DOCSLIB.ORG

Income, Expenditures, and Wealth

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Income, Expenditures, and Wealth Section 14 Income, Expenditures, and Wealth This section presents data on gross domestic product (GDP), gross national In Brief product (GNP), national and personal Gross domestic product, in chained income, saving and investment, money (1992) dollars reached a record income, poverty, and national and personal $6.7 trillion in 1995. wealth. The data on income and expendi- tures measure two aspects of the U.S. Gross state product reached economy. One aspect relates to the $6 trillion in 1992. national income and product accounts Median household income (NIPA’s), a summation reflecting the entire in 1994: $32,264 complex of the Nation’s economic income Poverty status of persons in 1994: and output and the interaction of its major Number below poverty level: components; the other relates to the dis- 38.1 million tribution of money income to families and Percent below poverty level: 14.5 individuals, or consumer income. National income and product— The primary source for data on GDP, GNP, Gross domestic product is the total output national and personal income, gross sav- of goods and services produced by labor ing and investment, and fixed reproducible and property located in the United States, tangible wealth is the Survey of Current valued at market prices. GDP can be Business, published monthly by the viewed in terms of expenditure categories Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). A that comprise purchases of goods and comprehensive revision to the NIPA’s was services by consumers and government, completed in January 1996. Discussions gross private domestic investment, and net of the revision appeared in the July, exports of goods and services. The goods September, and October 1995 and the and services included are largely those January/February 1996 issues of the Sur- bought for final use (excluding illegal trans- vey of Current Business. Summary histori- actions) in the market economy. A number cal estimates appeared in the January/ of inclusions, however, represent imputed February 1996 issue of the Survey of values, the most important of which is rent- Current Business. Detailed historical data al value of owner-occupied housing. GDP, will appear in the National Income and in this broad context, measures the output Product Accounts of the United States, attributable to the factors of production volume 2, 1959-92 to be published in late located in the United States. Gross State 1996, and volume 1, 1929-58 to be pub- product (GSP) is the gross market value lished in early 1997. of the goods and services attributable to labor and property located in a State. It is Sources of income distribution data are the the State counterpart of the Nation’s gross decennial censuses of population and the domestic product. Current Population Survey (CPS), both products of the Bureau of the Census (see As part of the comprehensive revision re- text, section 1). Annual data on income of leased in January 1996, BEA replaced its families, individuals, and households are fixed-weighted (1987 dollars) index as the presented in Current Population Reports- featured measure of real GDP with an in- Consumer Income, P60 series. dex based on chain-type annual weights. Changes in the new featured measures of Data on individuals’ saving and assets are real output and prices are calculated as published by the Board of Governors of the average of changes based on weights the Federal Reserve System in the quar- for the current and preceding years. terly Flow of Funds Accounts; and detailed (Components of real output are weighted information on personal wealth is pub- by price and prices of components are lished periodically by the Internal Revenue weighted by output.) These annual Service (IRS) in SOI Bulletin. changes are “chained” (multiplied) together 440 Income, Expenditures, and Wealth to form a time series that allows for the unincorporated firms), nonprofit institutions effects of changes in relative prices and that primarily serve individuals, private trust changes in the composition of output over funds, and private noninsured welfare time. Quarterly and monthly changes are funds. Personal income includes transfers also based on annual weights. The new (payments not resulting from current pro- output indexes are expressed in 1992 dol- duction) from government and business lars and the new price indexes are based such as Social Security benefits, public to 1992 = 100. assistance, etc., but excludes transfers among persons. Also included are certain Gross national product measures the out- nonmonetary types of income—chiefly put attributable to all labor and property estimated net rental value to owner- supplied by United States residents. GNP occupants of their homes and the value differs from “national income” mainly in that of services furnished without payment by GNP includes allowances for depreciation financial intermediaries. and for indirect business taxes (sales and property taxes); see table 691. Disposable personal income is personal income less personal tax and nontax pay- In December 1991, the Bureau of Eco- ments. It is the income available to per- nomic Analysis began featuring gross sons for spending or saving. Personal tax domestic product rather than gross nation- and nontax payments are tax payments al product as the primary measure of U.S. (net of refunds) by persons (except per- production. GDP is now the standard mea- sonal contributions for social insurance) sure of growth because it is the appropri- that are not chargeable to business ex- ate measure for much of the short-term pense, and certain personal payments to monitoring and analysis of the economy. In general government that are treated like addition, the use of GDP facilitates com- taxes. Personal taxes include income, parisons of economic activity in the United estate and gift, and