- This topic has 118 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
FlyerInHi.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 13, 2017 at 9:17 PM #805986March 13, 2017 at 9:19 PM #805987
Rich ToscanoKeymaster[quote=AN][quote=Rich Toscano]No, I don’t think the census got it wrong, but you are confusing inflation-adjusted figures for nominal ones.[/quote]Nominal median income in 2010 was $63069, inflation adjusted based on BLS would be $68,553.15 in 2015 $. Median income in 2015 was $64309. Which mean adjusted for inflation, the median income decreased by 6.19%. All the while, the population making >$150k has increased.[/quote]
You’re doing the inflation adjustment backwards. Median income increased by the difference between 63069 and 64309, plus what inflation was over that period.
March 13, 2017 at 9:20 PM #805988no_such_reality
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]
I was talking about this part:[quote]During that period median income was essentially flat moving from $63K to $64K.[/quote]
No, I don’t think the census got it wrong, but you are confusing inflation-adjusted figures for nominal ones.[/quote]
That’s actually getting worse. FRED has data showing that. Other research shows that. Even research showing the millenials in spite of being better educated actually make 20% less than their baby boomer counterparts at the same point in the lives. And contrary to some opinions, it’s not because they’re lazy slackers, that’s us Gen-Xers.
And I’m not confusing inflation adjusted and not. Over 5 years, especially, recent 5 years, it’s pretty minimal, 8.7% over the period according to CPI.
You can chain it all the way back to 2000, 4.6% making over $150K, that’s $206K in 2015 dollars. Can we call it 4.6% making over $200K in 2015 dollar in 2000? It’s 2.8% of households growth in that segment.
March 13, 2017 at 9:24 PM #805989an
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=AN][quote=Rich Toscano]No, I don’t think the census got it wrong, but you are confusing inflation-adjusted figures for nominal ones.[/quote]Nominal median income in 2010 was $63069, inflation adjusted based on BLS would be $68,553.15 in 2015 $. Median income in 2015 was $64309. Which mean adjusted for inflation, the median income decreased by 6.19%. All the while, the population making >$150k has increased.[/quote]
You’re doing the inflation adjustment backwards. Median income increased by the difference between 63069 and 64309, plus what inflation was over that period.[/quote]
https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
Here’s what I used to find out what what inflation adjust $ would be. I have to adjust the number for inflation first before I compare the number. You don’t want to compare the number, and then adjust for inflation. $63069 in 2010 $ is not less than $64309 in 2015 $ when you adjust for inflation.March 13, 2017 at 9:26 PM #805990Rich ToscanoKeymaster[quote=no_such_reality][quote=Rich Toscano]
I was talking about this part:[quote]During that period median income was essentially flat moving from $63K to $64K.[/quote]
No, I don’t think the census got it wrong, but you are confusing inflation-adjusted figures for nominal ones.[/quote]
That’s actually getting worse. FRED has data showing that. Other research shows that. Even research showing the millenials in spite of being better educated actually make 20% less than their baby boomer counterparts at the same point in the lives. And contrary to some opinions, it’s not because they’re lazy slackers, that’s us Gen-Xers.
And I’m not confusing inflation adjusted and not. Over 5 years, especially, recent 5 years, it’s pretty minimal, 8.7% over the period according to CPI.
You can chain it all the way back to 2000, 4.6% making over $150K, that’s $206K in 2015 dollars. Can we call it 4.6% making over $200K in 2015 dollar in 2000? It’s 2.8% of households growth in that segment.[/quote]
I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. I’m not talking about the ranges (over 150k or whatever), I am talking about this sentence:
“During that period median income was essentially flat moving from $63K to $64K.”
INFLATION ADJUSTED income went from 63-64k. Nominal income (which is what’s implied when you just say “income”) increased a lot more than that.
March 13, 2017 at 9:29 PM #805991millennial
Participant[quote=AN][quote=millennial]It’s called data mining and selection bias to try and prove a point. To which I am not sure of. So bifurcation is creating home values to go up? Why did you choose San Diego county as a whole? Why did you choose 2010? Is it cause it served some purpose comparing a time soon after the collapse? Why did you choose households greater than $200k?[/quote]Not everyone need to be able to afford to buy a house. You just need the population who can afford to buy here to grow. Hence the $150-199k and >$200k group. You can look up data for your own sub area if you want. I looked up mine and it reflect similar to SD county numbers. My area have no new housing, so no new household addition. Just long time owners being replaced by newer more affluent owners. $100-149k group went from 22.1% to 25.7% of the area, $150-199k group went from 9.6% to 10% of the area, and >$200k group went from 4.5% to 5.5% of the area. When you have more affluent people moving in, they tend to push the the price.[/quote]
To be honest it’s hard to say that your hypothesis is true without looking at other additional variables. Other variables I would include off the top of my head would include but not be limited to: home turnover %, average ages, and inflation. I would also have to look at the candlestick to see which % are on the cusps of each of those segments. It really could be as simple as people just making more money due to raises, inflation, or investment income. Not sure exactly how much the Dow went up during that timeframe but I imagine that it did.
