Median Household Income Rises by Most on Record

[Toro]

Finally, the recovery is broadening.

The Great Recession officially ended in 2009. But 2015 may go down as the year the recovery finally began for most Americans.

The Census Bureau reported Tuesday that the median U.S. household made $56,516 in 2015, up 5.2 percent from 2014 after adjusting for inflation. That’s the first increase since 2007, and the largest one-year increase on record. The number of Americans living in poverty fell by 3.5 million, and the poverty rate fell 1.2 percentage points, to 13.5 percent, the biggest drop since 1968.​

The Recovery Finally Reached Most Americans In 2015

 

[Wyatt earp]

Finally, the recovery is broadening.

The Great Recession officially ended in 2009. But 2015 may go down as the year the recovery finally began for most Americans.

The Census Bureau reported Tuesday that the median U.S. household made $56,516 in 2015, up 5.2 percent from 2014 after adjusting for inflation. That’s the first increase since 2007, and the largest one-year increase on record. The number of Americans living in poverty fell by 3.5 million, and the poverty rate fell 1.2 percentage points, to 13.5 percent, the biggest drop since 1968.​

The Recovery Finally Reached Most Americans In 2015

I wonder how they count that? 3.5 million leaving poverty?

Was it because of welfare?

Or jobs being created in redstates ?


.

 

[Arianrhod]

Finally, the recovery is broadening.

The Great Recession officially ended in 2009. But 2015 may go down as the year the recovery finally began for most Americans.

The Census Bureau reported Tuesday that the median U.S. household made $56,516 in 2015, up 5.2 percent from 2014 after adjusting for inflation. That’s the first increase since 2007, and the largest one-year increase on record. The number of Americans living in poverty fell by 3.5 million, and the poverty rate fell 1.2 percentage points, to 13.5 percent, the biggest drop since 1968.​

The Recovery Finally Reached Most Americans In 2015

I wonder how they count that? 3.5 million leaving poverty?

Was it because of welfare?

Or jobs being created in redstates ?


.

Maybe you can look it up and get back to us.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Finally, the recovery is broadening.

The Great Recession officially ended in 2009. But 2015 may go down as the year the recovery finally began for most Americans.

The Census Bureau reported Tuesday that the median U.S. household made $56,516 in 2015, up 5.2 percent from 2014 after adjusting for inflation. That’s the first increase since 2007, and the largest one-year increase on record. The number of Americans living in poverty fell by 3.5 million, and the poverty rate fell 1.2 percentage points, to 13.5 percent, the biggest drop since 1968.​

The Recovery Finally Reached Most Americans In 2015

Median Household Income

Such a useless statistic.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Finally, the recovery is broadening.

The Great Recession officially ended in 2009. But 2015 may go down as the year the recovery finally began for most Americans.

The Census Bureau reported Tuesday that the median U.S. household made $56,516 in 2015, up 5.2 percent from 2014 after adjusting for inflation. That’s the first increase since 2007, and the largest one-year increase on record. The number of Americans living in poverty fell by 3.5 million, and the poverty rate fell 1.2 percentage points, to 13.5 percent, the biggest drop since 1968.​

The Recovery Finally Reached Most Americans In 2015

I wonder how they count that? 3.5 million leaving poverty?

Was it because of welfare?

Or jobs being created in redstates ?


.

Maybe you can look it up and get back to us.

So that's where your info stops? Just rah rah bullshit and no in depth investigations?

You disappoint me but Brian Williams would be proud.

 

[Jomama]

It's a statistic and no statistic is useless. It attempts to measure one of the more important parts of our economic system and right or wrong it correlates to other data on the topic. So what;s your problem with it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's a statistic and no statistic is useless. It attempts to measure one of the more important parts of our economic system and right or wrong it correlates to other data on the topic. So what;s your problem with it?

It's a statistic and no statistic is useless.

It's pretty useless.
If there are 100,000,001 households, the top 50 million could see a 30% increase,
the bottom 50,000,001 could be unchanged and the median would show a 0% increase.

Is the country better off with that unchanged median?