personal property States with that in other countries. taxes and motor vehicle licenses. Nontax National income is the aggregate of payments include passport fees, fines and labor and property earnings which arises forfeitures, and donations. in the current production of goods and Consumer Expenditure Survey—The services. It is the sum of employee com- Consumer Expenditure Survey program pensation, proprietors’ income, rental was begun in late 1979. The principal ob- income of persons, corporate profits, jective of the survey is to collect current and net interest. It measures the total consumer expenditure data which provide factor costs of the goods and services a continuous flow of data on the buying produced by the economy. Income is habits of American consumers. The data measured before deduction of taxes. are necessary for future revisions of the Capital consumption adjustment for corpo- Consumer Price Index. rations, and for nonfarm sole proprietor- The survey conducted by the Bureau of ships and partnerships is the difference the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statis- between capital consumption based on tics, consists of two components: (1) An income tax returns and capital consump- interview panel survey in which the expen- tion measured at straight-line depreciation, ditures of consumer units are obtained in consistent service lives, and replacement five interviews conducted every 3 months; cost. The tax return data are valued at his- and (2) a diary or recordkeeping survey torical costs and reflect changes over time completed by participating households for in service lives and depreciation patterns two consecutive 1-week periods. as permitted by tax regulations. Inventory Each component of the survey queries an valuation adjustment represents the differ- independent sample of consumer units ence between the book value of invento- representative of the U.S. total population. ries used up in production and the cost of Over 52 weeks of the year, 5,000 consum- replacing them. er units are sampled for the diary survey. Personal income is the current income Each consumer unit keeps a diary for two received by persons from all sources 1-week periods yielding approximately minus their personal contributions for 10,000 diaries a year. The interview social insurance. Classified as “persons” sample is selected on a rotating panel are individuals (including owners of basis, targeted at 5,000 consumer units Income, Expenditures, and Wealth 441 per quarter. Data are collected in 88 urban taxes, Social Security, union dues, Medi- and 16 rural areas of the country that are care deductions, etc. Therefore, money representative of the U.S. total population. income does not reflect the fact that some The survey includes students in student families receive part of their income in the housing. Data from the two surveys are form of noncash benefits (see section 12) combined; integration is necessary to per- such as food stamps, health benefits, and mit analysis of total family expenditures subsidized housing; that some farm fami- because neither the diary nor quarterly in- lies receive noncash benefits in the form of terview survey was designed to collect a rent-free housing and goods produced and complete account of consumer spending. consumed on the farm; or that noncash benefits are also received by some non- The Diary survey is designed to obtain farm residents which often take the form expenditures on small, frequently pur- of the use of business transportation and chased items which are normally difficult facilities, full or partial payments by busi- for respondents to recall. Detailed records ness for retirement programs, medical of expenses are kept for food and bever- ages, both at home and in eating places, and educational expenses, etc. These tobacco, housekeeping supplies, nonpre- elements should be considered when scription drugs, and personal care prod- comparing income levels. For data on non- ucts and services. cash benefits, see section 12. None of the aggregate income concepts (GDP, national The Interview survey is designed to obtain income, or personal income) is exactly data on the types of expenditures which comparable with money income, although respondents can be expected to recall for personal income is the closest.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Income and Poverty in the United States: 2018 Current Population Reports
    Income and Poverty in the United States: 2018 Current Population Reports By Jessica Semega, Melissa Kollar, John Creamer, and Abinash Mohanty Issued September 2019 Revised June 2020 P60-266(RV) Jessica Semega and Melissa Kollar prepared the income section of this report Acknowledgments under the direction of Jonathan L. Rothbaum, Chief of the Income Statistics Branch. John Creamer and Abinash Mohanty prepared the poverty section under the direction of Ashley N. Edwards, Chief of the Poverty Statistics Branch. Trudi J. Renwick, Assistant Division Chief for Economic Characteristics in the Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division, provided overall direction. Vonda Ashton, David Watt, Susan S. Gajewski, Mallory Bane, and Nancy Hunter, of the Demographic Surveys Division, and Lisa P. Cheok of the Associate Directorate for Demographic Programs, processed the Current Population Survey 2019 Annual Social and Economic Supplement file. Andy Chen, Kirk E. Davis, Raymond E. Dowdy, Lan N. Huynh, Chandararith R. Phe, and Adam W. Reilly programmed and produced the historical, detailed, and publication tables under the direction of Hung X. Pham, Chief of the Tabulation and Applications Branch, Demographic Surveys Division. Nghiep Huynh and Alfred G. Meier, under the supervision of KeTrena Phipps and David V. Hornick, all of the Demographic Statistical Methods Division, conducted statistical review. Lisa P. Cheok of the Associate Directorate for Demographic Programs, provided overall direction for the survey implementation. Roberto Cases and Aaron Cantu of the Associate Directorate for Demographic Programs, and Charlie Carter and Agatha Jung of the Information Technology Directorate prepared and pro- grammed the computer-assisted interviewing instrument used to conduct the Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
