Thread: Chavez snubs US

Here is a link which shows the history of Per Capita Income from the US Census Bureau.

Per Capita Income for 2005 according to the US Bureau of Census is $25,036 not the $34,495 reported by the Bureau of Economic "Analysis" in the US Department of Commerce.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/h ... p01ar.html


Income

Historical Income Tables - People


Table P-1. CPS Population and Per Capita
Money Income, All Races: 1967 to 2005

(Population as of March of the following year. Income
in current and 2005 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars 28/)
__________________________________________________ ________
Per capita income
______________________
Year Number Current 2005
(thous.) dollars dollars
__________________________________________________ ________
2005 293,834 $25,036 $25,036
2004 35/ 291,166 23,857 24,655
2003 288,280 23,276 24,701
2002 285,933 22,794 24,744
2001 282,082 22,851 25,200
2000 30/ 279,517 22,346 25,331
1999 29/ 276,804 21,239 24,879
1998 271,743 20,120 24,064
1997 269,094 19,241 23,337
1996 266,792 18,136 22,467
1995 25/ 264,314 17,227 21,913
1994 24/ 262,105 16,555 21,570
1993 23/ 259,753 15,777 20,989
1992 22/ 256,830 14,847 20,245
1991 251,434 14,617 20,431
1990 248,886 14,387 20,837
1989 246,191 14,056 21,370
1988 243,685 13,123 20,808
1987 21/ 241,187 12,391 20,363
1986 238,789 11,670 19,831
1985 20/ 236,749 11,013 19,057
1984 19/ 234,066 10,328 18,467
1983 231,852 9,494 17,653
1982 229,587 8,980 17,391
1981 227,375 8,476 17,386
1980 225,242 7,787 17,473
1979 18/ 223,160 7,168 17,860
1978 215,935 6,455 17,595
1977 214,159 5,785 16,447
1976 17/ 212,566 5,271 15,942
1975 16/ 211,140 4,818 15,408
1974 16/15/ 209,572 4,445 15,392
1973 207,949 4,141 15,760
1972 14/ 206,302 3,769 15,242
1971 13/ 204,840 3,417 14,244
1970 205,214 3,177 13,832
1969 202,189 3,007 13,722
1968 200,139 2,731 13,005
1967 12/ 198,120 2,464 12,204

Page Last Modified: November 29, 2006

First, you provide no source for these statistics. These look like propaganda stats to me. According to the BEA, US average per capita income for 2005 for the United States was $34,495. ( sources: www.unm.edu/~bber/econ/us-pci.htm - Bureau of Rusiness and Economic Research, UNM; www.ofm.wa.gov/trends/tables/fig101.asp - U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis). It has not been as low as $25,000 since the late 1980s (it was $26,977 in 1990). All your breakdowns that follow are therefore worthless as well, as will happen when you misrepresent the per capita wage by almost $10,000/yr.

Now the actual per capita income in 2000 was $25,331 based upon the 2000 Census. The per capita income for 2005 based upon the Census Surveys they do between Census is $25,036.

All the complaints of the past 6 years from the American People is that income has remained static, flat or declined as it truly has.

The Census bases its income statistics on actual surveys and secure the actual income of the people they interview.

The BEA, Bureau of Economic Advisors is in the US Department of Commerce and I've never known what they base their figures on.

Originally Posted by Judy

I used the model with his "earnings" at $50,000 that you described. So you're talking about a person who grosses $90,000 a year almost twice the national per capita income.

Actually, if per capita income is $25K, that almost 4 times the amount.

You're right, Pine Straw ... I was still think about his $50,000 which he now claims he meant to be "take home" although that isn't what he said in his post.

The actual per capita income is $25,000 and someone grossing $90,000 a year would indeed be almost 4 times the average. This $25,000 per capita income has floated at that level slightly over or a little below for years depite rising costs in housing, insurance, utilities, fuel, energy, education, property taxes and all the items that we call "fixed overhead" ... those items that you can not do without and have no control over.

This is why America is in such a stir and so unhappy ... and rightly so.

And it's really worse for most Americans than these numbers even imply because these averages include the enormous gains of income made at the top of our society during the past 6 years which is why the bottom strata of our society lower middle income and down are suffering tremendously.

Thanks for clarification, pinestrawguys.

Originally Posted by Judy

Here is a link which shows the history of Per Capita Income from the US Census Bureau.

Per Capita Income for 2005 according to the US Bureau of Census is $25,036 not the $34,495 reported by the Bureau of Economic "Analysis" in the US Department of Commerce.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/h ... p01ar.html


Income

Historical Income Tables - People


Table P-1. CPS Population and Per Capita
Money Income, All Races: 1967 to 2005

(Population as of March of the following year. Income
in current and 2005 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars 28/)
__________________________________________________ ________
Per capita income
______________________
Year Number Current 2005
(thous.) dollars dollars
__________________________________________________ ________
2005 293,834 $25,036 $25,036
2004 35/ 291,166 23,857 24,655
2003 288,280 23,276 24,701
2002 285,933 22,794 24,744
2001 282,082 22,851 25,200
2000 30/ 279,517 22,346 25,331
1999 29/ 276,804 21,239 24,879
1998 271,743 20,120 24,064
1997 269,094 19,241 23,337
1996 266,792 18,136 22,467
1995 25/ 264,314 17,227 21,913
1994 24/ 262,105 16,555 21,570
1993 23/ 259,753 15,777 20,989
1992 22/ 256,830 14,847 20,245
1991 251,434 14,617 20,431
1990 248,886 14,387 20,837
1989 246,191 14,056 21,370
1988 243,685 13,123 20,808
1987 21/ 241,187 12,391 20,363
1986 238,789 11,670 19,831
1985 20/ 236,749 11,013 19,057
1984 19/ 234,066 10,328 18,467
1983 231,852 9,494 17,653
1982 229,587 8,980 17,391
1981 227,375 8,476 17,386
1980 225,242 7,787 17,473
1979 18/ 223,160 7,168 17,860
1978 215,935 6,455 17,595
1977 214,159 5,785 16,447
1976 17/ 212,566 5,271 15,942
1975 16/ 211,140 4,818 15,408
1974 16/15/ 209,572 4,445 15,392
1973 207,949 4,141 15,760
1972 14/ 206,302 3,769 15,242
1971 13/ 204,840 3,417 14,244
1970 205,214 3,177 13,832
1969 202,189 3,007 13,722
1968 200,139 2,731 13,005
1967 12/ 198,120 2,464 12,204

Page Last Modified: November 29, 2006

That's because the census includes EVERYONE in the average, including etirees and other people who ARE NOT WORKING. Get a grip. That's no way to determine the average wage a job pays.

Per capita income is not "wages".

Per capita income is the total population divided by total money income.

Some of this income is stock earnings and interest.

Its total income not just income from wages.

It doesn't matter whether you're working or not in the per capita income.

That's what per capita means.

Originally Posted by Judy

I used the model with his "earnings" at $50,000 that you described. So you're talking about a person who grosses $90,000 a year almost twice the national per capita income.

The question I posed to you was if you eliminate all social programs which you think are 50% or half the tax burden .. where does the $10,000 a year wage earner find a job that pays $30,000 and provides their health insurance?

Your position is that these people will be hired by people who earn $90,000 or more doing things for them and will spend their extra take home pay hiring these people to clean their house, mow their yards and other services and even sell them art.

Oooh okay.

Well then we should be in good shape because the federal tax burden has been reduced significantly over the past several years.

First, a $10,000 wage earner is not at all representativ of even poor citizens who are head of household. Most people who make that little are either part-timers, students, or second income earners in a family that already has a primary income. It's not a realistic way yot look at things.

Having said that, cutting benefits to those capable people who choose not to work (and there are MANY of them) and eliminating other socialist programs has a cumulatice effect on the health of the economy. Furthermore, you utterly discount the role of private charities, which is who is supposed to be helping those who can't help themselves or are down on their luck. NOTHING in the Constitution empowers the federal government to collect taxes for redistribution as "charity."

As for the reason for choosing someone earning between $50K and 100K gross, that's because they, by definition, are the ones whose money is being taken to pay for those who are living at or near the poverty level. It is unrealistic to try to look at how changing the income of the indigent will help the indigent. For that purpose, you have to look to those who already earn enough money to make a difference. I would think that would be an easy premise to grasp.

CG,

If you think the average wage is $90K gross you're living a lot better than the hammer-swingers and landscapers I know. IT pros are complaining that their wages are stagnant or dropping into the $40K range.

I normally agree with you, but to me it's 'your' numbers that are looking a bit skewed.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t18.htm

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm

Originally Posted by Judy

First, you provide no source for these statistics. These look like propaganda stats to me. According to the BEA, US average per capita income for 2005 for the United States was $34,495. ( sources: www.unm.edu/~bber/econ/us-pci.htm - Bureau of Rusiness and Economic Research, UNM; www.ofm.wa.gov/trends/tables/fig101.asp - U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis). It has not been as low as $25,000 since the late 1980s (it was $26,977 in 1990). All your breakdowns that follow are therefore worthless as well, as will happen when you misrepresent the per capita wage by almost $10,000/yr.

Now the actual per capita income in 2000 was $25,331 based upon the 2000 Census. The per capita income for 2005 based upon the Census Surveys they do between Census is $25,036.

All the complaints of the past 6 years from the American People is that income has remained static, flat or declined as it truly has.

The Census bases its income statistics on actual surveys and secure the actual income of the people they interview.

The BEA, Bureau of Economic Advisors is in the US Department of Commerce and I've never known what they base their figures on.

I'll try explaining this one more time:

You were making representations based upon what the average working person earned. Your statistics do not reflect the earnings of the average working person, but rather the average wage earned per person period. It's a meaningless number when discussing WAGES paid. That's why the BEA provides the PER CAPITA WAGE for actual jobs, not for people who may or may not be working.


Again, I am tiring of your posts which misrepresent facts. ANYONE here can understand why, in a discussion of the amount that jobs pay in the United States, the BEA per capita is the only meaningful statistic. If you want to talk about things like consumption, the average per person, working or not, may be useful. It means NOTHING in this context unless you adjust it for those who do not work.

I attempt to debate HONESTLY in these discussions, and so I use the meaningful statistics that actually relate to the topic at hand. All I ask is that others do the same.