@MaddowFactchecker writes on Reddit:
I saw this chart (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/bartelschart.gif) about the growth of income disparity on Rachel Maddow Friday night and became a little suspicious since the chart was based only on the President in power's party. I decided to do some research and see what the numbers show based on who controls the House and Senate as well.
In short, the chart we animated last week more than passes inspection. The rest -- including sources and links -- you can get from @MaddowFactchecker. It's well worth the look.
Leave a Comment:
Here is a handy little chart that PROVES the growth of income disparity shrinks when Republicans are in power, and GROWS when Democrats are. Sources are also shown.
The Republican economic plan as performed by Monty Python's Flying Circus:
"I've been thinking. All we get to eat is crumbs, right?"
"yup"
"Well, if we give all that's left of what we own to the kingdom, then the Lords of the Manor won't have to pay to defend the kingdom, right?"
"yup"
"And the Lords of the Manor can buy more bread, right?"
"yup"
"And then we'll have more crumbs!"
"brilliant!"
It is not surprising that the rich have a great part of the working class snowed into believing that they do better under the Republicans. That is what the rich do. What is surprising is that the rich themselves think they do better under the Republicans. To me, this suggests that wealthy Repubican support comes more out of an expectation of considerably lower taxes than any desire for greater growth.
There is one flaw to these numbers, though. Similar progress across all income brackets generally comes with inflation. While it may not sound particularly friendly, it's much better if your bracket does better and other brackets do not. I'd like to see this chart compared to inflation levels for a more accurate picture of the value of those incomes that were going up.
The original data from Bartels was "average annual pre-tax income growth (corrected for inflation)" according to the Slate article.
http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266030/
I can't tell if the Reddit update by maddowfactchecker used the same methodology as Bartels, if so then the above was also corrected for inflation.
I suspect that the source from the census is adjusted for inflation.
However, even if it isn't, the trends are the same. On top of that, if not adjusted for inflation, the Republican averages would go negative after doing so.
@TRMS and Maddowblog: Granted I do not understand economics nearly as well as someone like Klein, but I am curious how this affects people due to inflation? It's possible that when government spending and worker wages go up under Democratic presidents, the downside to that effect is felt under Republicans, no? My understanding is that every time wages go up, there is a dragging after affect of inflation that follows which raises the cost of living and prices of goods in response. Thus I'm wondering if the poor outlook under Republicans is because their administrations have taken over after inflation has caught up? Or am I totally swing and a miss here?
I'll ask around.
In an earlier argument along these line a while back on Usenet, (although about real GDP growth), the question of delayed effects was considered.
The result was, (for the presidency), from best to worst:
D after a D
D after an R
R after a D
R after an R
Not that that was unexpected, given the best Republican presidential term, (one of Regan's), was only a fraction of a percent better than the worst Democratic term, (Carter). That's right: _Carter— beats most post-war Republican presidents on the economic front.
That is very interesting. I am wondering if you can provide either the physical citation or an Internet citation? I would love to read it.
I do not know what the exchange rate is- but I do know that for every 1$ you raise in wages there is a correlating increase in the cost of living (rent, food, utilities, etc) and a decrease in the value of the dollar (inflation). The rates maddowcheck provided seem to have been adjusted for inflation, but it still leaves out the idea of how it affects the average worker. If the increases over time by the Democratic party have lead to an increase of living wages (that is to say, a wage that is high enough to offset any negatives it brings out in cost increases) then it appears that stands as a very, very strong voice for the Democratic agenda. If, however, the increase in wages has been marred by an increase in unlivable wages (wages that do not offset the cost increase) then such a percentage gain is actually negative. If the information you've provided holds true across all economic statistics...then that's wow. That's such an eyeopener in the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Like a slap in the face eye opener (and I mean that in a positive way).
I'm not sure if this answers your question but the numbers in the chart are "real income" so they're adjusted for inflation. See the quote here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266030/
about mid-page.
I suspect that the source from the census is adjusted for inflation.
However, even if it isn't, the trends are the same. On top of that, if not adjusted for inflation, the Republican averages would go negative after doing so.
I think I confused everyone about what it is I am trying to get clarification on by bringing up the inflation example. I wasn't trying to say that the graph doesn't account for inflation, it does (as Will points out). I was trying to say that the effects of one policy take a while to be reverberated completely throughout the economy. So hypothetically, it could be that Democrats do really bad things for the bottom 20%, but it's not felt until a Republican takes office. As a response, the Republican tries to increase the upper 80% in an attempt to offset the negative cost increases now begrudging the bottom 20. But that won't take effect and be fully felt until the next Democrat is in office. Thus it would skew results to make it look like the Republican had a negative impact on the growth of the bottom 20%, when in reality he was having a positive impact. It would likewise make both Democrats seem like they had a positive effect on the bottom 20%, when in reality they had a negative impact.