 

[pinqy]

It's a statistic and no statistic is useless. It attempts to measure one of the more important parts of our economic system and right or wrong it correlates to other data on the topic. So what;s your problem with it?

It's a statistic and no statistic is useless.

It's pretty useless.
If there are 100,000,001 households, the top 50 million could see a 30% increase,
the bottom 50,000,001 could be unchanged and the median would show a 0% increase.

Is the country better off with that unchanged median?

Besides the fact that your scenario is incredibly unlikely, to the point where I sincerely doubt we would ever see such a thing happen, you seem to be missing the point of looking at the median. The median is looked at to tell the middle of the income distribution. The spread could be anything at all...it's not relevant to where the middle is. But it is always a good idea to look at the median and the mean. In your case, we'd see that the mean income has gone up, and that the median has not, indicating that all the gains were with the upper half.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's a statistic and no statistic is useless. It attempts to measure one of the more important parts of our economic system and right or wrong it correlates to other data on the topic. So what;s your problem with it?

It's a statistic and no statistic is useless.

It's pretty useless.
If there are 100,000,001 households, the top 50 million could see a 30% increase,
the bottom 50,000,001 could be unchanged and the median would show a 0% increase.

Is the country better off with that unchanged median?

Besides the fact that your scenario is incredibly unlikely, to the point where I sincerely doubt we would ever see such a thing happen, you seem to be missing the point of looking at the median. The median is looked at to tell the middle of the income distribution. The spread could be anything at all...it's not relevant to where the middle is. But it is always a good idea to look at the median and the mean. In your case, we'd see that the mean income has gone up, and that the median has not, indicating that all the gains were with the upper half.

The median is looked at to tell the middle of the income distribution.

It looks at the median household not the middle of income. Huge difference.

In your case, we'd see that the mean income has gone up, and that the median has not, indicating that all the gains were with the upper half

Exactly, you could have huge gains for the economy and the median could barely move.

 

[william the wie]

The emphasis on free cash flow as the easiest metric to measure also distorts the value of the statistics available. While it is now easier to measure wealth than ever before it is still difficult to measure. And as Enron demonstrated and Deutsche Bank is demonstrating balance sheets can be catastrophically misleading.

 

[pinqy]

It's a statistic and no statistic is useless. It attempts to measure one of the more important parts of our economic system and right or wrong it correlates to other data on the topic. So what;s your problem with it?

It's a statistic and no statistic is useless.

It's pretty useless.
If there are 100,000,001 households, the top 50 million could see a 30% increase,
the bottom 50,000,001 could be unchanged and the median would show a 0% increase.

Is the country better off with that unchanged median?

Besides the fact that your scenario is incredibly unlikely, to the point where I sincerely doubt we would ever see such a thing happen, you seem to be missing the point of looking at the median. The median is looked at to tell the middle of the income distribution. The spread could be anything at all...it's not relevant to where the middle is. But it is always a good idea to look at the median and the mean. In your case, we'd see that the mean income has gone up, and that the median has not, indicating that all the gains were with the upper half.

The median is looked at to tell the middle of the income distribution.

It looks at the median household not the middle of income. Huge difference.

To be precise, it looks at the household income where an equal number of households are above as below.

In your case, we'd see that the mean income has gone up, and that the median has not, indicating that all the gains were with the upper half

Exactly, you could have huge gains for the economy and the median could barely move.

It's extremely unlikely that your case would ever occur, but in any case the report also breaks down the distribution by quintile, so it's not hard to see what you say we wouldn't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's a statistic and no statistic is useless. It attempts to measure one of the more important parts of our economic system and right or wrong it correlates to other data on the topic. So what;s your problem with it?

It's a statistic and no statistic is useless.

It's pretty useless.
If there are 100,000,001 households, the top 50 million could see a 30% increase,
the bottom 50,000,001 could be unchanged and the median would show a 0% increase.

Is the country better off with that unchanged median?

