
Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019 - refurb
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-270.html
======
addicted
Wouldn’t the large number of Americans in their 20s living in their parents
homes have affected this?

I suspect a lot of those who have moved back into their parents’ homes were
likely earning below the median household income. Remove them as a household,
and suddenly the median family is one higher on the income scale.

~~~
dv_dt
Hey look, 2019 household data validating the household size growth part of
your conjecture:

[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/01/the-
number-...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/01/the-number-of-
people-in-the-average-u-s-household-is-going-up-for-the-first-time-in-
over-160-years/)

~~~
jeffbee
Hrmm, not consistent with Census Bureau current population survey which shows
household size hitting a record low in 2019.

[https://www2.census.gov/programs-
surveys/demo/tables/familie...](https://www2.census.gov/programs-
surveys/demo/tables/families/time-series/households/hh4.xls)

~~~
cle
What conclusion should I draw from these seemingly inconsistent statistics?

~~~
chaorace
I would say it is wiser to draw a conclusion using the census household size
data, since the headline statistic of household income is also sourced from
the census. Why compare apples and oranges when you have apples and apples?

~~~
SubiculumCode
Well the inferences would only be as good as the sampling then. I know for me,
the census was the last thing that was on my mind, and it was only completed
it because my spouse was did it. There has been many issues with Census data
collection (take a google news search).

~~~
jeffbee
This data is from the Current Population Survey where they select households
and then either visit or call on the phone. It's not a thing where they just
mail out the survey. The CPS also repeatedly selects the same household in
consecutive surveys, which gives them continuity that other surveys lack.

------
refurb
Pretty dense report with lots of interesting statistics.

These got my attention:

 _The 2019 poverty rate of 10.5 percent is the lowest rate observed since
estimates were initially published in 1959_

 _The 2019 real median incomes of White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic households
all increased from their 2018 medians [between 5.7% (Blacks) and 10.6%
(Asians)]_

 _Percentage change in share of aggregate income was highest for the lowest
income quintile (+1.8%). High income quintile saw decrease in share of
aggregate income (-0.6%)_

~~~
soulofmischief
The poverty line has not scaled with the increase in expenditures associated
with modern living, nor increased worker value. The only adjustments made in
the last half-century have been for inflation and bare-minimum at that.

America is a lot more poor than these statistics let on when compared to the
rest of the first world. Furthermore debt is not considered in many such
analyses.

~~~
bhupy
What? America is like the top 3 in median disposable income in the world:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_c...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income)

US wealth per adult is higher than Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and the
Netherlands:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult)

~~~
mortehu
They include retirement income as income, but do they exclude retirement
savings? In US there’s a huge burden to save for your own retirement, and
modern retirement vehicles (e.g. 401k and IRA) pay out in full even if you die
young (no longevity risk pooling), so they’re a lot more expensive to fund.

~~~
bhupy
It's PPP adjusted disposable income after all taxes and transfers, so that
includes Social Security, welfare, etc.

It's debatable if this is able to adequately capture all forms of non-cash
transfers (like food stamps). To get around this, the World Bank uses
consumption as a metric for well-being. By that metric, the poorest 20%
consume more than the average person in most OECD countries[1][2], including
Canada, the UK, Sweden, Australia, Japan, Denmark, New Zealand, and Iceland.

[1]
[https://www.nber.org/chapters/c12831.pdf](https://www.nber.org/chapters/c12831.pdf)

[2] [https://fee.org/articles/the-poorest-20-of-americans-are-
ric...](https://fee.org/articles/the-poorest-20-of-americans-are-richer-than-
most-nations-of-europe/)

~~~
mortehu
I was referring to money set away for retirement. Since moving from Norway to
US, I can’t really spend all my disposable income, given that maximum social
security benefits are so low.

~~~
refurb
Using my google skills it looks like the maximum supplemental pension in
Norway is NOK 293 583 or $32,216 USD.[1]

The maximum US social security pension is $49,680 USD.[2]

Obviously it scales based on income, but at least for US tech workers, you're
likely to get close to the maximum amount since you'd be earning over $110,000
for a significant chunk of your career.

The US has a much higher maximum pension amount than Canada, where it's $1,176
CAD or $889 USD. You do get an old age benefit on top of $613 CAD, which bring
it up to $1,351 USD or $16,212 USD per year.

