General Discussion

KansDem

(28,498 posts)

33. $47,519 in 1974 would be $142,846.16 in 1994.

Sat May 30, 2015, 07:17 AM

May 2015

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

I'm not an economist, but it appears purchasing power has dropped significantly during those 20 years.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

273 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Real median household income rose more in the 20 years after NAFTA than the 20 years before it [View all] Recursion May 2015 OP

median income. what deceptive crap cali May 2015 #1

No, you're thinking of mean. This is median. Recursion May 2015 #4

bullshit cali May 2015 #9

Yes, you should read your link. Recursion May 2015 #11

from my link cali May 2015 #12

Right. If the richest one makes a million dollars the median is unchanged Recursion May 2015 #13

Good luck posting to folks who prove our education system has failed us. I've given up. Hoyt May 2015 #153

Invective Jesus Malverde May 2015 #162

What about average household size declining, and more people living alone? progree May 2015 #170

I'm not sure what to make of household size. The labor force is in a weird place demographically Recursion May 2015 #239

Same as if the lowest wage earners decline. HooptieWagon May 2015 #229

It's true that the median isn'the affected by losses at the bottom Recursion May 2015 #231

does it count those with 0 income? hollysmom May 2015 #236

Literal zero income households are very uncommon, but yes (nt) Recursion May 2015 #243

What is the "mode" or "most likely" income? 1939 May 2015 #23

That's a good question. I'll try Wolfram (nt) Recursion May 2015 #26

None, apparently. Very few households make *exactly* as much as any other household (nt) Recursion May 2015 #71

The key word is household. zeemike May 2015 #134

The rate of two earner households in 94 is the same as today Recursion May 2015 #136

But you compared it to 74. zeemike May 2015 #141

Right. That changed between 1974 and 1994 Recursion May 2015 #144

So let's do it again. zeemike May 2015 #148

Do what again? The change predated NAFTA Recursion May 2015 #149

Well I am old enough to have lived and worked for a living in those times. zeemike May 2015 #150

Agreed Sherman A1 May 2015 #186

Yes but that means we are doing horribly... davekriss May 2015 #216

Yes, but well compared to 1993 Recursion May 2015 #225

Point taken. :) davekriss May 2015 #251

If you know the mean and the median 1939 May 2015 #157

Such brilliant thoughtful retorts.. DCBob May 2015 #68

Hey cali, as far as the use of median versus mean Android3.14 May 2015 #121

This message was self-deleted by its author Squinch May 2015 #151

The key word in this particular little deception is "household" income. Enthusiast May 2015 #57

Nice try. That change happened before NAFTA Recursion May 2015 #69

Your own stats say I win. Enthusiast May 2015 #72

Nope. Women joined the workforce en masse *before* NAFTA Recursion May 2015 #74

Do you have numbers? kenfrequed May 2015 #169

Here's real earnings 1964 through April 2015 progree May 2015 #174

I only noticed today that after 1994, AHETPI goes up during recessions, but before 1994 it went down Recursion May 2015 #238

now take into account the disparity of wages in 74 and today pipoman May 2015 #92

That was happening long before NAFTA treestar May 2015 #101

The labor force participation rate did increase under Clinton, as did wages and employment. pampango May 2015 #156

That was a different dynamic and would have happened with or without NAFTA. DCBob May 2015 #181

The rate of two earner households didn't increase after NAFTA... progree May 2015 #185

Actually, median income is not deceptive. The rich getting richer doesn't affect the median. DanTex May 2015 #81

Median means we all make more yeoman6987 May 2015 #203

your op deserves hundreds of unrecs cali May 2015 #2

The consistent and high-volume untruths about what actually happened after NAFTA deserve the unrecs Recursion May 2015 #8

Our mileage was different. canoeist52 May 2015 #45

Were the jobs lost to Mexico, or to Canada? (nt) Recursion May 2015 #49

Me too. Similar story. "For some of us this isn't and wasn't a game." Enthusiast May 2015 #58

I can think of at least 5 production facilities in my hometown area that moved to Mexico Art_from_Ark May 2015 #159

And yet manufacturing employment and wages increased after NAFTA - until Bush came along. pampango May 2015 #191

