tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post3567576784188636552..comments2024-03-10T13:59:19.230-04:00Comments on xpostfactoid: In which I (essentially) win my "quick bet against Brooks"Andrew Sprunghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-18614942590846603652010-04-28T13:51:52.780-04:002010-04-28T13:51:52.780-04:00Glad to be of help. I try to be very careful with ...Glad to be of help. I try to be very careful with data which often requires great precision with language to explain what is being measured. <br /><br />A couple of words in defense of Brooks:<br />1. He had an advance copy of the book and picked this provocative factoid even though I did not highlight this point. Because I only had one sentence on this finding, it is easy for the reader to be a bit confused. <br />2. It is often very difficult to describe data, especially when it concerns following individuals but reporting their household incomes as they move from household to household. David used a few words to describe a complex numbers and was bound to be less than precise. <br />3. He uses data to provoke rather than tell the whole story. He certainly was successful because I've been involved in another long interchange on this point on another listserv. <br /><br />They are other provocative data points in my book Rebound and hope that people will read the it and come to their own conclusions.SteveRosePagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04043146650854925679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-1647345056746595122010-04-27T22:59:06.209-04:002010-04-27T22:59:06.209-04:00It's worth noting that at a gross family incom...It's worth noting that at a gross family income over 100,000 in NYC, rent of a 1-bed room still constitutes 35% of net income! In other words, geography matters too, both because of expenses and state and local taxes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-76918401526650802010-04-27T22:11:52.017-04:002010-04-27T22:11:52.017-04:00Hi. It's me the author of the book and data.
...Hi. It's me the author of the book and data. <br /><br />I have debated many people on the state of the middle class and discuss Hacker's and Warren's works in my book. Any time someone wants to arrange a debate with them or anyone else, I am available. <br /><br />The number that has caused great confusion in a number of places is not intuitively clear. The Panel Study on Income Dynamics (PSID) follows the same people over many years. Because people change their living situations over 10 years, it is necessary to follow the same person and use the total household/family income as the reference point for that year. Household income is the standard measure of standard of living and the only adjustment I make to income is to adjust each year into 2007 dollars. <br /><br />So these data are not adjusted for family size even though in other points of the chapter I do adjust for family size. This is common procedure as reflected in the definition of poverty which varies with household size. <br /><br />Hence, it is a simple process to look at the household income for each person in each of the 10 years and determine the number of times they were in households with incomes over $100,000. I can provide the output tables or the programming code to anyone who wants to validate this finding. <br /><br />David Brooks quoted this factoid without much context. For those who are interested, they can read the whole chapter. <br /><br />Steve RoseSteveRosePagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04043146650854925679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-66551832164714024572010-04-27T17:19:44.298-04:002010-04-27T17:19:44.298-04:00Thanks, commenters. While I'm no economist, I...Thanks, commenters. While I'm no economist, I should say that while Rose's numbers sit oddly when clipped out, and while I think his explanations for them in this general-audience book leave some blank spots, and while I'm sure that many economists like Jacob Hacker would find plenty to dispute, I think Rose adds valuable perspective, and that his general point that Democrats and economists most influential with them paint too bleak a picture of the long-term *average* economic health of the broad middle class has some validity. The book is worth a read. I'd like to hear/read Rose go head-to-head with Hacker or, say, Elizabeth Warren -- I will look for their print encounters.Andrew Sprunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-83434377712689026292010-04-27T17:05:29.716-04:002010-04-27T17:05:29.716-04:00Is there no way to simply have Rose clarify his da...Is there no way to simply have Rose clarify his dataset and calculations? If a stat is published in a book does that automatically qualify it to be quoted as fact by a news organization or opinion writer?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-23629253043430658862010-04-27T14:49:34.736-04:002010-04-27T14:49:34.736-04:00If you add in asset sales (a house) and probate (m...If you add in asset sales (a house) and probate (mom died), then, tah-dah, I made over $100,000 a year twice in the 90's, even though my salary never exceeded $33,000 per year.<br /><br />Brooks needs to issue a clarification - he strongly implied this was earned, ie: salary, perhaps + investment, income.RalfWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-53074089458581928862010-04-27T13:33:41.830-04:002010-04-27T13:33:41.830-04:00Let's see..... "over half of Americans ha...Let's see..... "over half of Americans have made over $100,000 in one year! Gee, we're all rich, aren't we?. Of course, obviously when I say $100,000 you understand I really mean $50,000 if you're single. And I'm not counting old people or young people. But I am counting one time asset sales and there were those stock market and housing bubbles where big gains were quickly followed by big losses and crashes and bankruptcies and stuff....." What a deceptive load of garbage. This "research" amounts to defining figures however you wish all for a juicy soundbite. There's just as much justification to adjusting family income up from $100,000 for larger families and making a single person the baseline as the other way round but then you wouldn't get that impressive sounding 60%. Sad.Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-83603945032766542212010-04-27T12:42:15.697-04:002010-04-27T12:42:15.697-04:00If I were single and made 50K a year, that will ba...If I were single and made 50K a year, that will barely pay for my 1300 sq ft of mortgage and payments on a new car and utilities and insurance, etc. here in OKLAHOMA CITY, let alone most other places in this country. 100K a year sounds like a lot but in places like, say, Chicago or the Bay Area, you have to make that much just to live somewhat comfortably and not be busted all the time. <br /><br />The real worth of a dollar, and hence of a salary, can only be measured compared to the cost of living in a particular place.Clintnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-10228555534462185902010-04-27T12:11:38.056-04:002010-04-27T12:11:38.056-04:00I still have no idea of what Rose means when he sa...I still have no idea of what Rose means when he says that "many people have long term incomes of over $100,000 a year." What is a "long-term income"? I don't believe that 60% of American "prime age" adults have reported a gross income of $100,000 or more to the IRS. I don't know why he includes Social Security when he's talking about people under 60.<br /><br />My "best guess" is that what he means is that $100,000 a year for a family of four "permits a minimum level of discretionary expenditures in most parts of the country." For an individual living alone, $50,000 is an equivalent income. Therefore, an indvidual living alone with a $50,000 income really has an income of $100,000 a year. He's defining "an income that permits a minimum level of discretionary expenditures" as "$100,000 a year." So if you have an income that permits a minimum level of discretionary expenditures, then you are making $100,000 a year, even if you're only reporting $50,000 to the IRS. Did somebody say "no matter how you slice it, it's still baloney?"Alan Vannemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16862545272673601332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-9281252851502618092010-04-27T12:05:57.124-04:002010-04-27T12:05:57.124-04:00Rose's original phrasing is so tortuous and am...Rose's original phrasing is so tortuous and ambiguous as to be almost useless. It's still unclear as to whether he's looking at household or individual income. Is this net income? Earned or unearned income? What's the distribution over different age groups? How many of these cases are the result of one-time events, such a sale of a home, or an inheritance? Rose's initial assertion is absurd, because it lacks specificity and context. My mother sold her home four years ago, because she could no longer live on her fixed income and need the cash. She had lived in her home for 35 years, so her net income on the sale was over $100,000. Is this a positive economic indicator?Jeffrey Ellisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-70926867982487952582010-04-27T11:30:42.431-04:002010-04-27T11:30:42.431-04:00Also, how much of that "Over $100,000" y...Also, how much of that "Over $100,000" year came from selling an asset, most likely a house? And thus was a "One Time" source of income - or one that went right back into a newer, larger home.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com