[1][https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1123&intPageId=47...](https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1123&intPageId=4713&langId=en)

[2][https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2010-2011/ame...](https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2010-2011/americas/united_states.html)

~~~
mortehu
You shouldn't look only at supplementary pension for Norway. Everyone gets the
basic pension as well, and if you're employed your employer must also
contribute on your behalf.

~~~
refurb
So what is the maximum for someone with a high income? I'm not that familiar
with Norway's pension system, so definitely open to being educated on it.

It's complex, but if you have a high salary it looks like the basic pension is
NOK 89 872, so another $9,889 USD, for a total of $42,105 USD?

~~~
mortehu
Disclaimer: this is awfully complicated, and I’m not an expert

What’s most relevant for this discussion is the system for people who are
earning now for retirement in the future. The amounts are adjusted yearly, but
the current maximum rate is about $14300. This is tax funded, and so doesn’t
come out of your disposable income. Gaps from illness, unemployment, military
service and caregiving are covered. When you start withdrawal, the accrued
amount is adjusted for changes in the average national income and your life
expectancy based on your age. I.e. the money is paid back to you at a rate
that draws your balance to zero at the expected date of your death. If you
live longer, it keeps going of course, funded by the people who die earlier.
The maximum rate is therefore achieved by retiring at the oldest age (74), or
roughly $97000/year with today’s numbers. This would require making well above
the national average salary starting at age 13.

If you max out your income based pension described above, the base pension
gets reduced substantially. Looks like it can go as low as $4300/year of
benefits currently.

On top of these two pension types, your employer must save at least 2% of your
income up to $134000, and pay for insurance that covers contributions if you
become disabled. The employer must cover all associated costs. These plans
vary a lot and have no maximum.

I will add that you need substantially less income in retirement in Norway
since you won’t be paying for healthcare, and property taxes are extremely
low.

------
p1necone
Why is household income such a common statistic to use - it seems like it
doesn't tell us much unless you at least normalize it by the number of earners
in the house and the cost of rent?

For example - I'm pretty sure large numbers of people living together and
sharing rent is _way_ more common nowadays than it used to be. From 18 - 25
(I'm 27 now) I was always living in a house with at least 3 other people
(usually 4-5), because that was literally the only way I could afford to pay
rent if I wanted to eat as well and I'm still splitting rent 50/50 with one
other person now.

Most of us were working (low paid) full time jobs, so our total household
income would have been pretty big - but this situation is obviously not _at
all_ an improvement over what we had a few decades ago when one minimum wage
full time income could afford their own house _and_ a full belly.

~~~
refurb
Average household size has been decreasing significantly and is at a low as of
2019.

[https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizat...](https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-
series/demo/families-and-households/hh-6.pdf)

~~~
dpkonofa
Does that include children under 18, though? If so, then they're not counted
in the income calculation. That means the problem is _worse_ , not better.

~~~
refurb
_" The term "size of household" includes all the people occupying a housing
unit."_[1]

And household income is all income earned, including those down to 15 years
old.[1]

Plus, the report breaks out individual income as well and the numbers are
similar.

[1][https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-
docume...](https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-
documentation/subject-definitions.html)

------
jeffbee
This survey comes with a chapter-length caveat that says the current data
should not be used to compare with the prior year, because the survey response
rate was exceptionally low and potentially biased by COVID-19. The survey was
conducted in spring of 2020 and asks respondents to report their 2019 income,
which is where the estimate of 2019 HH income growth is coming from. But,
beginning on page G-9 (353rd page) of [1] the Census itself says:

""" it is likely that the characteristics of people for whom a telephone
number was found may be systematically different from the people for whom the
Census Bureau was unable to obtain a telephone number. While the Census Bureau
creates weights designed to adjust for nonresponse and to control weighted
counts to independent population estimates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic
origin, the magnitude of the increase in (and differential nature of)
nonresponse related to the pandemic likely reduced their effectiveness. Using
administrative data, Census Bureau researchers have documented that there are
more (and larger) differences between respondents and nonrespondents in 2020
than in the prior three years. Of particular interest for the estimates in the
ASEC reports are the differences in median income and educational attainment,
indicating that respondents in 2020 had relatively higher income and were more
educated than nonrespondents."""

