Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

U.S. Median Income Reaches Lowest Level Since 1995

September 14, 2012 by  

U.S. Median Income Reaches Lowest Level Since 1995

Under President Barack Obama’s watch, the U.S. economy continues to slide downward. The median income of Americans is now the lowest it has been since 1995.

Median income fell 1.5 percent during 2011 to $50,054. It has fallen 4.1 percent since Obama took office. Median income has not been below $50,000 since 1995, but the new number is frighteningly close.

According to the Pew Research Center, Obama’s policies have hurt Republicans more than Democrats. When Obama took office, just 13 percent of Republicans considered themselves to be lower class. Now, that number is 23 percent.

While the figures seem disparaging for Obama, he will likely point to the number of insured Americans as proof that his policies are helping. According to the Census Bureau, the number of people without health insurance in 2010 was 50 million, but that number dropped to 48.6 million in 2011.

Bryan Nash

Staff writer Bryan Nash has devoted much of his life to searching for the truth behind the lies that the masses never question. He is currently pursuing a Master's of Divinity and is the author of The Messiah's Misfits, Things Unseen and The Backpack Guide to Surviving the University. He has also been a regular contributor to the magazine Biblical Insights.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “U.S. Median Income Reaches Lowest Level Since 1995”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

    TALENT AND SKILL PLAY A ROLE IN THE LEVEL OF AN INDIVIDUAL’S INCOME.

    BEFORE ANYONE CAN “POINT THEIR FINGER” AT THE GOVERNMENT WHEN IT COMES TO MONEY, LOOK IN THE MIRROR FIRST. I BELIEVE IN “TOOTING YOUR OWN HORN,” BUT, MAKE SURE YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO “TOOT” ABOUT.

    • John

      This has nothing to do with talent. Real wages are declining in the USA because of unrepentent immigration and the outsourcing of manufacturing to foreign countries. STOP immigration and bring back the Woodruff tariff and wages will go up here. WAKE UP! The Rothschilds, Warburgs and Rockefellers are behind the destruction of this country!

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “John,”

        I AGREE WITH YOUR COMMENTS, BUT, THERE ARE AMERICANS WHO HAVE JOBS AND DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THEY CAN NOT GET A PROMOTION. THIS ARTICLE DISCUSSES LOW AVERAGE INCOMES. A REASON WHY INCOMES ARE LOW IS BECAUSE PEOPLE WITH NO TALENT OR SKILL – AND, CONSIDERED MEDIOCRE – ARE BEING “PHASED-OUT.” CORPORATE COMPETITION DEMANDS THE BEST TALENT AVAILABLE.

      • Cindy

        John, why did you leave out one of the most experienced job-outsourcers this country has ever known? Yup, Mitt Romney and Bain Capital fit right into your description, or didn’t you notice? He is also a tax dodger, hiding money off-shore.

      • Viet Nam Vet 67-68

        Christopher Allen are you talking about the 40 Million Highly Skilled Illegal Alien’s in this Country driving down our wages because they work for Less, are those the Intelligent people your talking about?? Viet Nam Vet 67-68

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Vietnam Vet 67-68,”

        I AM REFERRING TO AMERICANS – NOT, ILLEGALS. THERE ARE AMERICANS WHO ARE MEDIOCRE IN TALENT AND COULD LOSE THEIR JOBS AT ANY MINUTE, BUT, THEY HAVE NO “CLUE” AS TO WHY THEY CAN EASILY BE THROWN OUT THE DOOR. TALENT IS THE KEY TO EMPLOYMENT SUCCESS. MEDIOCRE EMPLOYEES CAN NOT BLAME THE “RICH,” OR, THE GOVERNMENT FOR THEIR INADEQUACIES – LOOK IN THE MIRROR; YOU WILL FIND THE PROBLEM.

    • Mike

      There are also self-employed individuals whose revenues are dow as much as 48%. Mine!’

  • Karolyn
    • s c

      Comrade ‘k,’ those who live by the poll(s), also die by the poll(s). Even Fox can be manipulated (just in case no one told you). If you look around long enough, you can find a poll that will tell you ANYTHING you want to hear.
      There is more to life than a stinking poll, comrade ‘k.’ Has it dawned on you yet that an in-depth research paper might give you a much more realistic understanding as to pollsters and the engineered results that are so typical in any given poll? Make your instructor/prof proud. You might even be forced to admit that utopianism is a mental problem that CAN be cured – with long-term therapy and various support groups.

      • eddie47d

        Does your healthcare plan cover your therapist SC? How many years now!

      • Cindy

        http://www.epi.org/publication/trends-median-wealth-race/

        Please note that the median income has increased by only $3,800 in 29 years. The trickle down does not work. What more proof do you need that the middle class is dying do the the uber rich not wanting to participate in the American Dream for the rest of us!

