here's the data (1980 to 1999, working with non inflation adjusted numbers throughout)...
median 1999 income is $24,449 ((30121+18777)/2) - assuming 50% of workers are men and 50% women.
median 1980 income is $10,447 ((14091+6804)/2) - assuming 50% of workers are men and 50% women.
excluding inflation, individual wages rose 134%.
we'll tack on a generous 6% increase in wages to bring us current.
therefore, wages have increased about 140% since 1980.
census.gov
same home sales are up a tad over 145% since 1980
ofheo.gov
therefore, house prices have appreciated faster than individual incomes.
a couple notes. inherent to this analysis are two items that would increase the difference. first, the homes are the same. iow, the sales price of a home built and sold in 1980 is compared to the sales price of the same home in 2000. a new home in 1980 is compared to a 20 year old home in 2000 and assumed "equivalent." this clearly is not the case. all else being equal, a new home would cost more, hence boosting housing price growth over the 145%. however, that analysis is impossible.
second, i assumed women were 50% of the work force in 1980 and in 2000. i believe that a higher % of women work now than in 1980. this would effectively increase the 1980 wage rate relative to 2000 and reduce income growth below 140%.
i must say that the cost of housing in 1980 was quite a bit more expensive than i would have guessed, though.
both sides agree that housing price growth during the 70s whooped up on income growth, so that doesn't need any more beating to death ;-)
i was right, but not by as much as i would have thought (i don't know how much greater the margin of victory would be if we factored out the two assumptions that would increase housing price increases relative to wage increases).
the data proving this false ought to be *real* interesting if we ever see it ;-) |