1: [https://www2.census.gov/programs-
surveys/cps/techdocs/cpsmar...](https://www2.census.gov/programs-
surveys/cps/techdocs/cpsmar20.pdf)

------
aronowb14
Interesting... in 2018, 2017, and 2016 it only really increased by 1 or 2
percentage points.

[https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-26...](https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-266.html)

[https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-26...](https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-263.html)

[https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-25...](https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-259.html)

~~~
omgwtfbyobbq
They're could be some lag in tax cuts making their way into household income,
and some of this could be from corporations onshoring profits.

~~~
refurb
These numbers are pre-tax.

~~~
NoOneNew
There isn't "one tax" that effects households. There's also second and third
order-of-effect tax changes that affects income as well.

------
fiblye
This[1] is from the year prior, but it indicates that wages may not be going
up and causing income to go up. People may just be working more. Not sure if
it applies to 2019 as well, though.

[1] [https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/10/04/if-
real-w...](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/10/04/if-real-wages-
arent-rising-how-is-household-income-going-up/)

------
dazilcher
The mental gymnastics some commenters use to turn this into bad news...

Occam must be spinning in his grave.

~~~
ntsplnkv2
Generally everyone in the US views the US negatively right now.

maybe some mumbo jumbo stat that has nothing to do with the real world says
things are better. Or maybe they frankly are not better.

~~~
DeonPenny
No a weird subsect view america that way

~~~
ntsplnkv2
Multiple subsects, on both sides.

------
hirundo
Related from the Census Bureau:

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EiCLL-
_UYAIBJ_T?format=jpg&name=...](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EiCLL-
_UYAIBJ_T?format=jpg&name=small)

The middle class is disappearing ... into the upper class.

~~~
burlesona
That’s interesting but I think also a little misleading. The income brackets
are held in constant dollars, which is helpful, but many of the important
things in life have scaled like crazy in constant dollars as well.

$100k equivalent income in the 1960s was enough to buy a family home almost
anywhere, and now it’s not enough to buy a family home in most major metros.

~~~
motorcycleman9
The way that CPI inflation is calculated accounts for spending pattern changes
already, including mortgage/rent. If you don't have a nuanced critique of the
CPI calculation method, I'd argue that this point is moot.

It's also worth pointing out that the average square footage of a home has
grown considerably in this time, and that even if you are comparing a similar
sized home, it is unfair to compare a home 3 miles from city center in a city
of 1 million people to the same in a city of 2 million people, after it has
grown through the years.

------
adrr
Interesting to see such a good improvement. My questions is why the Fed cut
interest rates in 2019. Everything i read is the economy is strong. Curious
what the fed saw that warranted a drop in the interest rate.

~~~
adventured
They started cutting because broad economic growth was softening noticeably.

The labor market was extremely tight though, which was pushing wages up at an
accelerating rate. Most of the slack in the labor market was gone.

GDP growth had been grinding lower for multiple years, the very long economic
expansion was probably increasingly due for a recession (which we have now
gotten out of the way).

If a more natural recession had occurred circa 2020 or 2021 (without the
pandemic), it likely would have been shallow, with the Fed always guns-ready
to pump (since the great recession). The economy was strong in the sense that
there wasn't anything major structurally wrong with it such that it was about
to implode, however growth was not anything to write home about leading up to
the pandemic.

------
peterthehacker
This is good to see but I’m curious how 2020 will turn out. I would guess that
with with the pandemic driven shutdown median household income will drop
pretty dramatically. Maybe more than this 6.8% gain.

~~~
nerbert
Could also increase with households growing in size (other article about kids
going back to their parents).

------
tetris11
I wonder how much that increase scales further up the pay scale. Given the
still widening income inequality, I wonder if its exponential

~~~
refurb
They only show the change in the share of aggregate income. In other words, of
total income, how much did each quintile account for?

Lowest quintile +1.8% Highest quintile -0.6%

So it would appear it didn't go to the highest income earners.

------
nine_zeros
This is good. Rising incomes are a good thing.

My only problem is that it comes along with rising inequality. We needed to
have more billionaires and multimillionaires (and thus raise asset values and
debt much higher) for the wage increases to happen. Which basically means that
the wage increases don't lead to a better quality of life.

More incoming money, more outgoing money.

