You're only referring to income compared to parents at the same age.
And this a weighted average of incomes roughly 27 years ago (the weight is the distribution of ages at which children are born).
The sample of people today includes only those people who's parents were in the united states 27 or so years ago. Call this group A. Call the complement (either immigrants or children of immigrants) B. Call the historical reference group C. Wages of A U B are roughly equal to those of C. Wages(A) > C. This implies wages(B) < C. If wages of A U B have not increased, but the wages of A have, this implies the wages of B must be lower than the historical average. Simple arithmetic.
So basically, the story is that Murph Jr. makes 60% more (Chained CPI adjusted) than Murph Sr. did at the same age. But the average of Murph Jr. and Jose (a recent immigrant) is lower than Murph Sr.'s (Chained CPI adjusted) wage.
Also, while Sully Jr. might make less than Sully Sr. did, the study asserts that the average of Sully Jr. and Sally Jr. (not to mention Tyrone Jr. and Poonam Jr. - remember how non-white males are also allowed to have good jobs these days) is up 60%.
Hm, that seems to hold together, but I still think some frame of reference must be being missed here because there are just so many more native born americans than immigrants. We must be comparing apples and oranges at some point in the equation, probably the underlying data behind both studies.
Murph Jr. really doesn't make more money, as other costs have skyrocketed since that time.
The early 80's were the tail end of the era where a single income could purchase an average home. So while my income is about 50% higher than my father's at the same point in his career, I'm able to live in a similar type of home and have a similar lifestyle, although I'm in a small city where costs are far lower.
If I lived in the same neighborhood where I grew up in NYC, we would only own a home if we were renting the downstairs.
And this a weighted average of incomes roughly 27 years ago (the weight is the distribution of ages at which children are born).
The sample of people today includes only those people who's parents were in the united states 27 or so years ago. Call this group A. Call the complement (either immigrants or children of immigrants) B. Call the historical reference group C. Wages of A U B are roughly equal to those of C. Wages(A) > C. This implies wages(B) < C. If wages of A U B have not increased, but the wages of A have, this implies the wages of B must be lower than the historical average. Simple arithmetic.
So basically, the story is that Murph Jr. makes 60% more (Chained CPI adjusted) than Murph Sr. did at the same age. But the average of Murph Jr. and Jose (a recent immigrant) is lower than Murph Sr.'s (Chained CPI adjusted) wage.
Also, while Sully Jr. might make less than Sully Sr. did, the study asserts that the average of Sully Jr. and Sally Jr. (not to mention Tyrone Jr. and Poonam Jr. - remember how non-white males are also allowed to have good jobs these days) is up 60%.
reply