Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think this is an apples to oranges argument. Over 20 years we've had significant population growth, so a continuous flow of people coming in at the bottom of the income ladder. Those who increase their skill set, start a business, or otherwise earn more money move up the income ladder, many of today's middle and upper income people were on the low end back in 1990. So of course the per capita household income is going to be fairly stagnant, why would you expect otherwise?
Corp profits are a prerequisite to staying in business. You make money or you're history. Anybody know how they determined this number? So tell me, how much profit do you need to make per year to get to 200% over 20 years? That's not a rhetorical question, I don't really know. What I do know is that money flows to where it can make the most return on investment (ROI). So over the long term you better be doing a lot better than just treading water. One wonders if it included the startups and other businesses that went belly up. Over the past 20 years US companies have greatly expanded overseas, thanks in part to an increasingly poor business environment here but also due to lower costs elsewhere and being closer to emerging markets worldwide.
There's no big mystery here. And it doesn't mean a damn thing. Look at the last few years, household income has done nothing or maybe even declined, yet business profits are good cuz American businessmen know how to cut back on costs to make a profit.
Do the income figures include transfer payments via the tax process?
I doubt it.
Yes it does.
Current Population Survey (CPS) - Definitions and Explanations
The number of 'households' does, but personal disposable income comes from the BEA and wage records are kept by the BLS. It doesn't matter because while the word "household" is in your title, it's not in the Barron's hit piece and we've no idea if Barnes used it....I believe household income comes from the Census data...
I like beliefs as much as the next guy but try not to note them without getting their basis in fact. All we got here is the story some leftist rich-basher's saying and nobody here knows what Barnes actually wrote --but it really doesn't matter because all of us are free to access BEA numbers on the economy for ourselves --total, percapita, whatever, or we even can even sit back and criticize those who do. We don't need Barrons telling us how....It should also be noted that Barnes (I believe) compares total corporate profits to median household income, which is a per capita measurement...
Not these days. Since the '08 election corporate real corp profits are up 12%, tax payments are up 7%, employee comp. is down 3%, and shareholder dividends are down 11%....corporate profit margins are near all time highs, which means that shareholders are capturing a greater share of economic wealth...
Do the income figures include transfer payments via the tax process?
I doubt it.
Yes it does.
Current Population Survey (CPS) - Definitions and Explanations
That definition does not include child credits and the earned income tax credit.
The EITC is in the alternate measure of income, but it doesn't look like that is what was used in the table.
The number of 'households' does, but personal disposable income comes from the BEA and wage records are kept by the BLS. It doesn't matter because while the word "household" is in your title, it's not in the Barron's hit piece and we've no idea if Barnes used it....I believe household income comes from the Census data...
I like beliefs as much as the next guy but try not to note them without getting their basis in fact. All we got here is the story some leftist rich-basher's saying and nobody here knows what Barnes actually wrote --but it really doesn't matter because all of us are free to access BEA numbers on the economy for ourselves --total, percapita, whatever, or we even can even sit back and criticize those who do. We don't need Barrons telling us how....It should also be noted that Barnes (I believe) compares total corporate profits to median household income, which is a per capita measurement...
Not these days. Since the '08 election corporate real corp profits are up 12%, tax payments are up 7%, employee comp. is down 3%, and shareholder dividends are down 11%....corporate profit margins are near all time highs, which means that shareholders are capturing a greater share of economic wealth...
wow those numbers look pretty interesting when you plug in who was president.
they look even more intersting when you plug in what was going on in the economy during those times.
Hey look bush has a net positive, lol.
That definition does not include child credits and the earned income tax credit.
The EITC is in the alternate measure of income, but it doesn't look like that is what was used in the table.
It won't matter in the median measurement since the median household does not get it.
I believe household income comes from the Census data. This is median household income.
That definition does not include child credits and the earned income tax credit.
The EITC is in the alternate measure of income, but it doesn't look like that is what was used in the table.
