....is that "need" or "want"?

My point is this: the average American's concept of a "basic need" has changed dramatiacally since 1960. Just like salaries. Comparing ANYTHING from these two decades 50 years apart is a futile effort.

AZGrizFan wrote: Ah, how quickly we forget.

"Basic needs". What EXACTLY does that mean? I come from a family of 10 kids and we lived in a 1,400 square foot home with 3 bedrooms. Somehow we survived, but most Americans today wouldn't be caught DEAD in a 1,400 square foot home....anything less than 2,000 square feet is considered "spartan". In fact, according to Google answers, the average single family home size increased steadily from 1000 square feet in 1950 to 2300 square feet in 2001 and today is over 2350 square feet.

We had ONE car (a 6-year old station wagon) that we got around in. Today, 58% of households have 2 cars and can't IMAGINE getting by with only one car, and many buy a new car every three years. The automobile has become a disposable asset.

From Wikipedia:

The number of motor vehicles in the US has risen by 157 million (212.16%) since 1960, while the population of licensed drivers grew by 109 million (125.28%).

In 1960 there were 87 million drivers but only 74 million cars. By 2003 there were 196 million drivers but over 231 million cars....hmmm....is that "need" or "want"?

My point is this: the average American's concept of a "basic need" has changed dramatiacally since 1960. Just like salaries. Comparing ANYTHING from these two decades 50 years apart is a futile effort.

Pure Gold...
This is the crux of the American dilemma (as completely nailed by AZ)
We have unknowingly and unwittingly created a consumerist society where more and more "is the norm" and expectations of wealth far exceed cognitive understanding or "how money works"

Example: "Create a budget" is a phrase all of our grand parents know and understand - almost intuitively...

Today over 80% of high school SENIORS could not explain what "creating a budget" meant
Not in regards to themselves or the country or their family
It's a LOST concept


AZ speaks the truth me thinks

Chizzang wrote:We have unknowingly and unwittingly created a consumerist society where more and more "is the norm" and expectations of wealth far exceed cognitive understanding or "how money works"

Can many Americans imagine living without: a car for every driver, a cell phone/PDA for everyone in the house over the age of 12, cable/dish, high speed internet... my parents didn't have any of those recurring costs.

89Hen wrote:

Chizzang wrote:We have unknowingly and unwittingly created a consumerist society where more and more "is the norm" and expectations of wealth far exceed cognitive understanding or "how money works"

Can many Americans imagine living without: a car for every driver, a cell phone/PDA for everyone in the house over the age of 12, cable/dish, high speed internet... my parents didn't have any of those recurring costs.

...600 cable TV channels, a TV in every room, more computers than people in the home, quads all around, a boat, an RV, a timeshare, etc., etc., etc.

Basic needs.

I have:
3 laptops and a Tower system at each one of the homes.
A blackberry and an Android phone
Jeep, Chevy Ext Cab 4X4, Kia Sorento, 86 Honda Civic Wagon and a Dodge Ram Diesel.

My wife just has one car, one phone, and one laptop.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I have:
3 laptops and a Tower system at each one of the homes.
A blackberry and an Android phone
Jeep, Chevy Ext Cab 4X4, Kia Sorento, 86 Honda Civic Wagon and a Dodge Ram Diesel.

My wife just has one car, one phone, and one laptop.

Poster Child for "need".

AZGrizFan wrote:

Franks Tanks wrote:
Yes it is true. While income in true dollars adjusted for inflation may have remained relatively the same or increased, what a family can purchase with the dollars they earned have dropped dramatically. Basic needs like a house or car are now a much greater percentage of a family income regardless of an adjusted increase in income. The fact is that basic needs take up a much greater percentage of the average family's money today vs. 50 years ago.

Ah, how quickly we forget.

"Basic needs". What EXACTLY does that mean? I come from a family of 10 kids and we lived in a 1,400 square foot home with 3 bedrooms. Somehow we survived, but most Americans today wouldn't be caught DEAD in a 1,400 square foot home....anything less than 2,000 square feet is considered "spartan". In fact, according to Google answers, the average single family home size increased steadily from 1000 square feet in 1950 to 2300 square feet in 2001 and today is over 2350 square feet.

