Heckuva Job Bushie!
The median income in the U.S. decreased from 2007 to 2008.
The U.S. Census Bureau announced today that real median household income in the United States fell 3.6 percent between 2007 and 2008, from $52,163 to $50,303. This breaks a string of three years of annual income increases and coincides with the recession that started in December 2007.
The nation’s official poverty rate in 2008 was 13.2 percent, up from 12.5 percent in 2007. There were 39.8 million people in poverty in 2008, up from 37.3 million in 2007.
Meanwhile, the number of people without health insurance coverage rose from 45.7 million in 2007 to 46.3 million in 2008, while the percentage remained unchanged at 15.4 percent.
Don’t be fooled by the small change in the number of uninsured, more people lost their employer coverage (those evil lazy people) but an almost equal number of people gained that awful, horrible government-run insurance.
Between 2007 and 2008, the number of people covered by private health insurance decreased from 202.0 million to 201.0 million, while the number covered by government health insurance climbed from 83.0 million to 87.4 million. The number covered by employment-based health insurance declined from 177.4 million to 176.3 million.
The U.S. poverty rate was also the highest in 10 years. I think that means we need more tax cuts for the rich and more deregulation, obviously.
Tags: Bush's Fubar Economy
What year did the Dems take back control of both houses again? I can’t remember.
Remember this is “median” income. I wonder how much of the decline was caused by the very wealthy losing their paper wealth.
The thing to track is real wages and middle-class buying power.
“I wonder how much of the decline was caused by the very wealthy losing their paper wealth.”
None of it, as I doubt many of the “very wealthy” lost enough to cross the line of the median income. Median isn’t average; it means as many people have an income above that number as below. So the “very wealthy” losing tons of money is unlikely to move that needle at all.
None of it, as I doubt many of the “very wealthy” lost enough to cross the line of the median income.
Back to math class, you.
When the top incomes get lower the median goes down, whether the middle guys are actually making less or not.
Businesses reduced inventories at the wholesale level in August and sales rose by the largest amount in more than a year, according to government data released today. More than likely, rising sales should help convince businesses to stop slashing inventories and increase their orders for more goods, a shift that would boost production at the nation’s beleaguered factories and aid a broader economic recovery.
Fridays generally a bad day for the stock market (profit taking, concern with weekend news, especially on the anniversary of 9/11), but a gain today would be six straight days.
US job losses slowed more than expected in August and worker productivity increased for the fourth straight month. Unemployment requests also dipped more than expected in August.
Housing and auto sales have picked up considerably due to government action. Analysts expect a robust fall as homebuyers seek to take advantaqe of the Obama $8,000 rebate checks before they expire.
Things are certainly looking better in large part due to agressive monetary policies and incentive programs that make sense.
No, you’re thinking of the mean.
It was during the year when idiot Republicans thought the housing bubble was totally sustainable and would last forever. Magical thinking.
Yes, median is much better way to measure than mean. The mean is skewed by the very high incomes. The median is the income directly in the middle.
I haven’t looked at the data closely enough to know what happened with the high earners. It’s my understand that their income didn’t take a big hit until the stock market crashed in 2008. The middle and low income people started feeling the effects of the recession first.
Exactly, X.
The housing bubble was a policy pursued by George W. Bush and the Republican Congress.
No, you’re thinking of the mean.
No, I am thinking of when there are fewer higher income individuals clustered at the top.
Back to math class yourself. Or just go to the dictionary.
I wonder – do they throw out the very highest outliers for median income, or do they keep them in?
no, the housing bubble was caused by Bill Clinton, and lawyers like Barack Obama and Nazi organizations like ACORN who sued and forced banks that wouldn’t make loans to poor irresponsible black people. ..er um I mean people.
That created bad debt and fake demand and when those black people… I mean people, who got their houses because of Barack Obama the lawyer and his evil cult of hookers and ballot box stuffers i.e ACORN, when they weren’t able to pay their debts, good REAL Americans, white christian Americans who don’t have sex before they get hitched and vote for Sarah Palin…. WE WERE LEFT HOLDING THE BAG!!!!! WE SURROUND THEM!!!! CHEROO CHERIE *gets misspelled anti obama sign and tag bag*
Oh my… isn’t Glenn Beck’s We surround them 9/12 project tomorrow?
anon,
Let’s go to wikipedia:
it is! i better make sure i have supplies…. who knows how long i’ll be surrounded… oh i mentioned i recently moved… the building i now live in gets every single cable channel EXCEPT MSNBC. that is because the package offered by the condo is voted on by “the Council” of home owners, and they intentionally block MSNBC. ’tis sad
Anon: Please try to get this through your head: Whether your income is $60,000 or $6 billion, you count the same — as one person above the median. You don’t have to “throw out” anything, because unlike an average, a single number doesn’t throw off the median.
From the US Census Bureau via wikipedia:
“Median income is the amount which divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount.”
So when there are fewer wealthy people (i.e., they fall through the old median), the median point is recalculated at a lower value.
Obviously if Bill Gates goes broke the median won’t change much, but if 100,000 shareholders lose their high paper incomes they will affect the median.
Granted, I did misspeak at first about the high outliers. But remember, this is median *income* not median wealth…. there are a lot of rich people declaring no income last year.
Not by much anon. There are so many more people at the lower incomes than at the higher incomes.
“there are a lot of rich people declaring no income last year”
Really? You have a link? Or do you simply “know” this?
“if 100,000 shareholders lose their high paper incomes they will affect the median.”
Only if it moves them to the wrong side of $51,000 or so. I’d wager that’s a very small percentage of the people who owned GM, or any other, stock — especially since most mid-income people own stocks in retirement accounts, meaning it doesn’t count toward their income.
Adjusted for inflation:
Median household income, 1993 to 2001: 12.04%
Median household income, 2001 to 2008: -2.05%
The peak year under Bush (2007) was still below the peak years under Clinton (1998 to 2000), adjusted for inflation.
Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf
Who cares about mean or median income, what’s the modal income?
LOL