It won't matter in the median measurement since the median household does not get it.
And the median is a meaningless measure in this context.
I think this is an apples to oranges argument. Over 20 years we've had significant population growth, so a continuous flow of people coming in at the bottom of the income ladder. Those who increase their skill set, start a business, or otherwise earn more money move up the income ladder, many of today's middle and upper income people were on the low end back in 1990. So of course the per capita household income is going to be fairly stagnant, why would you expect otherwise?
Corp profits are a prerequisite to staying in business. You make money or you're history. Anybody know how they determined this number? So tell me, how much profit do you need to make per year to get to 200% over 20 years? That's not a rhetorical question, I don't really know. What I do know is that money flows to where it can make the most return on investment (ROI). So over the long term you better be doing a lot better than just treading water. One wonders if it included the startups and other businesses that went belly up. Over the past 20 years US companies have greatly expanded overseas, thanks in part to an increasingly poor business environment here but also due to lower costs elsewhere and being closer to emerging markets worldwide.
There's no big mystery here. And it doesn't mean a damn thing. Look at the last few years, household income has done nothing or maybe even declined, yet business profits are good cuz American businessmen know how to cut back on costs to make a profit.
Businesses are sitting on trillions of dollars of capital, that indicates they aren't investing in themselves and are satisfied with the status quo.
Being as over two-thirds of our economy is driven by consumer spending, by holding down wages they are holding down the US economy.
It won't matter in the median measurement since the median household does not get it.
And the median is a meaningless measure in this context.
Its a better measurement what is happening to the typical household than the average in understanding what is happening in the broad population because outliers can have an outsized effect and skew the average.
And the median is a meaningless measure in this context.
Its a better measurement what is happening to the typical household than the average in understanding what is happening in the broad population because outliers can have an outsized effect and skew the average.
It's a bogus measure due to the demographic changes of households. We have a higher mix of single person households now.
According to America's Families and Living Arrangements: 2010, the average household size declined to 2.59 in 2010, from 2.62 people in 2000. This is partly because of the increase in one-person households, which rose from 25 percent in 2000 to 27 percent in 2010, more than double the percentage in 1960 (13 percent).
Newsroom: Families & Households: U.S. Census Bureau Reports Men and Women Wait Longer to Marry
And the median is a meaningless measure in this context.
Its a better measurement what is happening to the typical household than the average in understanding what is happening in the broad population because outliers can have an outsized effect and skew the average.
It's a bogus measure due to the demographic changes of households. We have a higher mix of single person households now.
According to America's Families and Living Arrangements: 2010, the average household size declined to 2.59 in 2010, from 2.62 people in 2000. This is partly because of the increase in one-person households, which rose from 25 percent in 2000 to 27 percent in 2010, more than double the percentage in 1960 (13 percent).
Newsroom: Families & Households: U.S. Census Bureau Reports Men and Women Wait Longer to Marry
Sure, I'm like most people in that I like to imagine that I'm the center of everything, but my motivation isn't any more worthy of focus than your beliefs are. What's important here are the facts about incomes for households and businesses. This thread's article title says household incomes rose 2% while the corporations that these same households own had profits increasing 200%. Now, off hand that wouldn't make sense unless we're using a definition of 'income' that excludes the increased value of the businesses we own.Why do you assume the author is a leftist? Why do you assume its a hit piece? Why do you assume that the author might be lying about the BCA research? Would it make a difference to you if you had the piece and it confirmed everything the author stated, or would you argue that Barnes is a leftist who hates corporations?
This is slowest decade for population growth since the great depression, less 1% a year.I think this is an apples to oranges argument. Over 20 years we've had significant population growth, so a continuous flow of people coming in at the bottom of the income ladder. Those who increase their skill set, start a business, or otherwise earn more money move up the income ladder, many of today's middle and upper income people were on the low end back in 1990. So of course the per capita household income is going to be fairly stagnant, why would you expect otherwise?
