This is perhaps the most informative newspaper article I've seen on long run trends in living standards. It really illustates the folly of those who hark back to the 1960s or 1970s as a golden age for low paid workers.
« Inequality, Autocracy and Growth | Main | Oh Dear! »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e5504de763883400e553e587948834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Living Standards in Modern America:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
I don't think we can take at face value an article on a website that promises a free book by Newt Gingrich in exchange for subscription.
If we look at real median income for males in 2006 dollars, they have fluctuated between $25000 to $37000, with the peak in 1974. Median income for women, on the other hand, has steadily increased.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p53ar.html
Even if we limit ourselves to full time workers, both trends remain essentially the same.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p36AR.html
I'd argue that there has been an increase in the standard of living since the 60's and it is largely due to women's lib.
Posted by: Michael Griebe | September 03, 2008 at 08:40 PM
The point is that consumption inequality is different from, and small than income inequality. This is exacerbated by the fact that the rich face faster price inflation than do the poor. The census data is misleading guide to living standards for all kinds of reasons in addition to the one you mention. It does not take into account fringe benefits like healthcare. Median wages are reduced by immigration but immigration is not lowering the living standards of the people already in the country and it doesn't measure the increase in leisure time people are the lower end of the distribution have enjoyed.
Posted by: Mark | September 07, 2008 at 02:59 PM