Wealth redistribution

Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession

Jeffrey H. Anderson

August 23, 2013 9:03 AM

President Obama likes to talk about income inequality, but what matters far more is the actual income of the typical American.  And how has the typical American household income fared on Obama's watch?  Well, the economic "recovery" has now spanned an Olympiad, and during that time the typical American household income has not only dropped—it has dropped more than twice as much as it did during the recession.

New estimates derived from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey by Sentier Research indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.  During the recession, the median American household income fell by $1,002 (from $55,480 to $54,478). During the recovery—that is, from the officially defined end of the recession (in June 2009) to the most recent month for which figures are available (June 2013)—the median American household income has fallen by $2,380 (from $54,478 to $52,098).  So the typical American household is making almost $2,400 less per year (in constant 2013 dollars) than it was four years ago, when the Obama "recovery" began.

Importantly, these income tallies include government payouts such as unemployment compensation and cash welfare. So Obama's method of funneling ever-more money and power to Washington, and then selectively divvying some of it back out, clearly isn't working for the typical American family. Nor would his proposed immigration bill help the income prospects of the median American.  And perhaps it's just a coincidence, but the span of time over which the typical American household's income has dropped by about $2,400 a year (during an ostensible "recovery") corresponds almost exactly with the span of time that we've been living with the looming specter of Obamacare—which began to be debated in earnest around June 2009.

---

New York Welfare Recipients Now Earn More Than Teachers

by Kristin Tate

A new study from the CATO found that welfare recipients are able to earn more money than full time teachers.

The statistics are unsettling.

A mother of two living in New York is now able to collect $38,004 in benefits. That is more than the salary of a schoolteacher in the same state.

Good grief. Where is the incentive to work when you can make more sitting at home?

The study was done by the CATO Institute, a libertarian group committed to free markets.

The study says in many states welfare pays better than work. Topping the list of wage-equivalent benefits for a mother and two children was Hawaii at $60,590. Idaho came in last with $11,150.

The study found that 33 states and the District of Columbia offer welfare benefits that pay recipients more than an $8-an-hour job would. Twelve states and the District of Columbia offer welfare packages that pay better than a $15-an-hour job does.

“There is no evidence that people on welfare are lazy,” writes CATO senior fellow Michael Tanner. “But they’re also not stupid. If you pay them more not to work than they can earn by working, many will choose not to work.”

$15 trillion has been spent on welfare handouts since Lyndon B Johnson was in office — that amount almost matches our current national debt.