      • Vicki

        Cindy writes again having written the same erroneous statement in another thread:
        “Please note that median incomes rose only by $3,800 in 29 years.”

        Apparently not every one agrees with your source. Not that I think the FED is a more reliable source but they do see things differently.

        “Over the preceding three-year period, the median had been basically unchanged,
        and the mean had risen 8.5 percent. The changes for both periods stand in stark contrast to a pattern of substantial increases in both the median and the mean dating to the early
        1990s.”

        I tend to believe the FED report as it also is closer to the changes I have seen in my area.
        http://www.federalreserve.gov/Pubs/Bulletin/2012/PDF/scf12.pdf

      • Cindy

        Vicki, you missed the point. The point of time was 29 years, the data I used was from a non-partisian, non -profit organization who was created in 1983. Everyone here on this sites does not like it when you use the government agencies to make your point. They don’t trust any of the information. For you to call my statement erroneous is proof that facts and statics are thrown to the wind. Did I say in a three year period the increase has been so many dollars?? No, I did not, I used 29 years as the time frame. It is interesting that you try to change the critieria to just a three year period and then use the word erroneous. This is a classic example of trying to distort the facts. You can go to the Heritage Foundation and they will provide you with the same information that I have, would that make you feel better? I try not to reference organizations which will anger most of the people here. I try to find non-partisian information for my posts.

      • Vicki

        Cindy misses more points then she can possibly guess by writing:
        “Vicki, you missed the point. The point of time was 29 years, the data I used was from a non-partisian, non -profit organization who was created in 1983.”

        Non-partisian, non-profit != not biased.

        Cindy “Everyone here on this sites does not like it when you use the government agencies to make your point. They don’t trust any of the information.”

        And they trust an un peer reviewed NGO why?

        Cindy “For you to call my statement erroneous is proof that facts and statics are thrown to the wind.”

        Or that you choose not to look at facts but do like to cut and paste your own “wisdom”.

        Cindy “Did I say in a three year period the increase has been so many dollars?? No, I did not, I used 29 years as the time frame.”

        Had you actually bothered to read the quote you would have noticed that the time frame I used was ~1990 to date in the report (2010). Or about 20 years. That 20 years being INSIDE the time frame of your 29 years. Now your statement is that median incomes rose only by $3,800 in 29 years. The facts are that median incomes rose a LOT higher than that but might have collapsed recently to only $3,800 above your starting point 29 years ago. This is an example of lying with statistics. Thank you for the valuable lesson and your statement is still in error.

        Cindy “It is interesting that you try to change the critieria to just a three year period and then use the word erroneous.”

        This statement of yours is the proof of my assertion above that you failed to actually READ the quote I provided you.

        Cindy: “This is a classic example of trying to distort the facts.”

        Why yes your statement is a classic example of trying to distort the facts as I pointed out above.

        Cindy: “You can go to the Heritage Foundation and they will provide you with the same information that I have, would that make you feel better?”

        I would feel neither better nor worse. I do like having multiple different references though. While checking into what Heritage Foundation might say about the middle (that place between the beginning of your 29 years and the end of it I found this little tidbit which should scare anyone. “Federal Spending Grew Nearly 12 Times Faster than Median Income”. http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/growth-federal-spending

        Looking at the chart can’t give details but clearly shows that the median income was higher under the evil Bush administration than the current claimed $3,800 above 29 years ago, yet again showing the error of your original statement.

        Of course you may not like it cause the info that heritage used was from that evil place, US Government Agencies (Sources: U.S. Census Bureau and Office of Management and Budget.).

        Cindy: I try not to reference organizations which will anger most of the people here. I try to find non-partisian information for my posts.”

        You are welcome to try. Most US Government agencies are non-partisian by virtue of their nature so tend to be a good source of facts.

      • Vicki

        looking further into median income (household in this case) I went to the US Census Bureau for some fact like objects and found:
        http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2011/H09AR_2011.xls

        I chose 1982 since it is 29 years before the current available data of 2011

        1982 – 20,171
        2011 – 50,054

        29,883
        Difference even ignoring the peak in 2007 is already far greater than the claimed $3,800

        Now lets look at the CPI-U-RS (a fancy way of saying we are going to fudge the numbers)

        1982 – 45,139
        2011 – 50,054

        4,915

        That is a whole lot closer to $3,800 but if this is what Cindy meant she forgot to mention that in her statement making the statement false by reason of missing material facts.

        What CPI-U-RS really shows is the damage done by the Fed when they print money.

      • Vicki

        P.S. the chart I linked above also happens to validate the OP claim in the title of this article.

      • Cindy

        Vicki, You must have meant to reference a different report, as the one you attached main topic was: CHANGE IN US FAMILY FINANCES FROM 2007-2010. Did you mean to reference something else?