~~~
DeonPenny
Wage i.e. income increased is exactly what did happen. Billionaires and
millionaires aren't bad. And income equality not a good goal. If we create
more rich people at the same time incomes increase for the lower and middle
class at historic who cares about the ratio split.

~~~
nine_zeros
Equality isn't a good goal. But expansive inequality isn't either.

I'm not arguing for socialism. I'm arguing for proportionate slice of the pie
for the work done. The share of the pie is heavily skewed towards owning
wealth in the first place today and the only way to keep the vast majority
employed seems to be making the rich richer.

~~~
DeonPenny
If expansive inequality isn't the goal why does it matter.

What does the percent of the pie matter even if you slice is getting bigger at
historic paces because the pie in general is bigger. Would you rather have a
higher percentage of a smaller pie or a lower percentage of a smaller pie.

Equality isn't the goal, equal opportunity is and higher standard of living
I'd guess and focusing on equity may not be helping.

------
DeonPenny
Its basically been growing like crazy since 2008. Check out the difference
between the US growth vs most first world countries growth. The GDP per capita
was 45k in 2008 and 48k in 2019. The US when from 48k to 63k.

------
jb775
> _The 2019 real median earnings of men ($57,456) and women ($47,299) who
> worked full-time, year-round increased by 2.1 percent and 3.0 percent,
> respectively_

If individual earnings gains are less than household income gains, it means
people aren't necessarily _making_ more money, it means they're _working more_
total hours. I don't consider this a good thing for the richest country in the
world. It's also interesting to note that women earnings increased almost a
full percentage more than mens.

~~~
refurb
Working more might be a person going from a part-time 30hr per week job to a
full time 40hr per week job.

That’s a good thing, no?

~~~
jb775
I think of it more as people needing to work more hours overall just to afford
the same lifestyle.

~~~
refurb
That would be inflation. And the income increase is _real_ income, so
inflation is accounted for.

~~~
jb775
I feel like the inflation measurement is BS. It tracks prices of goods, but
doesn't account for people paying for things they didn't pay for in the past
(day care, bottled water, health insurance, retirement savings), and comparing
that to their income. 25 years ago it was normal for families to live fairly
well-off on a single income...nowadays you'd barely make ends meet.

It's deceiving nowadays because we're basically living the same lifestyle
quality we were 25 years ago, except that either _both_ parents are working
like dogs, or the even sadder reality of couples foregoing/delaying kids
because of their finances.

------
purple_ferret
Coincides with $15 minimum wage showing up in a lot of places. Coincidence????

~~~
tbihl
This is median, so maybe if you're saying the mechanism is fewer low income
jobs available? 15/hr at 40h/50wk is 30k, so it would not raise median to
bring the floor up.

------
dboreham
Ah...statistics..

------
SubiculumCode
Can we trust the numbers these days? At least several Federal departments have
been politicized recently..e.g. interference in CDC reports and others e.g.
[https://www.govexec.com/management/2020/09/calls-
investigati...](https://www.govexec.com/management/2020/09/calls-
investigations-resignations-ramp-over-allegations-political-interference-
federal-agencies/168497/)

edit: moreover, the impact of COVID on census data collection isn't likely to
be equal across income groups.

~~~
metiscus
Similar assertions were made during previous administrations. I suspect that
such claims will not become less familiar as the partisan gap widens. I don't
believe that outright fraud is happening in either case, but is our duty (and
that of the press) to watch the numbers and methodology statements carefully.
If the news was a bit more precise in its reporting of statistics it would go
a long way to making large scale manipulation more difficult.

[https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-
lambro...](https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambro-obama-
hides-jobs-failure-by-not-coun/)

~~~
SubiculumCode
There is no rational, evidenced argument that the last four years has been on
par with the Obama administration in terms of the corruption of political
appointees, or the degradation of our institutions. The what-about-ism you put
forth is a false equivalency in magnitude and kind.

We are in truly dangerous times, and I say this as a libertarian-leaning,
conservative-friendly individual: Trump is an existential threat to our
Republic.