    [Show full text]
  • State Income Limits for 2021
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov April 26, 2021 MEMORANDUM FOR: Interested parties FROM: Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director Division of Housing Policy Development SUBJECT: State Income Limits for 2021 Attached are briefing materials and State Income Limits for 2021 that are now in effect, replacing the 2020 State Income Limits. Income limits reflect updated median income and household income levels for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households for California’s 58 counties. The 2021 State Income Limits are on the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/income- limits/state-and-federal-income-limits.shtml. State Income Limits apply to designated programs, are used to determine applicant eligibility (based on the level of household income) and may be used to calculate affordable housing costs for applicable housing assistance programs. Use of State Income Limits are subject to a particular program’s definition of income, family, family size, effective dates, and other factors. In addition, definitions applicable to income categories, criteria, and geographic areas sometimes differ depending on the funding source and program, resulting in some programs using other income limits. The attached briefing materials detail California’s 2021 Income Limits and were updated based on: (1) changes to income limits the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released on April 1, 2021 for its Public Housing, Section 8, Section 202 and Section 811 programs and (2) adjustments HCD made based on State statutory provisions and its 2013 Hold Harmless (HH) Policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Development Paper
    HUMAN DEVELOPMENT PAPER HUMAN DEVELOPMENT PAPER ON INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 1 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT PAPER ON INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA Reduced inequality as part of the SDG agenda August 2018 2 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT PAPER ON INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA FOREWORD “People are the real wealth of a nation. The basic objective of development is to create an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives. This may appear to be a simple truth. But it is often forgotten in the immediate concern with the accumulation of commodities and financial wealth.” (UNDP, Human Development Report, 1990). When the first Human Development Report was published in 1990, the UNDP firmly set out the concepts of dignity and a decent life as the essential to a broader meaning of human development. Ever since, the organization has been publishing reports on global, regional and national levels addressing the most pressing development challenges. In recent years, UNDP initiated a new product - Human Development Papers – that focus on a selected development issue with the aim to contribute to policy dialogue and policy-making processes. It is my pleasure to introduce the first Human Development Paper for Serbia, focusing on inequality. The Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development places a special emphasis on eradicating poverty worldwide while reducing inequality and exclusion, promoting peaceful, just and inclusive societies and leaving no one behind. The achievement of Sustainable Development Goals requires new approaches to how we understand and address inter-related challenges of poverty, inequality and exclusion. The paper analyses and sets a national baseline for SDG10 leading indicator 10.1.1 - Growth rates of household expenditure or income per capita among the bottom 40 per cent of the population and the total population and the related target 10.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Household Income and Wealth
    HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND WEALTH INCOME AND SAVINGS NATIONAL INCOME PER CAPITA HOUSEHOLD DISPOSABLE INCOME HOUSEHOLD SAVINGS INCOME INEQUALITY AND POVERTY INCOME INEQUALITY POVERTY RATES AND GAPS HOUSEHOLD WEALTH HOUSEHOLD FINANCIAL ASSETS HOUSEHOLD DEBT NON-FINANCIAL ASSETS BY HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND WEALTH • INCOME AND SAVINGS NATIONAL INCOME PER CAPITA While per capita gross domestic product is the indicator property income may never actually be returned to the most commonly used to compare income levels, two country but instead add to foreign direct investment. other measures are preferred, at least in theory, by many analysts. These are per capita Gross National Income Comparability (GNI) and Net National Income (NNI). Whereas GDP refers All countries compile data according to the 1993 SNA to the income generated by production activities on the “System of National Accounts, 1993” with the exception economic territory of the country, GNI measures the of Australia where data are compiled according to the income generated by the residents of a country, whether new 2008 SNA. It’s important to note however that earned on the domestic territory or abroad. differences between the 2008 SNA and the 1993 SNA do not have a significant impact of the comparability of the Definition indicators presented here and this implies that data are GNI is defined as GDP plus receipts from abroad less highly comparable across countries. payments to abroad of wages and salaries and of However, there are practical difficulties in the property income plus net taxes and subsidies receivable measurement both of international flows of wages and from abroad. NNI is equal to GNI net of depreciation.
