The average is frankly, fairly uninteresting given what the distribution looks like. It's not a "typical" income, or the 50th percentile. It's just basically the sum of income divided by the number of earners.
Reminds me of the old saw about how when Bill Gates walks into a bar, everyone turns into a millionaire, on average.
Well, I was interested because 2009 is the only dip year in their data. The distribution data is not as interesting to me given what they ignore in income and location.
Yeah, but you don't know if it's a dip because the typical person made less, or the richest 1% made less. Given that 2009 was a recession, you'd expect average to be down either way (since population didn't change appreciably.)
Could just be a timing issue. Recessions are measured on quarterly performance, this is annual. So you could have two quarters of negative growth in a row (a recession) and still have overall positive growth for the year.
Also, wages/employment are sticky because of the friction in changing them... companies will generally change comp slower than the change in sales (in both directions.)