Home / Deficit / Median Household Income Down 9% Since 1999
Print Friendly and PDF

Median Household Income Down 9% Since 1999

Written by Gary North on May 22, 2014

David Stockman has offered a useful table. It reveals that median household income in the United States peaked in 1999. Since then, adjusted for price inflation, it is down by 9%.

The Federal Reserve pumped in trillions of dollars in fiat money. The U.S. government has run trillions of dollars in deficits. Stockman’s conclusion is simple: Keynesianism isn’t working. Neither are millions of Americans, who are out of the labor force.


There was one exception to this scenario: Washington, D.C. There, it’s business as usual. What business? The extraction of wealth from the rest of the nation.

Continue Reading on davidstockmanscontracorner.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

12 thoughts on “Median Household Income Down 9% Since 1999

  1. bojidar says:

    Keynesianism isn’t working.Thank You, Lord Jesus Christ!

  2. michael says:

    Just another fact of the US decline to a 3rd world country…..we have peaked and now we will pay the price! There is no way in hell we can ever pay our debts. The pool of rich gets richer and the pool of the rest gets bigger and poorer!!!

  3. Awake Americans are witnessing the complete gutting of America. America welcome to becoming a Marxist State.

  4. You've blinded yourself by your own prejudices so much that you can't see the forest for the trees. Trickle-down economics is what has failed, and as long as we live in an oligarchy, that is all we'll ever have. Under Democratic presidents, we generally see deficits fall and budget surpluses. Under Republican presidents, we see the opposite: massive deficits and our budget surpluses get wiped out. Take Obama's presidency, for instance: Bush left office with a $1.4 trillion deficit. Under Obama, that has been cut in half, and then some. We're currently sitting with the lowest deficit since 2008. Under Clinton, we were left with a budget surplus. Bush wiped that out, and then some.

    You keep blasting Keynesianism, but here's the thing: we aren't using Keynesianism as a model. We're still using this trickle-down crap that Reagan made popular, and because we don't have a democracy anymore – we have an oligarchy – that isn't going to change for a long time.

    It's time you went back to school, Gary, or at least joined us in the 2010's instead of lingering in the 50's.

  5. I don't think that even wacky old John Maynard would have tried to pull an economy in as much trouble as ours using his own theory. But Obama keeps screaming the hole isn't deep enough. Keep digging. Then suddenly it will cave in and we'll all be buried. And Obama will blame Bush. And the Greek chorus in the press will chant, Bush, Bush, Bush. See my blog at http://cranky-conservative.blogspot.com

  6. guestspeaker says:

    Shane: you must be very young and getting your info from MSNBC cause Obama has put us in 10 TRILLION more in DEBT. Obama's DEBT is MORE than ALL PRESIDENTS put together. It's MILLIONS per DAY. Where in the world are you getting your figures from? I'm serious?

  7. RDButton says:

    Also, notice on the chart of Real Median Income, that during the last 2 decades, the largest decline in household income has been during the Obama Administration.

  8. E.BLAKE says:

    Our income is down by a 1/3, and add the inflation of everything on top of that, and guess what, we are robbing peter to pay paul. And the moron BO say we are doing better under him. What a imbecile.

  9. "Under Democratic presidents, we generally see deficits fall and budget surpluses."

    This is a lie.

    "Under Republican presidents, we see the opposite:"

    This is a lie. We see the same things under both Republican and Democratic presidents.

    "massive deficits and our budget surpluses get wiped out."

    This is true for Republican and Democratic presidents.

    " Take Obama's presidency, for instance: Bush left office with a $1.4 trillion deficit."

    This is true.

    " Under Obama, that has been cut in half, and then some.

    This is a lie. Obama has racked up a staggering $5 trillion in total deficits over the course of 5 years, compared to Bush the Lesser's $3.5 trillion in 8 years.

    "We're currently sitting with the lowest deficit since 2008."

    This is a lie, this year the deficit is $200 billion greater than 2008.

    " Under Clinton, we were left with a budget surplus. "

    As long as we don't count Social Security and Medicare obligations, which is fraud if a private company did it.

    "Bush wiped that out, and then some."

    Let me fix that for you…"Bush and Obama wiped that out, and then some, and then even more."


    "We're still using this trickle-down crap that Reagan made popular"

    Another lie.

  10. It would be nice if you all stopped playing political badminton and owned up to the fact that the cause of these problems is primarily the passage of N.A.F.T.A. and G.A.T.T., the passage of which helped the oligarchs and hurt nearly everyone else.

    Sure, some items are cheaper than they would have been but many, MANY college educated persons today are making lower real incomes than their non-college graduate fathers did decades ago. I bet most of you do not even know that in the 1990s, the methods of calculating inflation and unemployment were changed so that they have both been grossly under-reported for the past twenty years or so. Reagan provided the idealistic zeal to gain a strong foothold for the "greed is good" mentality and Clinton sold us out when he supported those twin deals with the devil to which I have previously referred.

    As for the insane budget deficit and even more ludicrous debt, they are largely due to wasted dollars in the defense budget, a.k.a. welfare for the wealthy. As has been known to every country around the world for most of this nation's entire history, there are far too many firearms in the hands of good Americans to ever invade it; that is, unless our own politicians are able to remove those firearms from our hands. In the long rn, I am sure that we as a nation could provide every American with long arms, side arms, ammunition, training and range time and gunsmithing services a hell of a lot more cheaply than the way we have been doing defense. Robert Heinlein wrote that an armed society is a polite society. A well-armed America would be a very polite society and a very impolite soil for any enemy to invade.

    Everyone needs to stop listening to what politicians say as those words are not worth the imaginary paper upon which they are printed. Watch what they do. They act in concert to advance the oligarch's agenda. They do vote in line with their words as often as possible (in order to maintain the orchestrated illusion of party differences), but when their votes are needed to further the agenda, that is the direction in which the vote is cast. Is it any wonder that this is the case since a man has to be willing and anxious to become beholden to the oligarchs in order to gain the war chest necessary to even so much as gain a slot on the ballot?

    God help us all…although we do not deserve it for having been mentally and intellectually so lazy that we allowed this to happen here.

  11. Lorraine E says:

    In the real world where I live the cost of living has soared and income is down much further than 9%. In other words the middle class is disappearing and the poverty level is increasing. The name of the game is what can we serfs cut next in order to survive. Insofar as the trillions of dollars given to our country is concerned it has made the banksters and already rich stock market rulers even richer than they could have imagined in 1999. The trillions loaned to our country by the federal reserve bansters never reaches us little folks. So when the federal reserve (international banks) want their money back they need to collect it from those who received it and that is not us poor tax payers.

  12. Absolutely correct, Lorraine. The Fed is another portion of the welfare for the rich. It all works together though because, for a large part, the same groups own large amounts of stock in defense industry corporations as do in the banks who loan money to the governments of countries to prosecute war each upon the other by buying the products of the defense industry. They are making a killing from making a killing.

    This has been going on for centuries with central banks playing countries against each other in war for fun and especially for profit.

    Thomas Jefferson stopped one national bank and Andrew Jackdon stopped another. Lincoln issued greenbacks as an end run around having a national bank. Kennedy tried to fight the fed. Fighting the fed appears not to be a good life choice.