How much of that "manufacturing employment" included burger flipping? Art_from_Ark May 2015 #210

Classifying fast food jobs as 'manufacturing' did come up under Bush (2004) long after Clinton. pampango May 2015 #211

I wouldn't say "stupid" Art_from_Ark May 2015 #212

None of it and I've called you out on this before Recursion May 2015 #226

The problem is that this punching bag is needed treestar May 2015 #106

+100 tenderfoot May 2015 #167

The average HH median income includes the Romneys and the Cheneys. GreatGazoo May 2015 #3

No, you are also thinking of mean. This is median. Recursion May 2015 #6

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, etc. don't skew where the middle is? merrily May 2015 #139

Not when you're using the median Recursion May 2015 #142

Amazing how many seemingly intelligent people don't understand that simple basic math concept. DCBob May 2015 #182

Yes ... read the above ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #232

do tell where all that income went. waiting with bated breath cali May 2015 #5

Consumer spending and houses, mostly Recursion May 2015 #10

And depriving consumers of spending via killing careers and wage progress . . .. HughBeaumont May 2015 #27

Cell phones, televisions, Internet, computers, gasoline, perhaps? Android3.14 May 2015 #131

Most of that is health care and education Recursion May 2015 #138

FYI, if something is good, NAFTA had nothing to do with it. If it is bad, it is all NAFTA's fault. pampango May 2015 #7

Tell it to the Rust Belt bread_and_roses May 2015 #14

Depends on the city. Some rust belt cities are better off than in 1974 and some are worse Recursion May 2015 #15

Some? HughBeaumont May 2015 #32

If your claim is that every city in yellow is worse off now than in 1994, that's clearly false Recursion May 2015 #83

Pittsburgh and Maine jopacaco May 2015 #91

Maine has average income and better than average inequality Recursion May 2015 #97

Median income in Maine Android3.14 May 2015 #127

The city is one thing - travel through the old "Mill Towns" down the Ohio bread_and_roses May 2015 #260

The industrial rust belt cities I'm familiar with gollygee May 2015 #125

Economies shift. Kansas City used to be the center Recursion May 2015 #126

So we've moved from "the rust belt is fine" to "that's just the way things go." gollygee May 2015 #128

Before labor-intensive manufacturing we had labor-intensive agriculture bhikkhu May 2015 #270

It's hilarious but it isn't funny. Enthusiast May 2015 #59

Were those job losses to Mexico or to China? Orangepeel May 2015 #86

in my rust belt town gollygee May 2015 #109

In just my hometown area alone Art_from_Ark May 2015 #175

Check your math... MattSh May 2015 #16

Actually it's neither Recursion May 2015 #17

Using the revised numbers... MattSh May 2015 #20

I totally agree it's noise (nt) Recursion May 2015 #21

In other words, Stevepol May 2015 #25

Correlation is not cause BainsBane May 2015 #18

The big jump in women working was between 74 and 94 Recursion May 2015 #22

Yes, I edited it after I realized I had the years wrong BainsBane May 2015 #28

I agree it's not sound to argue that NAFTA raised wages, and I don't Recursion May 2015 #42

That is when the "bump" occurred..the second bump pipoman May 2015 #96

No, a liar would say incomes are down since NAFTA Recursion May 2015 #108

Up 1.05% Yea! truebluegreen May 2015 #154

Median income and employment went up 1939 May 2015 #29

11 bucks a month gain vs 10 bucks a month benefit? Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #19

I doubt any of it had to do with NAFTA Recursion May 2015 #24

Which means nothing, because the 20 years before NAFTA were the Reagan years and the DanTex May 2015 #30

What "argument" do you see me making? Recursion May 2015 #39

You seem to be implying that NAFTA either helped or didn't hurt the middle or working class. DanTex May 2015 #43

I'm presenting a piece of evidence that counters a common unsupported argument here Recursion May 2015 #47

OK, then you are making the argument I thought you were making. DanTex May 2015 #56

Curious. Here are stats about median wages Android3.14 May 2015 #140

Tell that the workers that lost their jobs DiverDave May 2015 #218

I personally don't know any, just people who lost jobs to China and Bangladesh Recursion May 2015 #228

