Dispatch from the Department of Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics, MSM Division . . .
Today's New York Times contains an article about sleight of hand. Elsewhere in the paper, the Times engages in some statistical prestidigitation of its own.
You're the New York Times and its minor-league subsidiary, the Boston Globe. You obtain government data showing that Americans' incomes have risen every year since 2002. So how do you spin it in your headline? If you're the Times: Average Incomes Fell for Most in 2000-5. The Globe had its own gloomy take: More Americans making ends meet with less money.
What-t-t? How did the papers manage this statistical shell game? How did they transform income growth into income decline? Read the opening sentence of the Globe article:
Americans earned a smaller average income in 2005 than in 2000, the fifth consecutive year they had to make ends meet with less money than at the peak of the last economic expansion, new government data show.
You couldn't blame a reader for understanding that sentence to mean that incomes have declined every year since 2000. Reading down into the Times article, however, we learn that in fact "incomes have been on the rise since 2002."
So what's going on? Stick with me here. The answer is that incomes spiked in 2000 at the height of the internet bubble. When the bubble burst [and 9-11 happened], incomes went down for a couple years. But in 2002, incomes resumed their growth and have risen every year since. But average income in 2005, adjusted for inflation, was still slightly below that of 2000: $55,238 in 2005 versus $55,714 in 2000. Note "adjusted for inflation." In other words, the unadjusted income of Americans in 2005 was actually about $60,000, or about $5,000 higher than in 2000. The Times-Globe never told us what the unadjusted 2005 income was: that would have made their case look weaker.
There's one other telling number in the Globe article. In the second paragraph, the Globe writes: "Total adjusted gross income in 2005 was $7.43 billion." That jumped out at me: clearly it's impossible that the combined incomes of all Americans totalled a minute seven billion and change. I went over to the Times, and sure enough, found that the number was $7.43 trillion. Just a simple typo, some might say. But what does it say about the Globe's basic ignorance of the economy that this error, in which income is understated by a factor of 1,000, could have slipped by the editors?
In any case, these twin articles are a good illustration not just of how statistics can be manipulated, but how the MSM will do so to the detriment of a Republican administration. Imagine that a Dem were in the White House today. I'm guessing the headline would have, accurately, read along the lines: "Income Growth Continues Annual Climb." What are the odds the headline would have had the same negative twist of this morning's articles? One in a billion. Whoops: make that one in a trillion.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Other 2001 events
August 21, 2007 - 07:10 ET by ThisnThatIt's notable that these papers point out the Internet bubble; and the fact that 2001 was the single year since WWII that incomes went down; but they fail to mention, at all, September 11 and the impact it had on our economy. I have no way to quantify this -- but its complete omission is a terrible way to write an article.
The Globe also says "The fact that average incomes remained lower in 2005 than five years earlier helps explain why so many Americans report feeling economic stress, despite overall growth in the economy". As you point out, Mark, incomes actually rose. It's the adjusted incomes that went down. Yet another way the MSM weaves together facts and fiction when no one is looking, in blatent attempts to influence, rather than report.
Finally, what's really missing is the overall, total impact of the tax cuts. What are the adjusted and real take-home amounts? And what about the fact that those making less than $25K went down by 5.5%; and those making $100K went up by 3.4 million people? Overall, a very nice economy, wouldn't you agree NYT and Globe????
<crickets>
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
and another thing...
August 21, 2007 - 07:20 ET by ThisnThatThe Globe also devotes 5 of its 17 paragraphs on those who make more than $1M, and even quotes Citizens for Tax Justice, a group that points out policies it says favor the rich. Surprise, surprise -- of course the Globe would do this.
I don't care how much money these rich people make. All I know is that they also spend a lot of money buying things. When this happens, lots of people benefit. Yeah, those of us making $25K or $50K or $100K might not get that $1M; but, we remain employed, and our salaries are increasing. If the rich stop spending, we're out of a job.
So Globe, NYT -- knock it off. We love the rich; we support the rich; we all want to be rich. What we don't want is someone like you elitist snobs to tell us what to do with our money; and we don't want the Government telling us how to spend our money. And by the way, I no longer spend my money on the Boston Globe.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Was it Mark Twain? There a
August 21, 2007 - 07:25 ET by USA4freedomWas it Mark Twain? There a lies, dam lies and statistics?
The info in the article is so twisted around that for starts
you need a flow chart to keep up.
There is so much crap hidden in this article that its time
consuming to address each and every one.
How about this gem:
The
combined income of all Americans in 2005 was slightly larger than it was in
2000, but because “more people” were dividing up the national income pie, the
average was smaller.
Did we
find more people some where, or
would that “more people” be: illegal aliens?
The article said:
People with incomes of more than $1 million also got 62
percent of the savings from the reduced tax rates on long-term capital gains
and dividends President Bush signed into law in 2003, according to a separate analysis
by.. “Citizens for Tax Justice,. a group that points out policies it says favor
the rich.”
(this from the same people that complain that scientist that
don’t belive in Global Warming is paid by “group that points out policies that
favor big oil”
Let me do s separate analysis by “human with half a brain”.
Tax cuts for the rich:
Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The
top 10% pay 64.89%
(Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The
top 50% pay 96.03%
(Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry
3.97% of all income
taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income
taxes than the bottom 50%!