We had ONE car (a 6-year old station wagon) that we got around in. Today, 58% of households have 2 cars and can't IMAGINE getting by with only one car, and many buy a new car every three years. The automobile has become a disposable asset.

From Wikipedia:

The number of motor vehicles in the US has risen by 157 million (212.16%) since 1960, while the population of licensed drivers grew by 109 million (125.28%).

In 1960 there were 87 million drivers but only 74 million cars. By 2003 there were 196 million drivers but over 231 million cars....hmmm....is that "need" or "want"?

My point is this: the average American's concept of a "basic need" has changed dramatiacally since 1960. Just like salaries. Comparing ANYTHING from these two decades 50 years apart is a futile effort.

Great Post!

AZGrizFan wrote:

Franks Tanks wrote:
Yes it is true. While income in true dollars adjusted for inflation may have remained relatively the same or increased, what a family can purchase with the dollars they earned have dropped dramatically. Basic needs like a house or car are now a much greater percentage of a family income regardless of an adjusted increase in income. The fact is that basic needs take up a much greater percentage of the average family's money today vs. 50 years ago.

Ah, how quickly we forget.

"Basic needs". What EXACTLY does that mean? I come from a family of 10 kids and we lived in a 1,400 square foot home with 3 bedrooms. Somehow we survived, but most Americans today wouldn't be caught DEAD in a 1,400 square foot home....anything less than 2,000 square feet is considered "spartan". In fact, according to Google answers, the average single family home size increased steadily from 1000 square feet in 1950 to 2300 square feet in 2001 and today is over 2350 square feet.

We had ONE car (a 6-year old station wagon) that we got around in. Today, 58% of households have 2 cars and can't IMAGINE getting by with only one car, and many buy a new car every three years. The automobile has become a disposable asset.

From Wikipedia:

The number of motor vehicles in the US has risen by 157 million (212.16%) since 1960, while the population of licensed drivers grew by 109 million (125.28%).

In 1960 there were 87 million drivers but only 74 million cars. By 2003 there were 196 million drivers but over 231 million cars....hmmm....is that "need" or "want"?

My point is this: the average American's concept of a "basic need" has changed dramatiacally since 1960. Just like salaries. Comparing ANYTHING from these two decades 50 years apart is a futile effort.

AZ, everything you say is true, but not everyone lives like that. In many parts of this country it is virtually impossible for a blue collar type guy to get by with what would be considered the basics 50 years ago-- A small home or apartment, a reasonable reliable car, and enough spending money to buy what he needs.

I fully realize that we have a ton of extra expenses from all of the sources you mention, but plenty of hardowrking people struggle without spending money on unnessary items.

AZGrizFan wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I have:
3 laptops and a Tower system at each one of the homes.
A blackberry and an Android phone
Jeep, Chevy Ext Cab 4X4, Kia Sorento, 86 Honda Civic Wagon and a Dodge Ram Diesel.

My wife just has one car, one phone, and one laptop.

Poster Child for "need".

Not at all. He's generously supporting the needy by keeping them employed in retail. He's actually quite altruistic.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:
My wife just has one car, one phone, and one laptop.

Somebody married you..!!!



Jeezus

Interesting discussion. I think there is something to the argument that the cost of a house relative to median income is greater now than it was in, say, 1950. However, I also think the typical house is more "luxurious" than the typical house was in 1950.

We'd have to do some research but I think a greater percentage of American families are in houses they "own" now than in 1950. I also think they have things people didn't have in 1950. They are more likely to have air conditioning, for example. They have computers and flat screen TVs. They have microwaves. They have cable and satellite TV. So on and so forth.

To me there is very little doubt that the "typical" American has more material gratification than the "typical" American in 1950 did.

Chizzang wrote:Example: "Create a budget" is a phrase all of our grand parents know and understand - almost intuitively...

Today over 80% of high school SENIORS could not explain what "creating a budget" meant
Not in regards to themselves or the country or their family
It's a LOST concept

I didn't think high school seniors could be elected to Congress. Who knew?