Great reading DiverDave May 2015 #257

I read it. I responded. Recursion May 2015 #258

Seriously? DiverDave May 2015 #267

Just to add, saying "more" in the title is technically true, but very misleading. DanTex May 2015 #61

Yes, it's noise, but larger is larger, and I guaran-damn-tee you that if the numbers were reversed Recursion May 2015 #73

Yes, it would. In which case I would be responding to those people that there's DanTex May 2015 #78

Back in 1974 households usually had one Sanity Claws May 2015 #31

Not to mention we now work longer hours than our 1970s counterparts. HughBeaumont May 2015 #37

$47,519 in 1974 would be $142,846.16 in 1994. KansDem May 2015 #33

That's what "real" means. Recursion May 2015 #40

Given your rationale, then... KansDem May 2015 #75

Sigh. No. The point of using real dollars is the inflation is already calculated in Recursion May 2015 #77

You missed this part.... Exilednight May 2015 #34

Why would you ignore government benefits? Recursion May 2015 #41

I'm not ignoring them. It's the fact that extreme poverty doubled shortly after NAFTA. Exilednight May 2015 #90

Which is why social spending is so important in a global economy Recursion May 2015 #120

Went up, yet millions less are working, millions more in poverty on both sides of the border. jtuck004 May 2015 #35

I don't know what's more pathetic . . . . HughBeaumont May 2015 #36

Calm down and read my post Recursion May 2015 #44

Well? What have you got to say for yourself, Recursion? Joe Chi Minh May 2015 #50

It's especially funny that you replied after I did (nt) Recursion May 2015 #52

+1 Pooka Fey May 2015 #184

Great post, the one you linked to. nt raccoon May 2015 #187

What a total pile of BS Katashi_itto May 2015 #38

Results... Major Nikon May 2015 #133

You can tell NAFTA was responsible because nothing else happened during those 40 years. Taitertots May 2015 #46

Thank you! Recursion May 2015 #51

Nothing else except the .com bubble, followed by the housing bubble. n/t Exilednight May 2015 #93

You want to talk about destroying jobs? The Internet killed the entire travel agent industry Recursion May 2015 #107

nice attempt at trying to change the subject. n/t Exilednight May 2015 #112

I don't understand the controversy on this. randome May 2015 #48

Symbols make bad policy and NAFTA has become a symbol Recursion May 2015 #66

I hear you. randome May 2015 #84

And those dollars buy half as much now. hobbit709 May 2015 #53

No, that's what "real" means. Those are all 2014 dollars (nt) Recursion May 2015 #64

There's nothing "real" about a dollar that buys half of what it used too. hobbit709 May 2015 #67

No, you're missing the point. The actual dollar wages in 1994 and 1974 were much lower than listed Recursion May 2015 #70

No. it's the real value Taitertots May 2015 #65

How valid a point is this? Half-Century Man May 2015 #54

If the numbers were reversed, do you think people would post "NAFTA slowed US wage growth" and use Recursion May 2015 #62

Were the results of NAFTA to be reversed Half-Century Man May 2015 #94

Don't be offended by the lack of response. This is the usual spot where Recursion drops out of DanTex May 2015 #155

You can't respond to anecdote Recursion May 2015 #160

Of course you can. For example, you could acknowledge that factories have in fact closed due to DanTex May 2015 #164

'Of course you can. For example, you could acknowledge that factories have in fact Joe Chi Minh May 2015 #172

The trade deficit is a good indicator. I noticed you focused on ONE metric Exilednight May 2015 #102

Got any evidence that a trade deficit lowers income? Recursion May 2015 #104

I can see you know little about economics. Trade drives an economy Exilednight May 2015 #110

So, it should be very easy for you to provide some evidence that trade deficits lower incomes Recursion May 2015 #111

Yes, I can prove it. Enroll in my class at GWU and You can learn. n/t Exilednight May 2015 #114

No, just a simple few pieces of evidence will do Recursion May 2015 #116

There's no such thing as simple and few. NAFTA by itself takes up 3 weeks of the course. I have at Exilednight May 2015 #124

So he has to pay thousands of dollars BainsBane May 2015 #123

It's not a simple subject. People a lot smarter than me have studied NAFTA for decades and have Exilednight May 2015 #129

