The challenge of raising the incomes of middle-class families has emerged as an important focus of the presidential election campaign in the US. Everyone agrees that incomes at the top have surged ahead in recent decades, helped by soaring rewards for those with a high-tech education and rising share prices. And there is general support for improving programs — such as food stamps and means-tested retiree benefits — that help those who would otherwise be poor. However, the public debate is largely about how to help the more numerous (and politically more important) middle class.
Here, much can be done by improving existing government programs: expanding market-relevant training, increasing opportunities for married women to join or rejoin the labor force, reducing the penalties in social security rules for continued employment by older workers and changing tax rules in ways that will increase productivity and wages.
While strengthening such programs should be a high priority, we should not lose sight of how well middle-income families have actually done over the past few decades. Unfortunately, the political debate is distorted by misleading statistics that grossly understate these gains.
For example, it is frequently said that the average household income has risen only slightly, or not at all, for the past few decades. Some US census figures seem to support that conclusion. However, more accurate government statistics imply that the real incomes of those at the middle of the income distribution have increased about 50 percent since 1980. A more appropriate adjustment for changes in the cost of living implies a substantially greater gain.
The US Census Bureau estimates the money income that households receive from all sources and identifies the income level that divides the top and bottom halves of the distribution. This is the median household income. To compare median household incomes over time, the authorities divide these annual dollar values by the consumer price index to create annual real median household incomes. The resulting numbers imply that the cumulative increase from 1984 through 2013 was less than 10 percent, equivalent to less than 0.3 percent per year.
Any adult who was alive in the US during these three decades realizes that this number grossly understates the gains of the typical household. One indication that something is wrong with this figure is that the government also estimates that real hourly compensation of employees in the non-farm business sector rose 39 percent from 1985 to 2015.
The official census estimate suffers from three important problems: It fails to recognize the changing composition of the population (the household of today is quite different from the household of 30 years ago); its estimate of income is too narrow, given that middle-income families have received increasing government transfers while benefiting from lower income-tax rates; and the price index used by the bureau fails to capture the important contributions of new products and product improvements to Americans’ standard of living.
Consider first the changing nature of households. From 1980 to 2010, the share of “households” that consisted of just a single man or woman rose from 26 percent to 33 percent, while the share that contained married couples declined from 60 percent to 50 percent.
When the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) conducted a detailed study of changes in household incomes from 1979 to 2011, it expanded the definition of income to include near-cash benefits like food stamps and in-kind benefits like healthcare. It also subtracted federal taxes, which fell from 19 percent of pretax income for middle-income households in 1980 to just 11.5 percent in 2010. To convert annual incomes to real incomes, the CBO used the price deflator for consumer expenditures, which many believe is better for this purpose than the consumer price index. The CBO also presented a separate analysis that adjusted for household size.
With the traditional definition of money income, the CBO found that real median household income rose by just 15 percent from 1980 to 2010, similar to the bureau’s estimate. However, when they expanded the definition of income to include benefits and subtracted taxes, they found that the median household’s real income rose by 45 percent. Adjusting for household size boosted this gain to 53 percent.
Again, even this more substantial rise probably represents a substantial underestimate of the increase in the real standard of living. The authorities arrive at their estimates by converting dollar incomes into a measure of real income by using a price index that reflects the changes in the prices of existing goods and services. However, that price index does not reflect new products or improvements to existing goods and services.
Thus, if everyone’s money incomes rose by 2 percent from one year to the next, while the prices of all goods and services also rose by 2 percent, the official calculation would show no change in real incomes, even if new products and important quality improvements contributed to our wellbeing. Indeed, the US government does not count the value created by Internet services like Google and Facebook as income at all, because these services are not purchased.
No one knows how much such product innovations and improvements have added to our wellbeing. If the gains have been worth just 1 percent a year, over the past 30 years that would cumulate to a gain of 35 percent. Combining that with the CBO estimate of a gain of about 50 percent would imply that the real income of the median household is up nearly 2.5 percent a year over the past 30 years.
So the US middle class has been doing much better than the statistical pessimists assert. And with better policies, these households can do even better in the future.
Martin Feldstein, professor of economics at Harvard University and president emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research, chaired then-US president Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1982 to 1984.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Late last month, Beijing introduced changes to school curricula in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, requiring certain subjects to be taught in Mandarin rather than Mongolian. What is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) seeking to gain from sending this message of pernicious intent? It is possible that he is attempting cultural genocide in Inner Mongolia, but does Xi also have the same plan for the democratic, independent nation of Mongolia? The controversy emerged with the announcement by the Inner Mongolia Education Bureau on Aug. 26 that first-grade elementary-school and junior-high students would in certain subjects start learning with Chinese-language textbooks, as
There are worrying signs that China is on the brink of a major food shortage, which might trigger a strategic contest over food security and push Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), already under intense pressure, toward drastic measures, potentially spelling trouble for Taiwan and the rest of the world. China has encountered a perfect storm of disasters this year. On top of disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic, torrential rains have caused catastrophic flooding in the Yangtze River basin, China’s largest agricultural region. Floodwaters are estimated to have already destroyed the crops on 6 million hectares of farmland. The situation has been
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With