      • Cindy

        Vicki, please look at these two reports and tell me what you think. thx

        http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RS22627_20070320.pdf

      • Vicki

        Cindy says:
        “Vicki, You must have meant to reference a different report, as the one you attached main topic was: CHANGE IN US FAMILY FINANCES FROM 2007-2010. Did you mean to reference something else?”

        Nope. I meant that one. It is the report that includes the statement in the post.

      • Vicki

        Cindy says:
        “Vicki, please look at these two reports and tell me what you think. thx

        http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RS22627_20070320.pdf

        That they make the same observation that I have hinted at or commented in this and a similar thread. “There is no consensus definition of “middle class,” ”

        However in THIS thread we are talking median income not middle class.

  • jopa

    This is exactly what the Obama administration has been saying all along about the median income of American workers.This trickle down economics from the Bush tax cuts does not work and the tax cut needs to just expire.When you look at the booming business world in the USA, companies making fortunes,the stock market over 13,000, business executives making multi million dollar bonuses and the little guy is just stuck in the mud.The median income for the middle class has been flat for over twenty years just keeping up with inflation due to the decline of the unions.However the ones at the top have seen their salaries rise by over 700%.When the middle class has to fork over a larger percentage of their income for taxes they don’t have any disposable income to get our economy going again.It’s the middle class with disposable income that makes America work, not a handful of multi billionaires that just sit on their money or invest overseas in the Cayman Islands Swiss bank accounts and other oversea ventures that do nothing for America.

    • s c

      ‘J,’ HOW do you explain the FACT that your White House Messiah is RICH? Don’t you find it problematic that Obummer wants his robots to think he’s just ‘one of the guys’ while he’s making MILLIONS? He’s about as ‘average’ as Motormouth Biden.
      As usual, you’ve been had by the same false icons who have had a hook in your mouth ever since you got addicted to watching TV abd under the spell of liars and political weasels. Wake up, comrade. I’d sure like to hear how Obummer plans to “soak” himself for being RICH and in dire need of having all that WEALTH redistributed [to those who "need" it]. HA!
      Once behind the learning curve, always behind the learning curve – and the nearest 8 ball, comrade.

    • Hurt Burt

      Jopa, There are fewer members of the middle class today to make a significant difference in the tax pool. Fewer are saving and investing because they are caring for their jobless kids who decided to procreate while living with their parents. The middle class used to enjoy vacations and other things that only the wealthy can afford now. Jobs have been outsourced to foreign countries and that is why the wealthy have a 700 percent increase. They no longer need to pay an American anymore and therefore they pocket the difference. The only way to get some of that tax revenue back is to charge an import fee on goods coming from those corporate owned shipments from abroad. They will have to choose rebuilding in the US or pay more. You can argue the global economy but America had globalism imposed on it through NAFTA and GATT, which contributes to
      the downfall of our sovereign economy.
      Corporate farming with foreign labor contributes to tainted food and malnutrition and over immigration is already overpopulating our country to the point of further shrinking the middle class to poverty or obsolescence. I am afraid the new middle class will either soon have an income above 200k or below 25 k depending or the survival rate after the next great depression and riots due to food and essentials shortages. Mismanagement of the citizen’s economy stems from corporate greed and there are few jobs available to our citizens where a livable wage can be earned unless you are a Mexican living in a communal house where they pool rent and food. That is the real today!

      • Cindy

        Hurt, excellent points, very nicely stated.

  • eddie47d

    Yes but the wealthy are wealthier,the Elites are as happy as a lark and Wall Street is making buckets of money. Its not a money problem it is who has the money and what they are doing with it or not doing with it. Financial schemes are still plentiful but that doesn’t necessarily create jobs but only makes the fat cats fatter.

    • Dale left coast

      The have pocketed the Trillions that the Bamster has pi$$ed away in the last 4 years . . . as Keiser in CA how he made out on the Solyndra deal Eddie.
      Businessmen in America are sitting on their hands . . . afraid to invest in the New Socialist America . . . 4 more years . . . will see them moving to places like Canada where business taxes are 15% TODAY and personal income taxes have been falling for 6 years.

  • jopa

    sc;I don’t know how you became so misinformed, the President does not claim to be poor and said over and over he doesn’t want the millionaire tax cut that would benefit him.He came from a poor background however today he is worth about six million from his salary and book sales.He would be worth a lot more if he didn’t give so much of the proceeds from the book sales to charity.What’s with the comrade crap are you some type of closet commie?I think it’s the commies that use that language, but not 100% sure.Have a good one

    • Dale left coast

      O’bammster’s give to charity . . . . lol
      Don’t believe it . . . unless of course its Acorn or Socialists of America . . .

