Americans Are Poorer

 

I came across this data on real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) household income.  It explains precisely why Harris lost the election and highlights the corrosive effects of the 21.0% inflation during the Biden-Harris administration and the failure of Bidenomics.  Twenty-seven states experienced their peak of median real household income during the Trump administration.  Since then real median household income nationwide has declined by almost 1%  ($81,210 in 2019 vs $80,610 in the most recent data).

It’s also fascinating to look at who’s not poorer.  Top of the heap is Washington, DC, where median real household income is $111,000.  That’s far ahead of the next highest — Massachusetts at $106,500.  Working for or lobbying the federal government pays really, really well.  Hopefully, the soon-to-arrive Trump-2 administration can repeat their pre-COVID success from the first go-round.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 17 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Good post, Ekosj. 

    • #1
  2. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    foRCInG uS tO uSE goVErNmENt moNEy mAKes ouR lIvEs betTEr  

    pRIvAtE mONeY wOuLD bE TErriblE sO iTs ILlegAL 

    cEntRal pLAnNing MakEs oUr liVEs beTTEr

    wE LiKe lOwer PRiceS fRom autOMatioN aND gLoBaLiZeD tRadE bUT wE neeD inFLation aNyWaY sO mY houSE goEs up. 

    “”””””“ 2% ”””””””  inFlAtIoN mAKeS ouR lIveS bEtTer 

    lIbERtaRiAns dOn’t lIVe iN tHe rEAl woRld 

    inFLation iS mAgiCK moNEy THat mAkEs mY houSE gO up. 

    • #2
  3. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Life is supported by profits and wages. The Fed is pushing the wealth effect, which is just jacking up assets to get people to spend.

    Supposedly 2/3 of the country lives paycheck to paycheck. Something like that.

    The value of the US dollar, which they force you to use, has gone down 50% since 1998.

    They force you into Medicare and Social Security, which are both actuarial disasters.

    Most people sort of beat this by buying a house, with all of the expenses involved and the ill liquidity. Then you get 2008.

    Then people whine about socialism and populism.

    I am sick of experts.

    • #3
  4. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    [EDIT: This Comment is not valid. Thanks and a hat tip to Bob Armstrong for pointing out my error]

    Interesting data.  They tend to support your conclusion.

    But the data have two statistical anomalies.  They look fishy.

    The numbers of states in each equal sized range of values trend upward as you approach the mean of 0.7 from below, as you would expect in any such distribution.

    The numbers increase to a peak, with 11 of 51 clustered  at exactly 0.0%, but then collapses suddenly to zero. I would say the chances of this being explained by a typical random variation about the mean are almost nil.

    Anomaly 1:

    Where are the states above 0.0?

    Anomaly 2:

    Where are the values in the range 0 >=  n > 1.0,  other than 0.0?

    Real data never look like that. Something or someone in the data gathering and consolidation process almost certainly has altered the numbers.

    • #4
  5. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Thanks, Ekosj. I always appreciate your posts.

    • #5
  6. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Mark Camp (View Comment):
    But the data have two statistical anomalies.  They look fishy.

    I noticed that not a one peaked in 2024.

    • #6
  7. Bob Armstrong Thatcher
    Bob Armstrong
    @BobArmstrong

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Interesting data. They tend to support your conclusion.

    But the data have two statistical anomalies. They look fishy.

    The numbers of states in each equal sized range of values trend upward as you approach the mean of 0.7 from below, as you would expect in any such distribution.

    The numbers increase to a peak, with 11 of 51 clustered at exactly 0.0%, but then collapses suddenly to zero. I would say the chances of this being explained by a typical random variation about the mean are almost nil.

    Anomaly 1:

    Where are the states above 0.0?

    Anomaly 2:

    Where are the values in the range 0 >= n > 1.0, other than 0.0?

    Real data never look like that. Something or someone in the data gathering and consolidation process almost certainly has altered the numbers.

    The measurement is a percentage decline from peak. For those states listed as 0.0%, they are at their peak in 2023 and thus have 0% decline from peak. This form of measurement makes it impossible to have a value greater than 0% by definition.

    • #7
  8. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Bob Armstrong (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Interesting data. They tend to support your conclusion.

    But the data have two statistical anomalies. They look fishy.

    The numbers of states in each equal sized range of values trend upward as you approach the mean of 0.7 from below, as you would expect in any such distribution.

    The numbers increase to a peak, with 11 of 51 clustered at exactly 0.0%, but then collapses suddenly to zero. I would say the chances of this being explained by a typical random variation about the mean are almost nil.

