Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lifetime Earnings in the United States over Six Decades

bfi.uchicago.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 76 posts

Re: Lifetime Earnings in the United States over Six Decades

#11

Post by rileymat2 »

AlexB138 wrote: post #7
rileymat2 wrote: post #5

Can someone explain the y-axis for lifetime earnings? 45k seems low for lifetime earnings in 2013 dollars.

From the article: > Note: Each observation represents the median earnings of men of a particular age in a particular year. For example, the 1957 cohort is represented by an Age 25 observation in 1957

Thanks, that’s what I missed. Was not clear to me it was for that year.

For chart 1

“ Each marker/observation represents the median lifetime earnings of a cohort that turned age 25 (entered the labor market) in the year indicated on the x-axis. Values are displayed in thousands of 2013 US dollars. Earnings are deflated by the Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) deflator.”

Leaves that particular part out.

Re: Lifetime Earnings in the United States over Six Decades

#12

Post by Retric »

prennert wrote: post #6

I was hoping to see how much people earn in their lifetime. And how that changed over time. I was wondering the other day other how many years are high earners are actually earning a very high income. In-equality wise it is very different if people in the 2 percentile of income stay there for a decade or more or if they are in that income bracket only for a few years while doing a specific job and drop down to lower…

High income brackets are vastly higher incomes so people at low incomes (~30k) rarely reach that level. In 2020, the top 1% was $531,020.00 / year, that’s rare, 2% is $387,116.00 again a huge jump for most people.

However, some people very briefly enter high income status via a windfall. But, even here it’s mostly people with high incomes rather than poor people winning the lottery etc.

Re: Lifetime Earnings in the United States over Six Decades

#13

Post by brk »

prennert wrote: post #6

I was hoping to see how much people earn in their lifetime. And how that changed over time. I was wondering the other day other how many years are high earners are actually earning a very high income. In-equality wise it is very different if people in the 2 percentile of income stay there for a decade or more or if they are in that income bracket only for a few years while doing a specific job and drop down to lower…

I think that most high income earners stay at that stage for the majority of their career after reaching that level.

While I know there are exceptions and odd examples, IMO people in general have little desire to take a large pay cut, so if you manage to get yourself to the point you are in the top 2% of earners, why would you step back?

Re: Lifetime Earnings in the United States over Six Decades

#14

Post by imtringued »

gher-shyu3i wrote: post #10
spicyusername wrote: post #3

It's great to see the gains women are making.

It just means it's now harder for families to make it on a single income that used to be the responsibility of the father. This drives wages lower as we're seeing and makes it harder on everyone.

Logically speaking, it doesn't make any sense. It should be easier to start families because families earn twice as much.

Practically speaking, people will spend their money on limited resources like land and basically lose out on most of the gains. That's the primary way "housing as an investment" earns money, by extorting the wages of future workers. If there are more workers (women and men) then you get to earn even more despite doing absolutely nothing to deserve the money.

Re: Lifetime Earnings in the United States over Six Decades

#15

Post by ArkanExplorer »

Its interesting that earnings and inequality worsen around 1965/1970, which is also the year that immigration into the USA began a rapid increase:

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/imm...

At the same time as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which essentially opened up immigration to anyone in the world instead of just people from North Western Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac...

Re: Lifetime Earnings in the United States over Six Decades

#16

Post by lotsofpulp »

gher-shyu3i wrote: post #10
spicyusername wrote: post #3

It's great to see the gains women are making.

It just means it's now harder for families to make it on a single income that used to be the responsibility of the father. This drives wages lower as we're seeing and makes it harder on everyone.

It also means women have more independence and freedom.

Re: Lifetime Earnings in the United States over Six Decades

#18

Post by germinalphrase »

imtringued wrote: post #14
gher-shyu3i wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just means it's now harder for families to make it on a single income that used to be the responsibility of the father. This drives wages lower as we're seeing and makes it harder on everyone.

Logically speaking, it doesn't make any sense. It should be easier to start families because families earn twice as much. Practically speaking, people will spend their money on limited resources like land and basically lose out on most of the gains. That's the primary way "housing as an investment" earns money, by extorting the wages of future workers. If there are more workers (women and men) then you get to earn ev…

Except that they’re not earning twice as much. This also fails to consider the uncounted domestic labor that previously was completed by a stay at home spouse, but still needs to be completed/paid for.

Re: Lifetime Earnings in the United States over Six Decades

#19

Post by lotsofpulp »

imtringued wrote: post #14
gher-shyu3i wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just means it's now harder for families to make it on a single income that used to be the responsibility of the father. This drives wages lower as we're seeing and makes it harder on everyone.

Logically speaking, it doesn't make any sense. It should be easier to start families because families earn twice as much. Practically speaking, people will spend their money on limited resources like land and basically lose out on most of the gains. That's the primary way "housing as an investment" earns money, by extorting the wages of future workers. If there are more workers (women and men) then you get to earn ev…

Starting families was never limited by women not working. If anything, women not working (outside the home) makes it easiest to start families, since adult supervision’s time is the most expensive part of raising young children, and if one adult in a family is not working then they have no opportunity cost for raising the kids.

Re: Lifetime Earnings in the United States over Six Decades

#20

Post by nend »

brk wrote: post #13
prennert wrote: post #6

I was hoping to see how much people earn in their lifetime. And how that changed over time. I was wondering the other day other how many years are high earners are actually earning a very high income. In-equality wise it is very different if people in the 2 percentile of income stay there for a decade or more or if they are in that income bracket only for a few years while doing a specific job and drop down to lower…

I think that most high income earners stay at that stage for the majority of their career after reaching that level. While I know there are exceptions and odd examples, IMO people in general have little desire to take a large pay cut, so if you manage to get yourself to the point you are in the top 2% of earners, why would you step back?

If I had to guess, I agree most people probably continue to earn high wages once at that level.

But I don't think it's a question of how often people decline high wages to take a lower paying job (although this obviously happens as well). It's whether they can continuously be offered high wages as their career continues.

Post reply on HN