    [Show full text]
  • Nber Working Paper Series Income Growth and Its
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES INCOME GROWTH AND ITS DISTRIBUTION FROM EISENHOWER TO OBAMA: THE GROWING IMPORTANCE OF IN-KIND TRANSFERS (1959-2016) James Elwell Kevin Corinth Richard V. Burkhauser Working Paper 26439 http://www.nber.org/papers/w26439 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 November 2019 The views in this paper reflect those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Council of Economic Advisers, their staffs, or the National Bureau of Economic Research. Elwell’s work on this research was funded by The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation while he was a graduate student at Cornell University. Part of this work was undertaken while Burkhauser was employed by the Council of Economic Advisers. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2019 by James Elwell, Kevin Corinth, and Richard V. Burkhauser. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Income Growth and its Distribution from Eisenhower to Obama: The Growing Importance of In-Kind Transfers (1959-2016) James Elwell, Kevin Corinth, and Richard V. Burkhauser NBER Working Paper No. 26439 November 2019 JEL No. D31,H24,J3 ABSTRACT Using Census Bureau estimates of the market value of in-kind transfers and Current Population Survey (ASEC-CPS) data over the period 1979 to 2007, Burkhauser et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Income and Poverty in the United States: 2017 Issued September 2018
    IncoIncomeme andand P Povertyoverty in in the theUn Unitedited State States:s: 2017 2017 CurrentCurrent Population Reports ByBy KaylaKayla Fontenot,Fontenot, JessicaJessica Semega,Semega, andand MelissaMelissa KollarKollar IssuedIssued SeptemberSeptember 20182018 P60-263P60-263 Jessica Semega and Melissa Kollar prepared the income sections of this report Acknowledgments under the direction of Jonathan L. Rothbaum, Chief of the Income Statistics Branch. Kayla Fontenot prepared the poverty section under the direction of Ashley N. Edwards, Chief of the Poverty Statistics Branch. Trudi J. Renwick, Assistant Division Chief for Economic Characteristics in the Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division, provided overall direction. Susan S. Gajewski and Nancy Hunter, Demographic Surveys Division, and Lisa P. Cheok, Associate Directorate Demographic Programs, processed the Current Population Survey 2018 Annual Social and Economic Supplement file. Kirk E. Davis, Raymond E. Dowdy, Shawna Evers, Ryan C. Fung, Lan N. Huynh, and Chandararith R. Phe programmed and produced the historical, detailed, and publication tables under the direction of Hung X. Pham, Chief of the Tabulation and Applications Branch, Demographic Surveys Division. Nghiep Huynh and Alfred G. Meier, under the supervision of KeTrena Farnham and David V. Hornick, all of the Demographic Statistical Methods Division, con- ducted statistical review. Tim J. Marshall, Assistant Survey Director of the Current Population Survey, provided overall direction for the survey implementation. Lisa P. Cheok and Aaron Cantu, Associate Directorate Demographic Programs, and Charlie Carter, Agatha Jung, and Johanna Rupp of the Application Development and Services Division prepared and programmed the computer-assisted interviewing instru- ment used to conduct the Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Additional people within the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Income, Expenditures, Poverty, and Wealth
    Section 13 Income, Expenditures, Poverty, and Wealth This section presents data on gross periodically conducts the Survey of domestic product (GDP), gross national Consumer Finances, which presents finan- product (GNP), national and personal cial information on family assets and net income, saving and investment, money worth. The most recent survey is available income, poverty, and national and at <http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs personal wealth. The data on income and /oss/oss2/scfindex.html>. Detailed infor- expenditures measure two aspects of the mation on personal wealth is published U.S. economy. One aspect relates to the periodically by the Internal Revenue National Income and Product Accounts Service (IRS) in SOI Bulletin. (NIPA), a summation reflecting the entire complex of the nation’s economic income National income and product— and output and the interaction of its GDP is the total output of goods and major components; the other relates to services produced by labor and prop- the distribution of money income to erty located in the United States, valued families and individuals or consumer at market prices. GDP can be viewed in income. terms of the expenditure categories that comprise its major components: The primary source for data on GDP, GNP, personal consumption expenditures, national and personal income, gross gross private domestic investment, net saving and investment, and fixed assets exports of goods and services, and gov- and consumer durables is the Survey of ernment consumption expenditures and Current Business, published monthly by gross investment. The goods and services the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). included are largely those bought for final A comprehensive revision to the NIPA use (excluding illegal transactions) in the was released beginning in July 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Eu Regular Economic Report