    • Dale left coast

      jop . . . if the O got his way and “taxed” the so-called rich . . . the funds would last about 8 days . . . what happens the other 357 days of the years Jop?
      The reality is . . . the O’bammy clown is driving the US bus over a cliff . . . when I look over the edge I see Greece . . . . what do you see Jop?
      If they took everything from the so-called rich . . . it would not balance the budget . . . EVER ! ! !
      The problem with the teleprompter reading socialist loon . . . his concept of taxing the rich means . . . anyone with a JOB!

      • Hurt Burt

        That is not a problem for Obama, He can’t tax the wealthy for 2 very good reasons.
        He would never be able to raise funds for his pet projects.
        He could live an abbreviated life cycle.

  • Cindy
    • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

      Dear Cindy,

      Your reading for comprehension skills leave much to be desired.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Cindy

        I must have hit a raw nerve as the “Big Guns” have come out, making a statement and not giving an example of why my reading skills are being judged. This is typical of the radical right, critize someone and try to dismiss their thoughts with a statement such as yours. If you disagree with what he said, defend it. What about Romney statements don’t I get?
        He admitted he didn’t even read report he has been quoting and then he stated middle class is 200 to 250k. Are you saying he didn’t say those things?

      • Cindy

        Bob, here is transcript where he states what he considers to be middle income.
        http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-george-stephanopoulos-and-mitt-romney/

      • Vicki

        Cindy. This is probably the point Bob was making.

        From your link I found “Romney defined middle income as $200,000 to $250,000 a year and less.”

        The key words are the 2 at the end of the sentence.

      • Vicki

        And here it is in your 2nd link too.

        “MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.”

        Complete with the 2 words at the end which are key.

    • Hurt Burt

      Actually, given inflation that statement might not be too far off the mark. the way things are going in our lopsided economy, 50k a year could be very well be below the poverty line.

  • jopa

    Cindy;Thanks for the link.Romney actually thinks the middle class families in America make $200,000-$250,000 a year the ones making less must be the welfare recipients and food stamp folks.The actual median wage for the middle class is around $50,000.Romney also wants to do away with small business and student loans.He thinks that you should just ask your parents for the money to go to college and start a business like he and his sons have

    • Cindy

      jopa, here is a question to ask all those who are demonizing all social programs. Did you go to college on a scholarship or grants? If so you participated in tax payer funded education. That is socialism at it’s finest. I am willing to bet that over half of the college educated people on this site received some assistance, as most of our parents weren’t rich, they were the working middle class. So the next time they are slamming government programs for education, remind them that they reaped the rewards and shouldn’t deny the next generation of children the hand up that they themselves received. If you can’t help the children what kind of nation are we?

      • Vicki

        Cindy writes:
        “I am willing to bet that over half of the college educated people on this site received some assistance.”

        Why yes, I did. From my parents with their full consent, not at (government) gunpoint.

    • Vicki

      Jopa writes:
      “The actual median wage for the middle class is around $50,000.”

      Which just happens to be in the area below 200,000 to 250,000 right where Romney said it was. You should be more annoyed that he didn’t give a lower bound to the Middle Class.

  • jopa

    Vicki; 200,000 – 250,000 is not middle income 100,000 is not middle income so the way you want us to accept this as fact, Romney could have said anywhere under five million is middle income and he would be right.Nice try but the guy is still clueless and out of touch with the average American.I have a granddaughter taking ballet lessons however I don’t think anyone in my family would have taken their horse for dancing lessons.Then he gets a $70,000 tax deduction for the horse whereas a child is $1,000 I believe.Would I love to see some more of those tax returns.

    • Vicki

      jopa says:
      “Vicki; 200,000 – 250,000 is not middle income 100,000 is not middle income so the way you want us to accept this as fact, Romney could have said anywhere under five million is middle income and he would be right.”

      Soon, thanks to QE-I (as in infinity), 5 million might well be below the poverty line.

      However the real point is that the definition of middle income (not median or mean), used to comment about a social class (Middle Class) in a classless society is incredibly nebulous and perhaps even irrelevant.

      “Income varies considerably from near the national median to well in excess of $100,000.[2][4] Household income figures, however, do not always reflect class status and standard of living, as they are largely influenced by the number of income earners and fail to recognize household size. It is therefore possible for a large, dual-earner, lower middle class household to out-earn a small, one-earner, upper middle class household.[5]”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class

  • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

    Never in the history of the world has a three class society lived peacefully. It seems the would be lords have to the rest of the people serfs to do their bidding. It goes something like this. Thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis. Thesesis is a country living in harmony with itself. Along comes anti-thesis, a country where it’s people are in turmoil with each other. The result is synthesis. A new country evolves with a different political philosophy. In our case, we were a God fearing Consititutional Republic but today we have a choice. Stick with Obama and we’ll become a communist state. Pick Romney and we’ll be a fascist state continuing down our road to world empire. Our salvation was waiting in the wings with Ron Paul but those two were our choices. Will we come to our senses and make our leaders whoever they be do our bidding instead of us doing their bidding?

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.