If what Mr. Pikul is saying holds true across the House and Senate then that would mean Democrats typically do offset the costs for the bottom 20% better than the Republicans. I am curious if anyone can come up with a chart that reflects delayed effects of policy as it impacts job growth or income growth, or if I'm misreading both of the graphs TRMS provided and they both in fact account for this phenomena.
You don't want the Internet citation, it involves thread drift in a sex group.
The numbers used came from the Economic report of the President,
2003.
LOL k glad you gave me that heads up Rick =) I will look it up on my own. Thank you very much
I saw the broadcast about how many republicans vs Democrats showed up for the primaries. That doesn't mean much out here. I am not Republican but voted in the Republican primaries because here in AZ there weren't many Democrats on the ballot and the ones that were weren't running against anyone but themselves. There just wasn't anything to vote on in the Democratic primaries.
For the love of God, does anyone understand what happened? We had a shortfall from the Bush administration that was mind-boggling. Don't tax but spend like a drunken sailor. Furthermore, don't include the cost of the Iraq war in the budget. Yeah, that plan works here at home... I get to spend money I don't have. HA!!! The Republicans will fix the budget? They ruined the economy. Well, I have one idea that is not popular, but taxes need to be increased. Sorry, cutting taxes and balancing the budget is an oxymoron.....
thank you @MaddowFactchecker
I'd also wondered about the part Congress played in this, so thanks for posting these new charts. My one remaining question about both the original charts and these is, aren't we taught that economic effects often take place long after the people who created them are out of office? These charts show correlation, but how much do they really say about causation? (The striking difference between growth rates under Republican vs. Democratic leadership suggests a meaningful pattern, but how can we be sure?)
Well, it's good to see some stats behind something that should be obvious. The GOP mantra is poor people should be in the poor houses. It makes perfect sense that the least wealthy have the highest gains when the Republicans are out of the picture.
I'm not certain of the bias of some of these posts but I find it interesting that when data is presented that paints a positive image of Democratic governance terms and phrases like "causation" and "dragging after affect" are thrown out. But these terms and phrases are not applicable to our current economic situation. After all, this is "Obama's recession.
No, actually the question I presented would apply directly to this situation. It would work both for Democrats and Republicans. This is not Obama's recession. The recession did not start under his administration, but it has marginally improved under it.
I have one question: Lets say one year there is a Republican president and Democratic controlled House and Senate, would the statistics from that year make it into both the Republican "President" column as well as the Democratic "House and Senate" column? If so it seems like the statistics from every year except for those years with complete one-party control would find their way into both charts. Just wondering.
Yes. All years are counted in multiple columns. If, in a certain year, there's a Republican President and a Democratic controlled House and Senate, that year will be counted for Republican President, Democratic House, Democratic Senate and Democratic House and Senate.
I would like to see new graphs that start in say 1972 instead of 1948, or broken out on a president by president basis. I've always heard that middle class real income growth surged in the 1950's and 1960's, slowed in the 70's, and basically stopped with Reagan and has never come back. All growth has gone to the top classes since then.
If you click through to some of the source material for the Slate piece's graphics there's this graph of Average Income 1913-2006 labeled with years, presidents, and major economic events.
http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2008/05/04/average-income-in-the-united-states-1913-2006/
It doesn't break down income brackets though.
mispost
I'd like to see included a graph about how much the money supply was increased...
One problem with graphs like these are they can be really misused and not correct. It only uses averages to represent how well one party did. Now since 1947 the house has been controlled by the Democrats almost exclusively. So the averages of when the Republicans controlled the house are closer to a one time number than a 50 year average. If this short time period is during a bad or good economy then the chart would be completely skewed in one direction as this chart appears.
Graphs and charts can be very misleading which is why they are used so often in politics.
Now, of course, you need to couple these charts with inflation and tax increase charts. What good is making more money if it's worth less or takes more money for everyday expenses? Like making less!
The chart does take into consideration taxes and inflation....it says so in the first paragraph if you click the link...
I am a Progressive Democrat and if these graphs make no sense to me they will certainly not make sense to the opposition. There are only two parties controlling our government. If one party holds the house and senate that means the other party holds the presidency. The income growth percentage for the presidency only party should be the same as the house and senate only in the other party. I am either missing something or these charts were made in a time warp. Both graphs cannot be correct! Please fill me in....
You're misreading the graph. It doesn't say Presidency ONLY or House and Senate ONLY. Those numbers are for all times the party in question controlled those offices, regardless of which party controlled the other offices. In other words, the graph for Democratic control of the House and Senate includes periods where there was a Democratic President and periods where there was a Republican President, not just periods where there was Republican President.
