>Almost all the benefits of economic growth since [the 1970s] have gone to a small number of people at the very top.
—Robert Reich, Financial Times, Jan. 29, 2008
>Since the mid-1970s, however, income growth has been confined almost entirely to top earners.
—Robert H. Frank, New York Times, March 9, 2008
>The modern American economy distributes the fruits of its growth to a relatively narrow slice of the population.
—David Leonhardt, New York Times, April 9, 2008
...
>These statistics appear quite compelling, but hiding in the background are some key issues that might alter the story. Average household size declined substantially during the past 30 years, so household income is being spread across fewer people. The mix of household types—married versus single, young versus old—also changed considerably, so the “median household” in 2006 looks quite different from the “median household” in 1976. Finally, the measure of income used by the Census Bureau to compute household income excludes some rapidly growing sources of income.
...
>Here is a preview of the key data issues that lead to the higher estimates of median household income growth.
>The price index used by the Census Bureau overstates inflation, and thus understates income gains, relative to a preferred price index.
>A changing mix of household types leads the overall median increase to understate the median increase of most household types.
>The Census Bureau measure of household income understates income growth by excluding some rapidly growing sources of income.
>The remaining difference between the 44 percent to 62 percent increase in median household incomes and the 80 percent increase in BEA personal income per person appears to be largely attributable to an increase in income inequality. The findings in this article are consistent with recent research showing that the largest income increases occurred at the top end of the income distribution. However, the findings here are not consistent with the view that the incomes of middle American households stagnated over the past 30 years. Income for most middle American households increased substantially.
So what's your point. Socialism was terrible for the economy but anyone who says wages stagnated is wrong because these stats show that income grew. So... socialism worked out?
IMO, what happened since the 70s is that corporate capture of economic growth increased, often through government spending. Basically what's being called neoliberalism: austerity for most, government handouts for the wealthy.
>austerity for most, government handouts for the wealthy.
It hasn't been austerity for most. I thought we just established that there has been a massive increase in social welfare spending.
>So what's your point.
My point is that wage growth has tracked productivity growth. Middle class wages have mostly tracked productivity growth. There has been a slowdown in wage growth, and this can be mostly attributed to a decrease in labour productivity growth.
Other factors have played a role in the slowdown in middle class wage growth, but they are far outsized by the effect of slowing labour productivity growth. Those 'other factors' relate to government intervention, not to any mythical "neoliberalism" that the socialist consensus always harps on about as it further pushes the US into socialism.
What this means is that social welfare expansions have far outsized the cuts.
>productivity has far outpaced the wages which workers have earned since the 70's.
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where...
>Almost all the benefits of economic growth since [the 1970s] have gone to a small number of people at the very top.
—Robert Reich, Financial Times, Jan. 29, 2008
>Since the mid-1970s, however, income growth has been confined almost entirely to top earners.
—Robert H. Frank, New York Times, March 9, 2008
>The modern American economy distributes the fruits of its growth to a relatively narrow slice of the population.
—David Leonhardt, New York Times, April 9, 2008
...
>These statistics appear quite compelling, but hiding in the background are some key issues that might alter the story. Average household size declined substantially during the past 30 years, so household income is being spread across fewer people. The mix of household types—married versus single, young versus old—also changed considerably, so the “median household” in 2006 looks quite different from the “median household” in 1976. Finally, the measure of income used by the Census Bureau to compute household income excludes some rapidly growing sources of income.
...
>Here is a preview of the key data issues that lead to the higher estimates of median household income growth.
>The price index used by the Census Bureau overstates inflation, and thus understates income gains, relative to a preferred price index.
>A changing mix of household types leads the overall median increase to understate the median increase of most household types.
>The Census Bureau measure of household income understates income growth by excluding some rapidly growing sources of income.
>The remaining difference between the 44 percent to 62 percent increase in median household incomes and the 80 percent increase in BEA personal income per person appears to be largely attributable to an increase in income inequality. The findings in this article are consistent with recent research showing that the largest income increases occurred at the top end of the income distribution. However, the findings here are not consistent with the view that the incomes of middle American households stagnated over the past 30 years. Income for most middle American households increased substantially.
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/sources-of-real-wage-stag...