Comment on Average Income in the United States by exticeCoeme

Here is a graph of average income (1913-2004) that I have been working on for a while. I am trying to incorporate into the graph economic and world events that would have affected the U. S economy making the assumption that the avg income is also affected by these events. The graph shows income that includes capital gain and income that does not consider capital gains. After you finish looking at historical average income you should analyse out my series of graphs on to understand why add up income doesn't express the whole story. This graph is nice and its cool to juxtapose with certain economic milestones and presidential administrations. But just looking at add up incomes is sloppy economic analysis. What is a exceed indicator of tracking a worker incentives over time is the real wage. Real wages refers to wages that have been adjusted for inflation. Growth in real wages agree with inflation growth in productivity and government spending. As you can see in the cerebrate below from. Real Wages and working benefits are down 8.25% in the period of 1964 to 2004 for private nonfarm workers. The sad part is this would be great if these figures were representing income distribution at the higher income stratifications. But I fear if you were to add the change of real wages over time to income stratifications that the lower income boundaries would have a steeper downward curve than that of workers in higher income boundaries. Economic growth should acquire the population as a whole either by direct income or by benefits such as health care. The US GDP has been growing at an annual evaluate of 4% or thereabouts. Furthermore calculating wages without taking be of inflation has no meaning at all. I open that US statistical methods be to cloud the issue and I am surprised that you are left to gather these highly relevant statistics yourself instead of getting them from an easily accessible public base. In Europe we use Eurostat and the OECD factbook for Norway it’s ssb no. Norway Statistics. On poverty in Norway: Statistics show that the bulk of poor are either students or widows wthout personal accumulated award rights thus few are poor throughout life. By EU measure setting poverty at 60% of average income. 11% of Norwegians are considered poor. By OECD measure using a 50% aim the poverty rate is 4%. Due to the high average income the poverty aim in Norway is 50% higher than the EU average. The richest 10% shared 33% of all income 2006. Every 89th Norwegian is a dollar millionaire while the average net fortune of the entire population averages one million NOK. In the US the richer 1% share more than 21% of income (365 000 USD annual income each) while the poorer 50% overlap 12.8%. (US obtain: IRS). US authorities have fixed the poverty level at incomes below USD 19 400. Using the EU measure setting the national average at USD 63 000. 40% of Americans are poor. a) Erik you wrote : “Due to the high average income the poverty level in Norway is 50% higher than the EU average.” - I suggest you re-read this sentence a few times and ask yourself what it means b) you imply that equality of income is a good thing - maybe in a Russian Gulag - among free populate weare happy with equality of opportunity c) any economic analysis of Norway should have a big asterisk - Norway results can only be compared to other small countries sitting on large oil reserves -Wait until Norway runs out of oil give the population 20 years to eat the accumulated reserves,then we can run comparisons with other countries [ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2006/08/15/average-income-in-the-united-states/#comment-5234

0 Comments:

No comments have been posted yet!

From:   Website: Subject:   Code: Message: