[ch4s3]

US real median household income has been steadily rising[1] for the last 40+ years. Life expectancy is rising again after dipping and plateauing for a few years. Employment numbers are pretty good given the macro headwinds. The US forms ~5.9 million new businesses per year which vastly out paces the EU.

The US isn't without problems, but we're doing OK.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

It's incredible that not a single person replying negatively has included a single piece of data.

[Someone1234]

> US real median household income has been steadily rising[1] for the last 40+ years.

Compare it to the Consumer Price Index:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUR0000SA0R

[ch4s3]

REAL income is adjusted for inflation. If real median income is increasing then it is outpacing inflation by definition.

[senordevnyc]

Why is it that the cynics and doomers always have such a poor grasp of the data?

[nixon_why69]

Because the basket of goods for inflation doesn't separate optional from mandatory consumption.

If housing, healthcare and education are outpacing the topline inflation number, a lot of marginal families will be squeezed. The cheap LG TV doesn't really make up for it.

[ch4s3]

Nevertheless if you lump those costs into an inflation number it won't be a lot higher, the Total Living Cost calculated for 2023-2024 showed 4.4% inflation vs 3% CPI. There are a lot of ways to slice and dice this, which is why people stick to the classic CPI.

[hnfong]

If you factor in an extra 1.4% inflation per year into the numbers, you're not going to see any "real" wages growth over the 40 year period.

So the 1984 income is 60,420, if you calculate 60420 * (1.014)^40, which is assuming there's a 1.4% difference between the two disputed methodologies, you'd get about 105k. But the actual 2024 income is 83,730. Which I think means that if you take the non-CPI methodology to calculate real income growth, it's actually negative.

I'm not saying one method is more correct than the other (I don't know enough about economics to judge), but 1.4% annual difference matters a lot when you're talking about four decades.

[nixon_why69]

Yes, if I ignore that point then the top line number is the same. But it's a choice to compute top line CPI the way they do.

I'm explaining why people are still squeezed despite the top line number saying they shouldn't be.

When data and anecdotes disagree, then double check the way you compile your data.

[ch4s3]

I think once you have a good command of data and broader trends its harder to be cynical or a doomer. You just see that things aren't perfect but are larger better than the past on most metrics.

[senordevnyc]

I completely agree, especially if you consider humanity as a whole.

I have asked this question many times to the doomers, and honestly don’t think I’ve ever gotten a good answer: if you had to be born as a random human somewhere on earth, and the only thing you get to choose is the year in which you’re born, what year would you choose? You can’t choose your race, intelligence level, physical abilities, parents, socioeconomic status, country, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Only the year.

So doomers: if the world is completely fucked up and going down the tubes, when would you prefer to have been born? Huge bonus if you can actually give some data showing that the average human was better off during whatever time you choose.

[tsimionescu]

The discussion here was about the USA, not the world.

[yoyohello13]

I think it's the dissonance between what the data say and just looking around. I see far more homeless, friends and family are more stressed, life in general just feels harder with less opportunity. Then you have the data people saying "no your life is actually great." So why the dissonance? I don't think it's just social media brainwashing.

[ch4s3]

I'm not saying any one person's individual life is necessarily better or worse, just that the median person is doing a little better than a few years ago. obviously there are long tails of outcomes in the US.

I'd also point out that the US has seen better wage growth and less inflation in recent years than the rest of the OECD, by comparison we're doing OK-er than our peers.

[sarchertech]

The reason we have data is because of all the biases that come with “just looking around”. Confirmation bias and selection bias are very powerful.

I strongly dislike Donald Trump, and he has done some terrible things to our country. But my dislike of him also makes me more likely to notice the bad things happening around me.

It happens with conservatives too. Ask my conservative family about how frequently men pretend to be trans and go into women’s bathrooms to get a peek. Ask them how often non-citizens vote. Ask them how the current crime rate compares to when they grew up.

[rustcleaner]

I think CPI is a poor measure, because it's a moving meter stick that understates inflation. When beef is overpriced, hamburger switches into the basket. When hamburger is a luxury, then chicken swaps into it instead. It understates inflation.

M2 change is a much better measure in my opinion. Using M2 is literally comparing supply of item to supply of cash which could immediately buy it. When scaling SPX or GC1! by M2SL[0]/M2SL, you get a surprisingly flat time series over decades, which reads to me that the effects of the change in M2 are being filtered out of an otherwise exponential price curve.

[lowbloodsugar]

More people outside employment than COVID or Great Recession. Inflation wiping out income growth. Family units replaced by multi-job slavery shows up as “improved GDP”. There’s the powerball lottery that one person wins every few weeks and then there’s the crippling medical debt lottery that many people are “winning” every day. Wake up.

[ch4s3]

> Inflation wiping out income growth

Real income means inflation adjusted, so we actually see the median income outpacing inflation right now.

> More people outside employment than COVID or Great Recession

There's a lot going on here. One factor is that many people retired early during the pandemic and are going to skew this stat. It's also worth pointing out that the labor force participation rate is ~62% and peaked historically at 67%, so it's not that far off.