    Anomaly 1:

    Where are the states above 0.0?

    Anomaly 2:

    Where are the values in the range 0 >= n > 1.0, other than 0.0?

    Real data never look like that. Something or someone in the data gathering and consolidation process almost certainly has altered the numbers.

    The measurement is a percentage decline from peak. For those states listed as 0.0%, they are at their peak in 2023 and thus have 0% decline from peak. This form of measurement makes it impossible to have a value greater than 0% by definition.

    Thanks, Bob.

    I should have read the graph carefully.

    • #8
  9. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    [EDIT: This Comment is not valid. Thanks and a hat tip to Bob Armstrong for pointing out my error]

    Interesting data. They tend to support your conclusion.

    But the data have two statistical anomalies. They look fishy.

    The numbers of states in each equal sized range of values trend upward as you approach the mean of 0.7 from below, as you would expect in any such distribution.

    The numbers increase to a peak, with 11 of 51 clustered at exactly 0.0%, but then collapses suddenly to zero. I would say the chances of this being explained by a typical random variation about the mean are almost nil.

    Anomaly 1:

    Where are the states above 0.0?

    Anomaly 2:

    Where are the values in the range 0 >= n > 1.0, other than 0.0?

    Real data never look like that. Something or someone in the data gathering and consolidation process almost certainly has altered the numbers.

    You misunderstand the data.   The most recent year for which data is available is 2023.   2024 won’t be available until September 2025.   So States that reached peak real median household income in 2023 have 0% as the difference between the most current data (2023) and the peak (also 2023).

    • #9
  10. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    The spouse was looking over my shoulder yesterday when he read the header to this topic.

    (sidebar comment: Will he never leave? He thinks he lives here!)

    Anyway a moment ago he came up to me to report his newest slogan, which is  “MEAA“.

    It stands for Make Eggs Affordable Again!

    • #10
  11. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    The spouse was looking over my shoulder yesterday when he read the header to this topic.

    (sidebar comment: Will he never leave? He thinks he lives here!)

    Anyway a moment ago he came up to me to report his newest slogan, which is “MEAA“.

    It stands for Make Eggs Affordable Again!

    Many of those issues are state-specific, especially to California.  Eggs in Arizona, and where I live now, never got that high.

    • #11
  12. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    kedavis (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    The spouse was looking over my shoulder yesterday when he read the header to this topic.

    (sidebar comment: Will he never leave? He thinks he lives here!)

    Anyway a moment ago he came up to me to report his newest slogan, which is “MEAA“.

    It stands for Make Eggs Affordable Again!

    Many of those issues are state-specific, especially to California. Eggs in Arizona, and where I live now, never got that high.

    The price of eggs will get that high if destruction of the food processing and distribution centers continue and then end up happening in your region.

    Also the major WEF/Bill Gates’ plans include having an avian flu  panic ensue such that chickens and eggs, as well as cattle are eliminated.

    I’d like to think that Trump would see to it we don’t fall under the grip of Plandemic II, but I’m not going to hold my breath.

    • #12
  13. Sisyphus Member
    Sisyphus
    @Sisyphus

    Just given what he himself has said, it is difficult for me to believe that a competent prosecutor couldn’t put Gates away for life. He has latched onto Bond villains as role models. 

    • #13
  14. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Look at how inflated prices had tapered off in 2019.

    COVID panic then wiped out the gains, as noted in this graphic:

    • #14
  15. Sisyphus Member
    Sisyphus
    @Sisyphus

    Oops.

    • #15
  16. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Look at how inflated prices had tapered off in 2019.

    COVID panic then wiped out the gains, as noted in this graphic:

    Using color pieces of paper as “money” is ridiculous. The government forces it and what do we get back? 

    • #16
  17. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Look at how inflated prices had tapered off in 2019.

    COVID panic then wiped out the gains, as noted in this graphic:

    Using color pieces of paper as “money” is ridiculous. The government forces it and what do we get back?

    Currently the reaction to our using colored pieces of paper of money has been three-fold:

    1. Affluent people buy precious metals like gold and silver. (The downside being that silver can be controlled by a group of investors, as happened in the 1970’s or ’80’s. And having gold as a private stash can be outlawed by the federal government, as happened from the ’30’s thru to the 50’s.)
    2. The rise of the BRICs nations, which I predicted in one of my OP’s, sometime in 2018 or 2019.
    3. Digital currencies being set up, with too many supporters to count.
    • #17
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.