1. Home
  2. News & Issues
  3. US Politics

US Politics Blog

From Kathy Gill, Former About.com Guide to US Politics

Labor Day Facts & Data

Monday September 3, 2007
Average US income in 2005 remained below the 2000 peak (adjusted for inflation) according to IRS data. Recent Census Bureau data show that median household income in 2006 increased slightly (0.7 percent, adjusted for inflation) to $48,200, in part because there were more full-time workers per household.

But the wages for full time, year-round employed Americans dropped between 2005 and 2006 (adjusted for inflation). The number of us without insurance is up. And the Gini Index, a measure of income inequality, continues to rise.

Reflection on the most visible aspect of our labor, income, makes sense on Labor Day, a holiday celebrated on the first Monday in September. Congress made this a national holiday in 1894; it was already a holiday in 23 states.

Although Americans like to think of the country as "class-less" (compared, for example, to Europe), income levels paint a different picture. The US is a stratified society -- along divisions of race as well as overall income.

For example, Asian median household income ($64,200) was more than whites ($50,700), Hispanics ($37,800) or blacks ($32,000). But only whites had a statisically significant increase in median income, and this was the first real increase since 1999.

The total number of households increased from 114,384,000 to 116,011,000. In 2006, the lowest 20 percent accounted for 3.4 percent of total income and the top 20 percent accounted for 50.5; those numbers are basically unchanged since 2005.

There has been a steady increase in concentration of income in the upper 20 percent and an even greater concentration in the upper 5 percent.

In 1967, the upper fifth accounted for 43.8 percent of aggregate income, and in 1998, 49.2 percent. Concentration in the top 5 percent accounts for most of that increase, increasing from 17.5 percent to 21.4 percent from 1967-1998. For 2006, the top 5 percent took home 22.3 percent of all money income.

Gini Index
The Gini Index of Income Inequality (definition) is another way to examine income distribution. By this measure, "distribution of income among American families tended to become more equal in the two decades after World War II."

The measure has become steadily more unequal since WWII, whether or not non-income sources such as food stamps (but not employer-provided non-wage benefits) are included. In the current Census report, the figure is basically unchanged (46.9 versus 47.0) although it has shown a steady increase over time. For example, in 2002, it was 46.2; in 2000, it was 40.8; in 1967, it was 39.7.

The US has the highest Gini index of any advanced nation, suggesting a society divided by income in a manner far greater than Europe.

For example, CIA Factbook records the following Gini indices: Denmark (23.2), France (26.7), Germany (28.3), Japan (38.1), Mexico (54.6) and the United Kingdom (36.8).

The Census Bureau computes a "equivalence-adjusted" income figure that factors in the number of people in a household and how they share resources. For example, children are assumed to consume less than adults. By this measure, there is no change in the percent held by the lower quintile, but the upper 5 percent saw their share increase from 21.9 percent to 22.2 percent (2005 to 2006). The upper 20 percent increased from 49.1 percent to 49.4 percent suggesting, yet again, that most of the increase went to the upper 5 percent.

The resulting Gini index showed increased inequality: from 45.2 to 45.4, a greater absolute change than the money-only index figure. (However, the difference is not statistically significant).

Health Insurance
About 47 million of us are uninsured, and the number of us insured by any plan -- private or public -- increased in 2006. About 1-in-5 children in poverty are not insured; 1-in-10 children are uninsured. As is the case in most economic statistics in America, your odds of your child being insured increase if the child is white.

Finally, the states with uninsured rates greater than the national average are, in the main, the sunbelt -- mostly "red" states politically.

For a first-person account of how "uninsured" an "insured" worker can be, see Lucky To Be Insured and Welcome To My World.

See The Politics of Labor, Uninsured Rates By State and Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006 report (pdf).

Also, An uncertain Labor Day for U.S. workers and In the US, class war still means just one thing: the rich attacking the poor.

Comments

September 3, 2007 at 3:19 pm
(1) Joe Crawford says:

Sounds kinda bleak for the commone person. Even the individual who has made all the right moves. There are alternitives today though. Being in the top 5% should be the goal of every american. Don’t thnk you can do it through the “schooled” channels though. It won’t happen. There is a better way and it works for millions of americans. Own your own business. It is easier than ever before. Statistics show you will make more. Save more. And have more free time. Before you go out and make the same mistake 90 % of first time entrepreneurs make, Get Informed. Learn from someone who has already acieved what you desire, then do what they did. Visit http:www.createliberty.blogspot.com

September 3, 2007 at 10:49 pm
(2) Chuck Manson says:

10+ million of the uninsured aren’t even Americans. So the “us” is just another manipulation by the far left. Another 8.4 million make over $50K a year and still more than 9.3 million make in excess of $75K a year and don’t buy insurance. So, the real uninsured figure is closer to 20 mil and even that figure is just a snapshot of the people who fall in and out of insurance as they change jobs or are self insured. The real numbers fall somewhere around 10 million but you’ll never hear that from ms Gill or any of the other far left zealots.

Regarding income: Every great expansion has been followed by a recession of some kind. Just look at the median income graphs for the last 40 years and it’s obvious that incomes drop shortly after the bubble bursts. No mystery here, just another attempt to make Bill Clinton look like something he never was.

C

September 3, 2007 at 11:10 pm
(3) uspolitics says:

Hi, Chuck:

The first set of data is from the IRS … the second is the Census Bureau. Neither are particularly “far left.”

The report says “The population represented (the
population universe) is the civilian noninstitutionalized population living in the United States.” Here’s the pdf detailing methodology — it certainly sounds like the data and estimates are for legal residents.

September 3, 2007 at 11:11 pm
(4) uspolitics says:

hi, Chuck … re your assertion about income and recessions, this '+ap[0]+at[4]+as[0]);adunit('','','about.com',ch,gs,336,280,'1','bb',3);w('

')}if(z155>0){w('
'+ap[0]+at[4]+as[0]);adunit('','','about.com',ch,gs,336,155,'1','ps',4);w('
')}

About.com Special Features

Holiday Central

What to eat, where to go, fun things to do and how to save money on the perfect gifts. More >

Weird Breaking News

A daily look at some of the oddest (and dumbest) crimes around. More >