Corp profits are a prerequisite to staying in business. You make money or you're history. Anybody know how they determined this number? So tell me, how much profit do you need to make per year to get to 200% over 20 years? That's not a rhetorical question, I don't really know. What I do know is that money flows to where it can make the most return on investment (ROI). So over the long term you better be doing a lot better than just treading water. One wonders if it included the startups and other businesses that went belly up. Over the past 20 years US companies have greatly expanded overseas, thanks in part to an increasingly poor business environment here but also due to lower costs elsewhere and being closer to emerging markets worldwide.
There's no big mystery here. And it doesn't mean a damn thing. Look at the last few years, household income has done nothing or maybe even declined, yet business profits are good cuz American businessmen know how to cut back on costs to make a profit.
This is slowest decade for population growth since the great depression, less 1% a year.I think this is an apples to oranges argument. Over 20 years we've had significant population growth, so a continuous flow of people coming in at the bottom of the income ladder. Those who increase their skill set, start a business, or otherwise earn more money move up the income ladder, many of today's middle and upper income people were on the low end back in 1990. So of course the per capita household income is going to be fairly stagnant, why would you expect otherwise?
Corp profits are a prerequisite to staying in business. You make money or you're history. Anybody know how they determined this number? So tell me, how much profit do you need to make per year to get to 200% over 20 years? That's not a rhetorical question, I don't really know. What I do know is that money flows to where it can make the most return on investment (ROI). So over the long term you better be doing a lot better than just treading water. One wonders if it included the startups and other businesses that went belly up. Over the past 20 years US companies have greatly expanded overseas, thanks in part to an increasingly poor business environment here but also due to lower costs elsewhere and being closer to emerging markets worldwide.
There's no big mystery here. And it doesn't mean a damn thing. Look at the last few years, household income has done nothing or maybe even declined, yet business profits are good cuz American businessmen know how to cut back on costs to make a profit.
U.S. population growth slowed, still envied - USATODAY.com
It has been the best of times for corporate profits, but rather less so for consumer incomes. Corporate earnings have soared 200% since 1990 while real median family incomes have increased by only 2%.
These data come from a recent article entitled, "High Profit Margins and Stagnant Real Incomes: Is Capitalism Working Properly?"
It didn't appear in The Nation but rather in The Bank Credit Analyst, the highly respected, long-time financial and economic research service that would never be thought of as some hotbed of populist fervor. And the author is not Michael Moore but Martin Barnes, the Bank Credit Analyst's long-time managing editor and self-described "dour Scot."
Moreover, rather than calling for a storming of the ramparts, Barnes poses questions of concern for the most self-interested of capitalists. Can the current high level of profit margins be maintained? Even more basically, can the corporate sector continue to prosper while the average consumer struggles?
What's stunning about the current cycle is that, despite a weak economic recovery, profit margins are near historic highs, albeit short of their historic peak in 2005. A major driver has been earnings from abroad, which have increased to 35% of total U.S. company profits from 20% since 1999.
Bottom line, the main factors that have propelled corporate profitscost-cutting, financial profits and overseas earningsare waning. Even so, companies have done a far sight better than workers, as noted earlier. Since 2000, they've fallen even further behind; profits are up 70% while real median family incomes are down 2%.
Part of that has been because consumer prices have risen faster than corporate selling prices, which reflect costs of capital goods which have been held down by technology, Barnes notes. "However, it seems clear that labor has not received its fair share in recent years, even when using corporate prices," he adds, falling 4% short of what would be expected based on productivity gains.
"Ultimately, the health of the corporate sector depends on the financial health of its customers. Thus, the divergence between rising profits and weak growth in real consumer incomes will have to change," Barnes asserts.