Besides the fact that your scenario is incredibly unlikely, to the point where I sincerely doubt we would ever see such a thing happen, you seem to be missing the point of looking at the median. The median is looked at to tell the middle of the income distribution. The spread could be anything at all...it's not relevant to where the middle is. But it is always a good idea to look at the median and the mean. In your case, we'd see that the mean income has gone up, and that the median has not, indicating that all the gains were with the upper half.

The median is looked at to tell the middle of the income distribution.

It looks at the median household not the middle of income. Huge difference.

To be precise, it looks at the household income where an equal number of households are above as below.

In your case, we'd see that the mean income has gone up, and that the median has not, indicating that all the gains were with the upper half

Exactly, you could have huge gains for the economy and the median could barely move.

It's extremely unlikely that your case would ever occur, but in any case the report also breaks down the distribution by quintile, so it's not hard to see what you say we wouldn't.

To be precise, it looks at the household income where an equal number of households are above as below.

To be precise, it's not a very useful statistic.

It's extremely unlikely that your case would ever occur

It's extremely unlikely that the upper half has much larger gains than the household in the middle?
Are you sure you want to go there?

but in any case the report also breaks down the distribution by quintile,

That's much more useful. Not perfect.

 

[pinqy]

It's a statistic and no statistic is useless. It attempts to measure one of the more important parts of our economic system and right or wrong it correlates to other data on the topic. So what;s your problem with it?

It's a statistic and no statistic is useless.

It's pretty useless.
If there are 100,000,001 households, the top 50 million could see a 30% increase,
the bottom 50,000,001 could be unchanged and the median would show a 0% increase.

Is the country better off with that unchanged median?

Besides the fact that your scenario is incredibly unlikely, to the point where I sincerely doubt we would ever see such a thing happen, you seem to be missing the point of looking at the median. The median is looked at to tell the middle of the income distribution. The spread could be anything at all...it's not relevant to where the middle is. But it is always a good idea to look at the median and the mean. In your case, we'd see that the mean income has gone up, and that the median has not, indicating that all the gains were with the upper half.

The median is looked at to tell the middle of the income distribution.

It looks at the median household not the middle of income. Huge difference.

To be precise, it looks at the household income where an equal number of households are above as below.

In your case, we'd see that the mean income has gone up, and that the median has not, indicating that all the gains were with the upper half

Exactly, you could have huge gains for the economy and the median could barely move.

It's extremely unlikely that your case would ever occur, but in any case the report also breaks down the distribution by quintile, so it's not hard to see what you say we wouldn't.

To be precise, it looks at the household income where an equal number of households are above as below.

To be precise, it's not a very useful statistic.

It's extremely unlikely that your case would ever occur

It's extremely unlikely that the upper half has much larger gains than the household in the middle?
Are you sure you want to go there?

No, it's extremely unlikely that ONLY those above the median get an increase and everything below stays static. It's extremely unlikely that the upper half gains without the median moving at all.

but in any case the report also breaks down the distribution by quintile,

That's much more useful. Not perfect.

Nothing is perfect.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's a statistic and no statistic is useless.

It's pretty useless.
If there are 100,000,001 households, the top 50 million could see a 30% increase,
the bottom 50,000,001 could be unchanged and the median would show a 0% increase.

Is the country better off with that unchanged median?

Besides the fact that your scenario is incredibly unlikely, to the point where I sincerely doubt we would ever see such a thing happen, you seem to be missing the point of looking at the median. The median is looked at to tell the middle of the income distribution. The spread could be anything at all...it's not relevant to where the middle is. But it is always a good idea to look at the median and the mean. In your case, we'd see that the mean income has gone up, and that the median has not, indicating that all the gains were with the upper half.

The median is looked at to tell the middle of the income distribution.

It looks at the median household not the middle of income. Huge difference.

To be precise, it looks at the household income where an equal number of households are above as below.

In your case, we'd see that the mean income has gone up, and that the median has not, indicating that all the gains were with the upper half

Exactly, you could have huge gains for the economy and the median could barely move.

It's extremely unlikely that your case would ever occur, but in any case the report also breaks down the distribution by quintile, so it's not hard to see what you say we wouldn't.

To be precise, it looks at the household income where an equal number of households are above as below.

