[lbo-talk] spending twice what you make

Michael McIntyre mcintyremichael at mac.com
Mon Feb 11 10:04:58 PST 2008


I think these are the same Dallas FRB bozos who have spent much of this decade cooking the books to argue speciously that inequality in the U.S. isn't "really" increasing. I particularly loved this bit of their explanation of the "financial flows": "sales of . . . securities that are not subject to capital gains taxes". Who knew so many folks making $10K per year were loaded with muny bonds? AFAICT, "financial flows" must be a residual variable in their calculations. The most likely sources, I think, are errors in measurement, working off the books, and assumption of greater consumer debt. Others might be better informed about which is likely to be the largest factor.

Michael McIntyre

On Feb 11, 2008, at 11:37 AM, JBrown72073 at cs.com wrote:


> This article from Sunday's NY Times claims that the bottom fifth of
> households (by income) spend on average twice what they earn.
> Oddly, the authors don't include 'interest' as an expenditure
> category, but is this anywhere near right or does it just reflect a
> lot of underreporting of income when your income is fairly informal
> to begin with? Or is it just magnifying what it's reporting by
> ignoring assets? (This would help their argument that we're all
> fine and prosperous because we have AC and color TV's.)
>
> Their explanation seems unlikely and certainly unsustainable: That
> most families are just low-income temporarily and are using
> savings, selling their cars, homes, and cashing in their life
> insurance policies, or they're retirees using savings. Personal
> debt is not mentioned at all. Still, even with credit cards,
> borrowing against houses, student loans, this is quite a figure.
>
> Jenny Brown
>
>> "You Are What You Spend
>
> By W. MICHAEL COX and RICHARD ALM
> Published: February 10, 2008 (NYT)
>
> WITH markets swinging widely, the Federal Reserve slashing interest
> rates and the word “recession” on everybody’s lips, renewed
> attention is being given to the gap between the haves and have-nots
> in America. Most of this debate, however, is focused on the wrong
> measurement of financial well-being.
>
> It’s true that the share of national income going to the richest 20
> percent of households rose from 43.6 percent in 1975 to 49.6
> percent in 2006, the most recent year for which the Bureau of Labor
> Statistics has complete data. Meanwhile, families in the lowest
> fifth saw their piece of the pie fall from 4.3 percent to 3.3 percent.
>
> Income statistics, however, don’t tell the whole story of
> Americans’ living standards. Looking at a far more direct measure
> of American families’ economic status — household consumption —
> indicates that the gap between rich and poor is far less than most
> assume, and that the abstract, income-based way in which we measure
> the so-called poverty rate no longer applies to our society.
>
> The top fifth of American households earned an average of $149,963
> a year in 2006. As shown in the first accompanying chart, they
> spent $69,863 on food, clothing, shelter, utilities,
> transportation, health care and other categories of consumption.
> The rest of their income went largely to taxes and savings.
>
> The bottom fifth earned just $9,974, but spent nearly twice that —
> an average of $18,153 a year. How is that possible? A look at the
> far right-hand column of the consumption chart, labeled “financial
> flows,” shows why: those lower-income families have access to
> various sources of spending money that doesn’t fall under taxable
> income. These sources include portions of sales of property like
> homes and cars and securities that are not subject to capital gains
> taxes, insurance policies redeemed, or the drawing down of bank
> accounts. While some of these families are mired in poverty, many
> (the exact proportion is unclear) are headed by retirees and those
> temporarily between jobs, and thus their low income total doesn’t
> accurately reflect their long-term financial status."
>
> rest at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10cox.html
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list