I opposed NAFTA, and I oppose TPP BainsBane May 2015 #132

You're right about facilitating change, at least to some extent. Jobs were Exilednight May 2015 #146

I must know a lot of poor people Pakid May 2015 #55

That's household income, so it includes both people in a married couple (nt) Recursion May 2015 #60

You and me both. Maybe 20% of the people I know come close to that number. hobbit709 May 2015 #63

I only know a few people that make below median tammywammy May 2015 #227

Two things: 1) Correlation is not causation. 2) "median" is skewed by the growth at the top. (n/t) Spider Jerusalem May 2015 #76

Two things: 1) I'm not arguing causation. 2) You're thinking of "mean". Median specifically *isn't* Recursion May 2015 #80

You heavily implied it Spider Jerusalem May 2015 #87

That's what "real dollars" means; inflation is factored in Recursion May 2015 #88

Gonna rec it for conversation rpannier May 2015 #79

The two wage earner rate shot up between 74 and 94, it's slightly higher now than in 94 Recursion May 2015 #82

no need to go hunting. i believe you rpannier May 2015 #85

I believe you're onto something. ucrdem May 2015 #89

I've hesitated to say it's a RW con job, but I'm leaning that way Recursion May 2015 #103

Not a true barometer, and the implied cause and effect is a fallacy roomtomove May 2015 #95

"Real dollars" means inflation was already factored in Recursion May 2015 #99

'...and I don't think NAFTA really had much to do with it at all.' Joe Chi Minh May 2015 #173

Having lived through the 90s treestar May 2015 #98

A lot of corporate representatives have been part of the TPP negotiations.. Fumesucker May 2015 #100

Well, no, they haven't Recursion May 2015 #105

Why don't we wait and see who they go to work for in a few weeks/months/years? Fumesucker May 2015 #130

If you ask me... smiley May 2015 #113

Wages have been roughly stagnant the whole period Recursion May 2015 #117

For a working class person there is no reason JEB May 2015 #161

Ok then... smiley May 2015 #192

The benefits of NAFTA in the US were mostly to agriculture and heavy manufacturing Recursion May 2015 #242

I would like to know the mean the mode and standard deviation, too. Gore1FL May 2015 #115

Me too. I'll see if Wolfram has it (nt) Recursion May 2015 #118

As others have said, you aren't measuring the effects of NAFTA. kristopher May 2015 #119

I see multiple charts that don't show any harm to most Americans' incomes after NAFTA Recursion May 2015 #122

When you say you think "those charts don't show harm..." kristopher May 2015 #214

"Harm" as shorthand for "decrease in inflation-adjusted income" Recursion May 2015 #253

I already stated we do not share the values that make that conclusion possible. kristopher May 2015 #255

Thanks for the charts A Little Weird May 2015 #145

using facts mopinko May 2015 #135

Income is different from real wages and household income does not reflect how many jobs the merrily May 2015 #137

BS ananda May 2015 #143

Yes, I did. That's what "real" income means Recursion May 2015 #147

A lot of posts says jobs was lost and moved to other countries, the truth is in some cases Thinkingabout May 2015 #152

Your assertion ignores the rigging of the CPI to understate inflation in the 1990s by the Boskin Faryn Balyncd May 2015 #158

Very telling points, indeed! Joe Chi Minh May 2015 #176

+10000000000000. The term "adjusted for inflation" is now a laughable joke. Elwood P Dowd May 2015 #195

People reading this OP marle35 May 2015 #163

"Without the financial collapse, NAFTA woulda been great!" lumberjack_jeff May 2015 #165

Tell that one to all the homeless people Caspian Morgan May 2015 #166

I vote Recursion as the most patient poster on DU Android3.14 May 2015 #168

2618 change in 20 years zentrum May 2015 #171

"given the rising cost of housing, education, health care, cars. " progree May 2015 #177

In-state tuition at my state university today is over 3X higher than it was in 1994; salaries are Midwestern Democrat May 2015 #178

The cost of higher education is included in the CPI progree May 2015 #179

What about the rest of what I said. zentrum May 2015 #202

"NAFTA cost U.S. workers almost 700,000 jobs." progree May 2015 #233

It is neither fair nor right and the answer is higher taxes and more social spending Recursion May 2015 #241