    102089 E U Public Disclosure Authorized REGULAR ECONOMIC REPORT 2 SUSTAINING RECOVERY, IMPROVING LIVING STANDARDS Public Disclosure Authorized FALL 2015 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized The EU Regular Economic Report (RER), is a semi- Anil Onal, Barbara Cunha, Tu Chi Nguyen, Natalia Millan, annual publication of the World Bank Group and Paul Andres Corral Rodas, Leszek Kasek, Raquel Letelier, covers economic developments, prospects, and Alena Kantarovich, Natalie Nicolaou, Tulu Balkir, Sanja economic policies in the European Union. The report Madzarevic-Sujster, Stella Ilieva, Jose Luis Sanchez, Marc uses four sub-groups that share broadly similar develop- Schiffbauer, Sonia Plaza, Andrei Silviu Dospinescu, Ekaterine ment patterns EU (see map): Central Europe comprises T. Vashakmadze, Emilia Skrok, Catalin Pauna, Pilar Salgado ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Otonel, Suzana Petrovic, and Magali Pinat. Tito Cordella AND Romania, Slovak Republic and Slovenia; Northern Europe provided excellent advice throughout the preparation of comprises Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania this report. The dissemination of the report and media and Sweden; Southern Europe comprises Cyprus, Greece, relations are managed by an External Communication NOTES Italy, Portugal and Spain; Western Europe comprises team comprising Andrew Kircher and Anna Kowalczyk. Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, The team is grateful to Christian Bodewig and Jean- the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. While the Francois Marteau (Acting Country Directors, Central report covers the European Union, it provides additional Europe and the Baltic States), Satu Kähkönen (Director, information on European countries which had historically Macroeconomics and Fiscal Global Management), Ivailo a stronger operational engagement with the World Bank Izvorski (Practice Manager, Macroeconomics and Fiscal Group, in particular, Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland and Romania.
    [Show full text]
  • Median and Mean Income Analyses
    Economic & Labour Market Review Feb 2011 Median and mean income analyses Their implications for material living standards and national well–being Blessing Chiripanhura Office for National Statistics Summary This paper argues that median income analysis should be used to complement mean income analysis because median analysis gives a better indication of the level of economic well–being of the ‘typical’ household. Since the income distribution is positively skewed, mean analysis is influenced by extreme observations at the top end of the distribution, resulting in the mean exceeding the median. The paper shows that micro (household) data gives a better indication of national economic well-being than macro (National Accounts) data. It argues that final household income may be a preferable income variable for assessing material well-being because it includes all earned income and benefits paid in kind. Introduction A country’s standard of living is often measured by income (Gross Domestic Product (GDP)) per person, with higher per person income indicating higher living standards. Alternative measures used by development practitioners include the Human Development Index, and accessibility and quality of education and health. The Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress (CMEPSP) (2009) defines well–being as a multi–dimensional concept concerned with not only income, but also non–economic aspects of life like political voices and governance, social networks and relationships, the environment and security. The multi– dimensionality means there is no single indicator to summarise it, thus requiring the establishment of a system that captures all the relevant dimensions. The question of whether or not GDP is a good indicator of national economic well–being has been debated frequently in economic analysis (Nordhaus and Tobin, 1973; Zolotas, 1981; Boarini et al, 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • GDP PER CAPITA VERSUS MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME: WHAT GIVES RISE to DIVERGENCE OVER TIME? Brian Nolan, Max Roser, and Stefan