March 13, 2017 at 9:32 PM #805992Rich ToscanoKeymaster[quote=AN][quote=Rich Toscano][quote=AN][quote=Rich Toscano]No, I don’t think the census got it wrong, but you are confusing inflation-adjusted figures for nominal ones.[/quote]Nominal median income in 2010 was $63069, inflation adjusted based on BLS would be $68,553.15 in 2015 $. Median income in 2015 was $64309. Which mean adjusted for inflation, the median income decreased by 6.19%. All the while, the population making >$150k has increased.[/quote]
You’re doing the inflation adjustment backwards. Median income increased by the difference between 63069 and 64309, plus what inflation was over that period.[/quote]
https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
Here’s what I used to find out what what inflation adjust $ would be. I have to adjust the number for inflation first before I compare the number. You don’t want to compare the number, and then adjust for inflation. $63069 in 2010 $ is not less than $64309 in 2015 $ when you adjust for inflation.[/quote]The 2010 $63k figure is presumably inflation-adjusted to 2015 dollars. You are doing it backwards — unless you actually believe that nominal incomes DECREASED between 2010-2015.
March 13, 2017 at 9:34 PM #805993Participant[quote=AN][quote=Rich Toscano]No, I don’t think the census got it wrong, but you are confusing inflation-adjusted figures for nominal ones.[/quote]Nominal median income in 2010 was $63069, inflation adjusted based on BLS would be $68,553.15 in 2015 $. Median income in 2015 was $64309. Which mean adjusted for inflation, the median income decreased by 6.19%. All the while, the population making >$150k has increased.[/quote]
AN is correct, the income data sets clearly say that 2015 is in 2015 dollars and 2010 is in 2010 dollars. A 2010 dollar is worth 1.087 in 2015.
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/10_5YR/DP03/0500000US06073
March 13, 2017 at 9:37 PM #805994Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]
I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. I’m not talking about the ranges (over 150k or whatever), I am talking about this sentence:
“During that period median income was essentially flat moving from $63K to $64K.”
INFLATION ADJUSTED income went from 63-64k. Nominal income (which is what’s implied when you just say “income”) increased a lot more than that.[/quote]
He’s trying to pull inflation out of the variable so that he can take an apples to apples approach and make a hypothesis that the difference between haves and have nots increased during that timeframe. Either way it’s not very good research and has a billion homes in it
March 13, 2017 at 9:43 PM #805995Rich ToscanoKeymaster[quote=no_such_reality][quote=AN][quote=Rich Toscano]No, I don’t think the census got it wrong, but you are confusing inflation-adjusted figures for nominal ones.[/quote]Nominal median income in 2010 was $63069, inflation adjusted based on BLS would be $68,553.15 in 2015 $. Median income in 2015 was $64309. Which mean adjusted for inflation, the median income decreased by 6.19%. All the while, the population making >$150k has increased.[/quote]
AN is correct, the income data sets clearly say that 2015 is in 2015 dollars and 2010 is in 2010 dollars. A 2010 dollar is worth 1.087 in 2015.
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/10_5YR/DP03/0500000US06073%5B/quote%5D
You guys are confused about how the inflation adjustment works.
To put some perspective on it, go look at the BLS per capita income data, which is not inflation adjusted.
From 2010 to 2015, nominal per capita income increased by over 21%. (Per capita is different from median household, but in terms of growth rates they are extremely similar).
To argue that nominal incomes from 2010-2015 increased less than 2% (no_such_reality) or that they decreased (AN) is way off base.
March 13, 2017 at 9:50 PM #805996ParticipantI think NSR had 8.7% increase and AN said that inflation adjusted medians decreased
March 13, 2017 at 9:52 PM #805997Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]
From 2010 to 2015, nominal per capita income increased by over 21%. (Per capita is different from median household, but in terms of growth rates they are extremely similar).To argue that nominal incomes from 2010-2015 increased less than 2% (no_such_reality) or that they decreased (AN) is way off base.[/quote]
Rich, you’re confusing Average (Mean) and Median.
Per Capita is average income per person. i.e. Total aggregate income divided by number of people.
Median is income is 547001st household making.
March 13, 2017 at 9:52 PM #805998Participant[quote=millennial]It really could be as simple as people just making more money due to raises, inflation, or investment income.[/quote]Inflation isn’t huge over just 5 years time frame. As for the rest, does it really how more households are making their money? As long as they make more money, I think that’s all that matters.
March 13, 2017 at 9:57 PM #806000Participant[quote=millennial]I think NSR had 8.7% increase and AN said that inflation adjusted medians decreased[/quote]8.7% is the inflation rate over the 5 years between 2010 to 2015. $63069 * 1.087 = $68556.
March 13, 2017 at 9:58 PM #806001Rich ToscanoKeymaster[quote=no_such_reality][quote=Rich Toscano]
From 2010 to 2015, nominal per capita income increased by over 21%. (Per capita is different from median household, but in terms of growth rates they are extremely similar).To argue that nominal incomes from 2010-2015 increased less than 2% (no_such_reality) or that they decreased (AN) is way off base.[/quote]
Rich, you’re confusing Average (Mean) and Median.
Per Capita is average income per person. i.e. Total aggregate income divided by number of people.
Median is income is 547001st household making.[/quote]
Are you being serious right now?
OK, I’m done here… believe what you want to believe.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.