To be precise, it's not a very useful statistic.

It's extremely unlikely that your case would ever occur

It's extremely unlikely that the upper half has much larger gains than the household in the middle?
Are you sure you want to go there?

No, it's extremely unlikely that ONLY those above the median get an increase and everything below stays static. It's extremely unlikely that the upper half gains without the median moving at all.

but in any case the report also breaks down the distribution by quintile,

That's much more useful. Not perfect.

Nothing is perfect.

For a portion of the "recovery" the upper income group had gains while the median declined.

 

[Vigilante]

What happened to Full Time jobs...or Food Stamps users, or black poverty, and unemployment?

 

[pinqy]

Besides the fact that your scenario is incredibly unlikely, to the point where I sincerely doubt we would ever see such a thing happen, you seem to be missing the point of looking at the median. The median is looked at to tell the middle of the income distribution. The spread could be anything at all...it's not relevant to where the middle is. But it is always a good idea to look at the median and the mean. In your case, we'd see that the mean income has gone up, and that the median has not, indicating that all the gains were with the upper half.

The median is looked at to tell the middle of the income distribution.

It looks at the median household not the middle of income. Huge difference.

To be precise, it looks at the household income where an equal number of households are above as below.

In your case, we'd see that the mean income has gone up, and that the median has not, indicating that all the gains were with the upper half

Exactly, you could have huge gains for the economy and the median could barely move.

It's extremely unlikely that your case would ever occur, but in any case the report also breaks down the distribution by quintile, so it's not hard to see what you say we wouldn't.

To be precise, it looks at the household income where an equal number of households are above as below.

To be precise, it's not a very useful statistic.

It's extremely unlikely that your case would ever occur

It's extremely unlikely that the upper half has much larger gains than the household in the middle?
Are you sure you want to go there?

No, it's extremely unlikely that ONLY those above the median get an increase and everything below stays static. It's extremely unlikely that the upper half gains without the median moving at all.

but in any case the report also breaks down the distribution by quintile,

That's much more useful. Not perfect.

Nothing is perfect.

For a portion of the "recovery" the upper income group had gains while the median declined.

From 2011 to 2012 the overall gains of the upper income groups went up (not all, though), while the median and some of the lower half groups declined. But that's not quite what you were talking about.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The median is looked at to tell the middle of the income distribution.

It looks at the median household not the middle of income. Huge difference.

To be precise, it looks at the household income where an equal number of households are above as below.

In your case, we'd see that the mean income has gone up, and that the median has not, indicating that all the gains were with the upper half

Exactly, you could have huge gains for the economy and the median could barely move.

It's extremely unlikely that your case would ever occur, but in any case the report also breaks down the distribution by quintile, so it's not hard to see what you say we wouldn't.

To be precise, it looks at the household income where an equal number of households are above as below.

To be precise, it's not a very useful statistic.

It's extremely unlikely that your case would ever occur

It's extremely unlikely that the upper half has much larger gains than the household in the middle?
Are you sure you want to go there?

No, it's extremely unlikely that ONLY those above the median get an increase and everything below stays static. It's extremely unlikely that the upper half gains without the median moving at all.

but in any case the report also breaks down the distribution by quintile,

That's much more useful. Not perfect.

Nothing is perfect.

For a portion of the "recovery" the upper income group had gains while the median declined.

From 2011 to 2012 the overall gains of the upper income groups went up (not all, though), while the median and some of the lower half groups declined. But that's not quite what you were talking about.

The median number not being a useful stat for discussing the state of the economy is kinda what I was talking about.

 

[Jomama]

It seems like a useful stat for understanding movement in median household income. By popular vote, that may be America's most popular macro statistic.

 

[Jomama]

The emphasis on free cash flow as the easiest metric to measure also distorts the value of the statistics available. While it is now easier to measure wealth than ever before it is still difficult to measure. And as Enron demonstrated and Deutsche Bank is demonstrating balance sheets can be catastrophically misleading.

Yes. Caveat Emptor. I've seen big name CPA firms and banks tricked by scallywags.