Then we agree on some of the important things n/t zentrum Jun 2015 #273

The OP *approves* of income disparity. nt Romulox May 2015 #194

Can you tell me how "the OP *approves* of income disparity"? progree May 2015 #198

I've read his posts, over the years. He is a classic "neoliberal". nt Romulox May 2015 #199

Thank you. nt progree May 2015 #200

What bullshit. I support a $23/hr minimum wage and a 70% top marginal tax rate Recursion May 2015 #247

"The bottom three quintiles are treading water. That's not good, but it's also not harm" Romulox May 2015 #261

It's not harm Recursion May 2015 #262

Yes it is. Inequality is itself harm. But you were arguing that you *don't* approve of growing Romulox May 2015 #263

I don't. Never said I did Recursion May 2015 #264

You just said growing inequality is "not harm"--a claim you are unwilling to defend. nt Romulox May 2015 #265

I still claim it is not "harm", and I still oppose it Recursion May 2015 #266

That is a lie, and a lazy one at that (nt) Recursion May 2015 #249

Observe the differential between median and mean income during this period. immoderate May 2015 #180

Sorry, but it looks like the continuation of a long-running trend beginning in the beginning progree May 2015 #183

Slowed down, compared to what? immoderate May 2015 #188

No, the top 5%'s income increased at a much slower rate after NAFTA than before NAFTA progree May 2015 #190

NAFTA concentrated wealth from the 5% to the 0.1%. immoderate May 2015 #213

"NAFTA concentrated wealth from the 5% to the 0.1%." progree May 2015 #235

So what? Donald Ian Rankin May 2015 #221

So much CYA for the Owners...it is as if they are worried their TPP won't pass! Rex May 2015 #189

What a dishonest OP. Here's the real story. Romulox May 2015 #193

How are you interpreting this graph? Android3.14 May 2015 #206

Workers' incomes flat for 40 years, while Oligarchs' skyrocket. You know, reality. nt Romulox May 2015 #207

No argument there Android3.14 May 2015 #215

Hours worked to produce that income skyrocketed. Ikonoklast May 2015 #268

Data please Android3.14 May 2015 #269

At least since 1990, hours worked has decreased according to this article from The Economist Android3.14 May 2015 #271

Yup. Both before NAFTA and after it Recursion May 2015 #252

It does show the decrease of mean real income by quintile. BillZBubb May 2015 #223

Where do you see a decrease in any quintile there? (nt) Recursion May 2015 #250

"Median" chosen because it's not "average." DirkGently May 2015 #196

Yes, median income goes up when there are gains on the lower side, but not on the higher side progree May 2015 #197

As long as Android3.14 May 2015 #205

What I'm trying to say is that in a virtually continuous distribution of over 100 million incomes progree May 2015 #237

Wolfram has more zoomable charts but I can't do a non-subscriber link Recursion May 2015 #240

Um...no Android3.14 May 2015 #204

Well okay then. DirkGently May 2015 #224

NO! That's completely and utterly 100% wrong. Donald Ian Rankin May 2015 #220

Median income has not budged since 2000 CentralMass May 2015 #201

Yup. Bush wrecked the economy for workers (nt) Recursion May 2015 #230

Just for clarity, those are real (i.e. inflation adjusted) incomes. progree May 2015 #234

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2015 #208

except not we're carrying far more debt per household, yes? krispos42 May 2015 #209

How about another anecdote? DiverDave May 2015 #217

Anecdotal evidence is worse than useless. Donald Ian Rankin May 2015 #222

Sure, and the guys from DiverDave May 2015 #256

And the ones who benefited? Donald Ian Rankin May 2015 #259

Thank you for you some good data. aikoaiko May 2015 #219

Your strange edit 2 MrMickeysMom May 2015 #244

The wages were stagnant before and after our trade agreements Recursion May 2015 #245

You really don't want to get it, do you? MrMickeysMom May 2015 #246

What do you think caused the income stagnation between 1974 and 1994? Recursion May 2015 #248

The same thing that led to the trade agreements in the first place... MrMickeysMom May 2015 #254

"These are not the droids you're looking for." Major Hogwash May 2015 #272