> Are you ignorant or propaganda peddler

This is needlessly inflammatory.

[lowbloodsugar]

“Inflation adjusted” is offset by the changes to what inflation measures. And again income has only gone up because people are working multiple jobs.

[ch4s3]

The basket of goods is totally transparent and related to things people really buy. Would you want a 2026 inflation number to reference VCR prices?

Only 5.3% of US workers have multiple jobs. The long term average is just above 5%. So it is false to claim more workers have multiple jobs according to BLS stats. This number was above 6% for most of the 1990s.

[lowbloodsugar]

You are just outing yourself as someone who is a slave to meaningless numbers. Do you think side gigs are reported? You quote unemployment numbers without admitting that people who have given up or simple failed to land a job are not included in those numbers. The numbers are gamed. Feel free to keep showing us who you are.

[ch4s3]

> Do you think side gigs are reported?

Yes. The FRED data includes informal employment. They do months and months of exhaustive surveys all of the country to put together their data.

> You quote unemployment numbers without admitting that people who have given up or simple failed to land a job are not included in those numbers.

No, I included data about labor force participation, which is only down a little.

> The numbers are gamed

Prove it.

[Lyngbakr]

But I think there will be a lag. The US has (willingly) forfeited some of its soft power and we may not see the impact of that immediately.

[ch4s3]

No argument there. The US has been hit hard by the global populist political wave in recent years.

[Balinares]

So many of my people in the US can't even make ends meet anymore that I opened a dedicated line of budget to provide help where I can. It's never been that bad before and it's nowhere near as bad for my people in the EU (not that everything is all rosy there, mind you).

You might argue that Americans are just less capable of supporting themselves but I reject that argument firmly. The situation really reads like systemic causes. And I think cherry picking numbers to convince ourselves otherwise does more harm than good.

[tokai]

>Life expectancy is rising again after dipping and plateauing for a few years

Life expectancy dipping for any develop country, even if temporary, is an embarrassing catastrophe.

[ch4s3]

Well there was a global pandemic the prematurely killed a lot of elderly people, and the dip happened in a lot of countries.

[barbazoo]

Maybe break down those numbers by income and you'll see that rich people are doing fine, everyone else not so much.

[ch4s3]

Incomes at the lowest quintile rose 47% from 2021 to 2024. That growth slowed in 2025, but outpaced the growth of higher income quintiles in the first few years post pandemic. Real median household income in 2024 was $83,730 which is the highest it has ever been, and that is the middle quintile.

[arjie]

This one has always made sense to me. If you think about circumstances which improve the bottom quintiles’ relative income so that they’re now making as much as the median (I.e. the curve flattens out through unprecedented prosperity for the poorest) then the middle and upper middle incomes will rightly conclude that they’re not relatively high income anymore.

Placing an arbitrary person on the curve at the right place will show their relative position on this.

There’s a reason a large amount of the complaints are things like “my DoorDash is so much more expensive” and “my insta cart bill is so much higher”.

In the ideal state for the text writing middle and upper middle class, the mostly video consuming lower classes make very little money and provide services for cheap.

One should expect that enriching the poor upsets those whose relative wealth/income is no longer as high as it used to be. I imagine we could test this by comparing p75, p90 to p10 and p50

For my part I am optimistic. So many things today are so much cheaper and better than they used to be. Looking forward to the future - with the one caveat that AI is the precipitous ridge we must walk.

[ch4s3]

This is a very zero sum view of the world that I don't think most people actually hold.

[arjie]

I don't think people need to hold a specific view. The experience of higher income percentiles is that the goods and services they rely on will get more expensive. Their position will be against a generic economic term, inflation, not against any individuals and awareness of other income percentiles will be limited. People at each position on the percentile curve will simply experience what they are experiencing and assume it is occurring to others as well.

[arjie]

Hmm, this is tougher than I thought to tease out. You can get income decile/tercile level sentiment but the problem is getting out workers vs. retirees etc. It would make sense that fixed-income earners would experience distress if worker incomes rose so I need to pull out that set but I can't find a way to do it. But this should be a massive smoking gun and I don't see the gun smoking that much. Sentiment for high-income mostly seems to just match the S&P500 and interest rates... I think it was a good idea but it's not true.

[senordevnyc]

Maybe learn what median means?

[rustcleaner]

M2 outstrips it.

My favorite way to gauge historical prices/data is to scale it with M2:

(TradingView): M2SL[0]/M2SL*TICKER

Replace M2SL[0] with the latest M2 value. 23.05 T should be 23.05*10^12.

Compare SPX, GC1!, SI1!, CL1!, or any other TICKER you can think of!

Another cool little model I like to look at which starkly shows the loss of power for us little guys:

(TradingView): 23.05*10^12/M2SL*A4102C1Q027SBEA/(USPOP*CIVPART/100)

Basically in 1960 the average worker earned 3x the purchasing power from their wages compared to today.

TL;DR: Ron Paul was right!