Corporate Profit Gains at Labor's Expense May be Hitting Limit - Barrons.com
As most economic theories go, it sounds reasonable but how do you know there is a steadily increasing volume at the lowest end as compared to increased income at medium and the higher end?This is slowest decade for population growth since the great depression, less 1% a year.I think this is an apples to oranges argument. Over 20 years we've had significant population growth, so a continuous flow of people coming in at the bottom of the income ladder. Those who increase their skill set, start a business, or otherwise earn more money move up the income ladder, many of today's middle and upper income people were on the low end back in 1990. So of course the per capita household income is going to be fairly stagnant, why would you expect otherwise?
Corp profits are a prerequisite to staying in business. You make money or you're history. Anybody know how they determined this number? So tell me, how much profit do you need to make per year to get to 200% over 20 years? That's not a rhetorical question, I don't really know. What I do know is that money flows to where it can make the most return on investment (ROI). So over the long term you better be doing a lot better than just treading water. One wonders if it included the startups and other businesses that went belly up. Over the past 20 years US companies have greatly expanded overseas, thanks in part to an increasingly poor business environment here but also due to lower costs elsewhere and being closer to emerging markets worldwide.
There's no big mystery here. And it doesn't mean a damn thing. Look at the last few years, household income has done nothing or maybe even declined, yet business profits are good cuz American businessmen know how to cut back on costs to make a profit.
U.S. population growth slowed, still envied - USATODAY.com
Okay, what we're really talking about here are people entering the workforce over the past 20 years, which means they were born around 1973 - 1993. For income purposes those born after 1993 aren't old enough yet to start working. The census numbers I found show that the rise in population for that 20 year period comes in at around 45 million. Don't know what the labor participation rate was, but let's assume around 65%. That's about 30 million, a lot of folks, and most of them are starting out at the bottom.
Point being, every year since 1990 we've had a slowing increasing number of Americans entering the workforce, at whatever the minimum wage was. When you have a steadily increasng volume at the lowest end, it should not be surprising that the median household income does not rise much at all.
Its a better measurement what is happening to the typical household than the average in understanding what is happening in the broad population because outliers can have an outsized effect and skew the average.
It's a bogus measure due to the demographic changes of households. We have a higher mix of single person households now.
According to America's Families and Living Arrangements: 2010, the average household size declined to 2.59 in 2010, from 2.62 people in 2000. This is partly because of the increase in one-person households, which rose from 25 percent in 2000 to 27 percent in 2010, more than double the percentage in 1960 (13 percent).
Newsroom: Families & Households: U.S. Census Bureau Reports Men and Women Wait Longer to Marry
We also have a greater number of people entering the workforce at the bottom levels. And we have less upward mobility in wages due to increased productivity, automation, outsourcing, and a host of other factors. It would therefore be unreasonable to expect the median household to rise by any measure over the past 20 years.
Where as total corp profits over the past 20 years would be expected to be quite high, you gotta turn a prfit or you're gone. Comparing these two statistics is meaningless, neither has anything to do with the other.
It's a bogus measure due to the demographic changes of households. We have a higher mix of single person households now.
According to America's Families and Living Arrangements: 2010, the average household size declined to 2.59 in 2010, from 2.62 people in 2000. This is partly because of the increase in one-person households, which rose from 25 percent in 2000 to 27 percent in 2010, more than double the percentage in 1960 (13 percent).
Newsroom: Families & Households: U.S. Census Bureau Reports Men and Women Wait Longer to Marry
We also have a greater number of people entering the workforce at the bottom levels. And we have less upward mobility in wages due to increased productivity, automation, outsourcing, and a host of other factors. It would therefore be unreasonable to expect the median household to rise by any measure over the past 20 years.
Where as total corp profits over the past 20 years would be expected to be quite high, you gotta turn a prfit or you're gone. Comparing these two statistics is meaningless, neither has anything to do with the other.
wise
there IS A DIFFERENCE between 'turning a profit' and 'making RECORD profits'
it seems you are interchanging them.....
of course any business needs to make a profit to continue with the business....but the business does not have to make huge profit increases, to where they set some of their all time profit percentage record highs imo!
