[quote=AN]INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2015 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS)
vs
INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2010 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS)
I guess that where I misunderstood. If both said:
INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS)
or
INCOME AND BENEFITS (INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS)
then I wouldn’t make the mistake I did. But if both # are 2017 inflation adjusted $, then I think there are A LOT more people in my area making A LOT more $ than I thought compare to the people around here just 7 years ago. AWESOME. Makes me even more positive on the strength of the hands of the owners.[/quote]
AN, the issue is as you noted that the individual sub-tables are labeled wrong in the 5 Yr ACS survey. The Table link itself is labeled as in 2015 inflation adjusted dollars. The issue isn’t doing inflation backwards, it’s applying inflation twice.
If you trace the numbers through the individual 1 yr ACS surveys, you see the difference. The 5 Yr ACS is acknowledge as the most accurate of the three ACS surveys
The one year ACS shows 2015 median income at $67,320 +/-$1448, the 5 yr corrects it to $64,309 +/- $514. (Yes, I recognize those don’t overlap). Likewise the 2010 5 YR shows $63,089 +/-$464 in 2015 dollar (note accessing the table directly removes the mislabeling) The 1 Yr shows it as $59,923 +/-$1075.
The BEA attempts to explain the differences between the surveys here.
Although I’m not even going to try an rationalize the Census reporting aggregate income in 2015 of $100B for the county, while the BEA reports $175B or why one shows a 20% nominal growth from 2010 to 2015 and the other 28%.
My original basic point was that upper income group is growing dynamically and that housing build out isn’t. Leaving motivated high income people to fight or aging dated stock.
