Paul L. Caron

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

U.S. Household Incomes Surged 5.2% in 2015, Biggest Increase In Over 50 Years

U.S. Census Bureau, Income and Poverty in the United States: 2015 (Sept. 13, 2016):

Median household income was $56,516 in 2015, an increase in real terms of 5.2 percent from the 2014 median of $53,718 (Figure 1 and Table 1). This is the first annual increase in median household income since 2007, the year before the most recent recession.

Figure 1

White House, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance in the United States in 2015:

White House


Gov't Reports, Tax | Permalink


I'll accept the numbers at face value, the Census may revise them later, But looking at the data, median household income adjusted for inflation is now essentially back to 2006-2007 levels.

That's the fantastic news the President is taking exclusive credit for? It's good that real incomes are up, but what specific policy does did he implement that caused this to happen? And why did it take 8 years?

Posted by: MM | Sep 14, 2016 9:02:47 PM

Found this notation at the bottom of a graph within the Census Bureau Report..."Note: The data for 2013 and beyond reflect the implementation of the redesigned income questions." If you want a better answer, simply change the questions.

Posted by: CareforNOLA | Sep 14, 2016 4:58:38 PM

Can you say "cooked the books for the 2016 election"? I thought you could.

I'm currently reading Alan Schwarz's A.D.H.D. Nation about how Retalin and similar drugs got so widely used with children and teens. At one point in the controversy, the NIH entered the fray, funding a supposedly scientific study to settle the issues.

Who did the NIH appoint to the committee? Mostly people on the 'more drugs' side of the debate and heading it by the #1 promoter of Retalin. And if that wasn't enough, they severely limited the study time to 14 months, despite (or because) everyone knew the drug solution acted within minutes while the therapy took years to have and impact. Even then the committee had to deny their own data to claim that Retalin was best.

Toss that on top of how the government came down on the wrong side of the fats v. sugar debate and you have a pattern developing. The losing or less ethical side in a dispute knows the data is NOT on its side, so it outspends the other in influencing the government and the media. It finances bogus research. It buys off researchers. If covertly funds advocacy groups.

Will NIH and other government agencies, along with the news media, learn from these enormous blunders to be a bit more critical. I see no evidence of that.

Posted by: Michael W. Perry | Sep 14, 2016 12:41:23 PM

An increase of this percentage over the last year seems too high, and not a little too high, but a lot too high. It looks incorrect to me. I don't think the state minimum wage increases would have that much of an effect, though I hear the increase attributed to that in the media. (Most are phased in and were not immediate.) Any agreement or disagreement?

Posted by: CareforNOLA | Sep 14, 2016 10:51:33 AM