    GDP PER CAPITA VERSUS MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME: WHAT GIVES RISE TO DIVERGENCE OVER TIME? Brian Nolan, Max Roser, and Stefan Thewissen INET Oxford WorkinG Paper no. 2016-03 Employment, Equity and Growth proGramme GDP per capita versus median household income: What gives rise to divergence over time?⇤ § Brian Nolan,† Max Roser,‡ and Stefan Thewissen May 2016 Abstract Divergence between the evolution of GDP per capita and the income of a‘typical’householdasmeasuredinhouseholdsurveysisgivingrisetoa range of serious concerns, especially in the USA. This paper investigates the extent of that divergence and the factors that contribute to it across 27 OECD countries, using data from OECD National Accounts and the Luxembourg Income Study. While GDP per capita has risen faster than median household income in most of these countries over the period these data cover, the size of that divergence varied very substantially, with the USA a clear outlier. The paper distinguishes a number of factors contributing to such a divergence, and finds wide variation across countries in the impact of the various factors. Further, both the extent of that divergence and the role of the various contributory factors vary widely over time for most of the countries studied. These findings have serious implications for the monitoring and assessment of changes in household incomes and living standards over time. keywords: Economic growth, inequality, household incomes ⇤The authors are grateful for comments and advice from Tony Atkinson (University of Oxford) and Facundo Alvaredo (Paris School of Economics). †Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, Department of Social Policy and Intervention, and Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    [Show full text]
  • GDP Per Capita Versus Median Household Income: What Gives Rise to Divergence Over Time? SM-WP-2016 May 2016
    Social Macroeconomics Working Paper Series GDP per capita versus median household income: what gives rise to divergence over time? SM-WP-2016 May 2016 Brian Nolan, Max Roser, Stefan Thewissen Institute for New Economic Thinking, Department of Social Policy and Intervention, and Nuffield College, University of Oxford. Copyright for the working paper remains with the author/s. GDP per capita versus median household income: What gives rise to divergence over time?⇤ § Brian Nolan,† Max Roser,‡ and Stefan Thewissen May 2016 Abstract Divergence between the evolution of GDP per capita and the income of a‘typical’householdasmeasuredinhouseholdsurveysisgivingrisetoa range of serious concerns, especially in the USA. This paper investigates the extent of that divergence and the factors that contribute to it across 27 OECD countries, using data from OECD National Accounts and the Luxembourg Income Study. While GDP per capita has risen faster than median household income in most of these countries over the period these data cover, the size of that divergence varied very substantially, with the USA a clear outlier. The paper distinguishes a number of factors contributing to such a divergence, and finds wide variation across countries in the impact of the various factors. Further, both the extent of that divergence and the role of the various contributory factors vary widely over time for most of the countries studied. These findings have serious implications for the monitoring and assessment of changes in household incomes and living standards over time. keywords: Economic growth, inequality, household incomes ⇤The authors are grateful for comments and advice from Tony Atkinson (University of Oxford) and Facundo Alvaredo (Paris School of Economics).
    [Show full text]
  • Household Income: 2016 American Community Survey Briefs
    Household Income: 2016 American Community Survey Briefs By Gloria G. Guzman Issued September 2017 ACSBR/16-02 INTRODUCTION Household income: Includes income of the This report presents data on median household income householder and all other people 15 years and and the Gini index of income inequality based on the older in the household, whether or not they are 2015 and 2016 American Community Surveys (ACS). related to the householder. The ACS provides detailed estimates of demographic, social, economic, and housing characteristics for Median: The point that divides the household states, congressional districts, counties, places, and income distribution into halves, one-half with income above the median and the other with other localities every year. A description of the ACS is income below the median. The median is based provided in the text box “What Is the American on the income distribution of all households, 1 Community Survey?” Estimates from the 2016 ACS including those with no income. show a significant increase in median household income at the national level and for 30 states.2 Median Gini index: Summary measure of income household income increased between 2015 and 2016 inequality. The Gini index varies from 0 to 1, with a 0 indicating perfect equality, where there for 21 of the 25 most populous metropolitan areas.3 is a proportional distribution of income. A Gini The Gini index was not significantly higher in 2016 index of 1 indicates perfect inequality, where than 2015 for the United States. one household has all the income. The estimates contained in this report are primarily based on the 2015 and 2016 ACS.
    [Show full text]