Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (28141)	9/7/2006 11:25:36 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540882

Perhaps the problem lies in that the original post had a map of median income. I'm sure it is inflation adjusted as well, and using what metric? From this link: usatoday.com There is this data about part of that period. From 2001 to 2004, average family income fell 2.3%, to an inflation-adjusted $70,700 from $72,400 in the 1998-2001 period. By contrast, from 1998 to 2001, average income jumped 17.3%. Median income — the midpoint of the income range — rose 1.6% to $43,200. Fed economists said the figures were "strongly influenced" by a more-than-6% drop in median real wages during the period. Also, investment income was less than in the stock market boom years of the late 1990s. (Related: Full report) Real net worth — the difference between family assets and liabilities — rose only slightly from 2001 to 2004. Median net worth rose only 1.5% to $93,100 during the period, vs. a 10.3% gain from 1998 to 2001. And liabilities rose faster than assets, due largely to a big rise in mortgage debt. Though the economy was in recession in 2001, it steadily improved from 2002 to 2004 with low inflation and falling unemployment. 2005 should have been a reasonable pickup however, not likely to offset the prior years poor performance in a single year. However, this still shows median income up slightly for 2001-2004, and I assume this is inflation adjusted.