Highly dense young-urban-professional work-centric neighborhoods low on kids (SF, LA, SJ) would receive more money, suburban, rural and single-industry neighborhoods (towns in San Bernardino, Fresno counties) dominated by families with children would receive less money.
Seems like another article covering the Census income and poverty data, where there was some discussion on if household income growth is correlated to a possible growth in household size.
Yes, household income is important, but remember what the household data infers.
You say household income is stagnant and people think "wages haven't increased", when in fact wages have increased, it's just that there are fewer wage earners per household.
That's an important distinction that points to very different solutions.
The top income bracket is 3% of the population. You're still increasing the income of 97% of the population, which is what causes inflation on income-elastic prices like housing.
Since low income earners are 1-2 order of magnitude more than high income earners. There can be lot of both variety (peaceful vs angry mob) and it will still lead very troubled times ahead.
I like the brighter future. It does seem kind of weird to count increased income, lower debt, and higher savings as separate wins. Higher income makes sense, but the other two are caused by the first. People couldn’t really increase discretionary spending, so debt and savings would have to improve.
I’d expect all of these metrics to not improve post covid. No more help from the government to increase income, no extra money to decrease debt (lower income, higher ability to spend discretionary), and same for savings.
aka more property taxes
aka more money for education and police to keep everybody safe
reply