ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax
SHARE
I know you like to make a big deal of how income improves with age. But if you look at the data it shows that the median family income of a 45-54 year old -- the peak income years -- is only some 25% to 30% higher then the median family income of a 25-34 year old -- when most people are first earning adult full time wages. In 2005 these income were some $27,075 and $36,172.
Both the median 25-34 and the median 45-54 year olds are well within the middle decile of income distribution.
Yes, you are right that income improve about one percentage point per year with age, but is that really so important that it makes all the differences you keep claiming.
spencer asked: "is that really so important that it makes all the differences you keep claiming"?
The answer is yes. The reason has to do with the demographics of the U.S. working population, specifically age. The details, well, are coming soon - I still have to write posts around the data and analysis. For a preview, here is some background information (for 2005):
Generations
The Distribution of Income by Age in the U.S.
Peak Earning Years for U.S. Individuals
The children of immigrants are counted as NATIVE BORN. Children make up the largest population of the poor. The Kling Scenario stands as a significant explanation for poverty rates in America. Kevin Lang is either not thinking -- or he's intentionally trying to blow smoke.
The out-migration of people from the coastal areas (which have long has the most foreign immigration) is evidence that those immigrants do not improve the quality of life, but more likely do the opposite. Even immigrants (and their descendants) find those areas less livable than what is derisively called the "boring" or "whitebread" "flyover country", which is why they are shifting toward that area as well. Maybe the red-states will avoid making the same mistakes the blue ones did that drove their people away. I doubt it though.
PrestoPundit,
Good point about the children of immigrants. I saw some data that said 1/4 of low-income children are children of immigrants. Total child poverty is about 35 percent of total poverty. So 1/4 of that is about 10 percent (rounding up slightly). If we took that 10 percent out of total poverty, then the poverty rate among those who are neither immigrants or children in immigrant families would be a bit less than 11 percent, compared with 12.6 percent of the total population, including immigrants.