I know, I know, tax cuts for the rich..
Bush lied people died.
That rash on your arm: Global warming.
If you repeat a lie long enough... Joseph Goebbels
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
If the Top 5% pay 53.25% of
August 21, 2007 - 10:45 ET by Chidi NwachukhuIf the Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes and the
top 10% pay 64.89% how much is their income? Couldn't your cut and paste job from limbaugh.com also be considered misleading?
}}---> Misleading
August 21, 2007 - 10:55 ET by Cool ArrowHow can you be so disingenuous? The Dems have long held the top 5% of earners should have their taxes raised.
Why are you arguing with your own Party's statistics?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
I guess that means you cant
August 21, 2007 - 10:58 ET by Chidi NwachukhuI guess that means you cant answer the question. Thanks.
Perhaps you could explain
August 21, 2007 - 18:12 ET by TheDeucePerhaps you could explain the relevence of your aside?
I mean, besides your attempt at thread diversion.
Don't bother reading ...
August 21, 2007 - 07:43 ET by Blogger Guy00001It's really not worth the bother to read the mainstream media. Neither the times nor the globe have any connection with reality any longer.
Nothing that they print can be trusted. So don't bother.
What they really meant
August 21, 2007 - 07:57 ET by LCT688Was that their income had been declining since 2000, so everybody else's must be too.
Thank goodness...
August 21, 2007 - 08:45 ET by rbchaffeThank goodness we have blogs like this one. Now, if only the readers of those newspapers would come to this site to find out the truth. Or, maybe some of them are and that's why the papers' circulations are down?
I'm betting against the paper issuing a correction for the billion vs trillion mistake.
Circulation is down I
August 21, 2007 - 09:20 ET by rightsideCirculation is down I believe for most large newspapers. Woohoo!
They'll blame anyone or anything, all the while completely denying any bias whatsoever. Good thing I say. I patiently await your demise NYT, et. al.
Thank God there are sites like this, and others, that meticulously and copiously document the drive-by's obvious manipulation of information to advance their liberal agenda. Well done!
Yes! Have some.
just out of curiosity, how
August 21, 2007 - 10:11 ET by Chidi Nwachukhujust out of curiosity, how much of all income do the top 1% make?
I'll do your search for you
August 21, 2007 - 12:33 ET by ThisnThatThe top 1% make 20% of all income (as of 2000). What's your point? These top earners are business owners, CEOs, CFOs, small business owners, athletes, Hollywood types, and so on. They have the talent, smarts, foresight, hard work, good looks, and other attributes that allow them to succeed (after many years of work) in their respective industries.
Note that the top 1% own more than 50% of the wealth of this country. That means they were able to invest, save, acquire, and build their assets up over time. Some, of course, inherited their weath.
What's your point? Jealous? So am I. Resentful? Not I. Feeling cheated because your relative lack of talent, smarts, etc. isn't enough to earn you a spot in the top 1%? That's life. Learn to live with it.
One of the things you can be sure of -- you benefit financially from this top 1%, much more so than from the bottom 99%.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Comparing the percent of
August 21, 2007 - 13:31 ET by Chidi NwachukhuComparing the percent of overall taxes collected to the percent of overall income earned makes much more sense than the "5% of people pay 53% of taxes" argument.
This is why we use
August 21, 2007 - 18:09 ET by KhyrisThis is why we use graduated tax brackets...
If you make more money, then you pay a higher percentage on the additional earnings.
The math is simple enough.... this means the average cents-in-taxes per dollar goes up as your income goes up.
Wheras a middle class individual might keep 66 cents or more per dollar earned, the top 1% may keep 60 cents or less on average.
The total income is made up of the sheer greater volume of smaller parts... this is known as the Archemedian principle, and is the basis of modern calculus.
Finkelstein gets an F in economics.
August 21, 2007 - 14:54 ET by OttoI don't think Mr Finkelstein ever took an economics degree. Allowing for inflation, average income in 2005 was about 500 bucks less than it was in 2000. Period. What happened, why, when and where, is irrelevant. The only person manipulating here is him. Apparently in his world inflation doesn't exist. Unfortunately in the real world where people have to buy milk, gas, steak, healthcare, etc. etc. it does. There's no big surprise in these numbers. A quick google round the income stats from the CBO or Dept of labor shows that real wages and salaries which is where most Americans get their money have basically been flat for 80% of Americans in the period 2001 to 2007. The top twenty percentile has shown some improvement particularly in the higher reaches where it has been stratospheric. These numbers just confirm that.
Otto, the point is that,
August 21, 2007 - 16:24 ET by Mark FinkelsteinOtto, the point is that, even adjusting for inflation, incomes have increased every year since 2002. They are still, on an inflation-adjusted basis, very slightly below 2000 levels because incomes dipped significantly in 2000/2001 due to the double-whammy of the bursting of the internet bubble and 9-11.
For what it's worth, I have a degree in Industrial and Labor Relations from Cornell. I might not have been the most diligent student but took more than my fair share of economics courses.
Oh, come now Mark. Your not
August 21, 2007 - 16:46 ET by bassndudeOh, come now Mark. Your not going to take our little socialist otto seriously are you? Otto thinks that raising taxes allows one to increase their take home pay. Hes been gone for awhile, but glad hes back.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!