AND - 6% growth of the bottom 20% is still sufficiently low enough to keep them well below the 2.5% growth for the upper crusty (not misspelled) people. This will allow those rich guys to maintain their holier-than-thow attitude. They will ALWAYS have more money, even more so when the lower tiers can actually have some money to purchase their wares. Why are they so stupid?
Okay, I get the graphs, but there isn't enough information to make the conclusion that income growth is better under democrats than republicans--AS A WHOLE.
For instance, there is no time represented here. There also isn't a correlation between president and houses. For instance, the highest rate under a democratic president could have been taken during a year when Republican controlled both the house and sentate, vise vera, and any where inbetween.
Tax and inflation was considered, but what type of taxes? Did they only include taxes paid, but yet did NOT take into accound tax breaks and such that increased income? Republicans are natorious for not giving hand outs--except for bush.
So in otherwords, there are a lot more conditions that are in play than just a simple break down per house and republicans on a static basis.
Since the premise is that lower income does better under democrats, then I would like to see a graph where only the lower and middle class is used as an average and plot each color versus time. Where there times when the houses where controlled by republicans but the president a democrat and THAT was when the highest income growth was realized? Get the point. Or maybe when the house was democratic, the senate republican, and the president republican? An average over time of the lowest income family growth would show this. This graph does not.
The data are available on the referenced US Census website, Touchet. Have a ball. Let us know what you find.
Okay I'll give it a go. Looking at post great depression there was a steady rather sharp rise in income during recovery. At this time roughly between the years of 1933 to 1945, democrats controlled the presidency and Senate. If the graph includes these figures, then yeah, greatest growth results would be totally in the democrats corner, because, you know, there is only one way to go from rock bottom. During this time, the Second World War occured. there was A HUGE rise in income as manufacturing jobs increased. This had to do with a war and not who was in power.
In 1947 republicans took control of both houses, but yet there was a Democratic president. Right before this, the post depression gains and gains due to world war II had started to decline. There was another sharp rise with the onset of the korean war. But yet this time the republicans controlled both houses. But it only lasted two years.
In 1953, Eisenhower, a republican took office. Democrats controlled both houses still, except for the first two years, when republicans had it for only two years. But still, even under a republicans president and a couple of terms of republicans in Senate the income growth was pretty steady and about the same. There was a very slight dip during Eisenhower in the middle, but it quickly recovered.
This trend continued all the way up untill nixon (R) where there was sharp increase then a big decline. Gerald ford (D) took over, there was and increase, and then another sharp decline right before Regan (R) took over. Shortly there after, under a republican president, the income increased at a steady pace. During this time republicans finally gained a majority in Senate. Democrats controlled both house and senate since 1953, all during this up and down in income except for 6 years when republicans had control under reagan, but only in senate.
Under regan, Senate control by republicans was short lived--6 years. Democrats controlled the house all this time. So out of the time period since 1933, Republicans controlled the Senate for only 8 years, and the house, 2 years. Thats a lot of democratic control--this is important at the conclusion.
Shortly after that, with Clinton, Republicans controlled the house and senate until very recently (since 2007), when democrats took back control of both house and senate. We all should know who the presidents have been.
There was a decline in income toward the end of reagan, and then and slow fall there after all during george bush SR. Rise with Clinton the fall during the end. Rise with Bush Jr., Then fall during the end. Now present. it is important to realize that this is basically an instable environment where political power is shifting back and forth continually, rather than being stable as was seen in most of american history.
Based on all that, the graph makes since, but only in terms of time. The democrats would be expected to have higher numbers since, they controlled both house and senate during a loooong period of time making their numbers very high because of mutliple wars, NOT anything the parties did. In addition there was a democrat as president during the longest period of record growth in america. Only in recent times haverepublicans had any control over both house, senate, and the presidency. It happened once during reagan, and once during Bush. Both times, the economy spiked, but quickly reccessed when there was a mix of democrats and republicans controlling the houses.
conclusion, results are scewed because there isn't enough data over time concerning republican total control of house and senate versus democrat control over house and senate. When taking an average, democrats have had more time and data to accumulate growth statistics versus the republicans over time.
In addition, it seems that the economy performs better over extended peroids of one party control over the house, presidency, AND senate and is not dependent on party but rather based on stabilty. This graph shows that, it just so happens that democrats had control during most of that historical data.
An example of all this would be if you took two students and wanted to see who had the better average. You give a test every year, but one student has only been in school for two years and the other in school for 12. Of course, if that 2 year student only had a grade of 50 and 99, and the other had 0, 100, 80, 75, 77, 66, 88, 70, 81, 33, 100, 90, the 12 year student would have a better average than the two year one.
Can we use these charts?
Can you please provide a larger size, so I can use it during political discussions with ill-informed, conservative-leaning people?
So are you saying with President Obama's and the Democrat's analogy of all current national situations, BIOB (blame it on Bush), that the Republicans are really responsible for the rise in incomes?
Thanks for the verification.