“GDP Growth” by Craiyon In 2023 gross domestic product (GDP) in the U.S. began to exceed $200,000 per household, or about $80,000 per person. GDP is the most common measure of the economic strength—but not social well-being—of a nation. In theory, it also equates to gross domestic income—the gross income earned by workers, business owners, and others who created that product.
All caveats are reasonable. But what we can do in aggregate is partly measured by what we have in aggregate. This column is simply a teaser to say that we can do a lot, not that what we do is being done well.
On the income story, I will write more in the future. A general conclusion over recent decades is that transfers, largely for retirement and health, have increased the total income of many below median, even while their market income has stagnated. And their percentage increases in total income are still less than for those at the top. .
$200,000 per household is great but how is it distributed? What is life like for those with a median income, which is much lower than the mean let alone the millions who have an income of half the median or less. Then what about the rising costs of housing, medical care, and higher education? I haven't looked at the most recent numbers but there was a long term trend of increasing income shares at the top that does virtually nothing for those at the median or below.
Gene, thanks for your response. I've enjoyed your columns and look forward to future ones addressing the dynamics of the US distribution of income and tax/transfer system.
The politics of our tribalism results in every election being an argument by the party/person out of power that everything sucks … unless they are elected. The party /person in power wants to convince you that everything will only get better if they stay in power. Gene’s latest column should be required reading for EVERYONE—from condo boards and town councils all the way up to the very top.
All caveats are reasonable. But what we can do in aggregate is partly measured by what we have in aggregate. This column is simply a teaser to say that we can do a lot, not that what we do is being done well.
On the income story, I will write more in the future. A general conclusion over recent decades is that transfers, largely for retirement and health, have increased the total income of many below median, even while their market income has stagnated. And their percentage increases in total income are still less than for those at the top. .
$200,000 per household is great but how is it distributed? What is life like for those with a median income, which is much lower than the mean let alone the millions who have an income of half the median or less. Then what about the rising costs of housing, medical care, and higher education? I haven't looked at the most recent numbers but there was a long term trend of increasing income shares at the top that does virtually nothing for those at the median or below.
Gene, thanks for your response. I've enjoyed your columns and look forward to future ones addressing the dynamics of the US distribution of income and tax/transfer system.
The politics of our tribalism results in every election being an argument by the party/person out of power that everything sucks … unless they are elected. The party /person in power wants to convince you that everything will only get better if they stay in power. Gene’s latest column should be required reading for EVERYONE—from condo boards and town councils all the way up to the very top.
Gene, Given what history so unkindly dealt to you, this column is great-hearted. I salute you.