Browse by Tags

If you hear young adults complaining about how tough it is to find fulfilling, long term employment, you may be tempted to think they are just feeling sorry for themselves. After all, times are tough on everyone, right? Well, yes and no. Times may be tough across all age groups, and yet most Americans, and most economists, agree that young workers have it particularly bad these days. According to a new report from the Pew Research Center , "There seems to be a near consensus among the public that today’s young adults face greater challenges than their parents did in reaching some of the most basic economic benchmarks." The report shares some details on how young adults have reacted to the economic downturn: Many young adults have felt the impact of the recession and sluggish recovery in tangible ways. Fully half (49%) of those ages 18 to 34 say that because of economic conditions over the past few years, they have taken a job they didn’t really want just to pay the bills. More than a third (35%) say they have gone back to school because of the bad economy. And one-in-four (24%) say they have taken an unpaid job to gain work experience. For some, tough economic times have had an impact on their personal life as well. Roughly a quarter of adults ages 18 to 34 (24%) say that, due to economic conditions, they have moved back in with their parents in recent years after living on their own. Among those ages 25 to 29, the share moving back home rises to 34%. Most adults under age 25 are enrolled in school at least part time (46% are full-time students). By age 25, the majority are out of school, but jobs and housing can be hard to come by, and many “boomerang” back home. And yet, they remain largely optimistic about their future. Take a look: Read the full report here .

The Congressional Budget Office has released its Budget and Economic Outlook for the next 10 years. For 2012, the CBO is projecting a deficit of $1.1 trillion. But over the next 10 years, the CBO projects that figure to drop to "under $200 billion and averaging 1.5 percent of GDP." This projection is based on current laws, including the scheduled expiration of some tax cuts: Much of the projected decline in the deficit occurs because, under current law, revenues are projected to shoot up by almost $800 billion, or more than 30 percent, between 2012 and 2014—from 16.3 percent of GDP in 2012 to 20.0 percent in 2014. That increase is mostly the result of of the recent or scheduled expirations of tax provisions, such as those initially enacted in 2001, 2003, and 2009 that lower income tax rates and those that limit the number of people subject to the alternative minimum tax (AMT). Under current law, CBO projects that revenues will continue to rise relative to GDP after 2014 largely because increases in taxpayers’ inflation-adjusted income will push more income into higher tax brackets and subject more of it to the AMT. Other important projections from the report are illustrated in the following slides from the CBO: Charts from CBO's January 2012 Budget and Economic Outlook View more presentations from Congressional Budget Office Read the full report here .

The first decade of the twenty-first century brought declining incomes for American workers. And it doesn't look like we'll see a rebound any time soon. Economists surveyed for the Wall Street Journal 's forecasting survey predict that the US median income, adjusted for inflation, will not reach 2000 levels again until at least 2021. Phil Izzo reports on the findings in this WSJ video:

David Frum , former special assistant to President George W. Bush, has a homework assignment for GOP presidential hopefuls. He wants them to take a look at this. And then he wants to know what, if anything, needs to be done about it. You can weigh in at the FrumForum , here .

In an effort to hammer home a point about the correlation between education and income, Good put together this map: The more educated and well paid the population of a given county, the darker the color--as data for education levels are overlaid with data for income. Take a look at Good's work here . (hat tip Barry Ritholtz )

Robert Samuelson agrees with the Obama Administration's top economic advisers that the current measure of poverty in the US--in place since the Sixties--is outdated. But he does not share the view that it is underreporting poor Americans. Rather, as he argues in his Washington Post/Newsweek column, Samuelson believes that immigration skews poverty statistics. And, he writes that the material well being of poor Americans has gone up. But since the poverty line is based on measuring only pre-tax income, it obscures improved living standards. Samuelson: The existing poverty line could be improved by adding some income sources and subtracting some expenses (example: child care). Unfortunately, the administration’s proposal for a “supplemental poverty measure” in 2011—to complement, not replace, the existing poverty line—goes beyond that. The new poverty number would compound public confusion. It also raises questions about whether the statistic is tailored to favor a political agenda. The “supplemental measure” ties the poverty threshold to what the poorest third of Americans spend on food, housing, clothing, and utilities. The actual threshold—not yet calculated—will probably be higher than today’s poverty line. Moreover, this definition has strange consequences. Suppose that all Americans doubled their income tomorrow, and suppose that their spending on food, clothing, housing, and utilities also doubled. That would seem to signify less poverty—but not by the new poverty measure. It wouldn’t decline, because the poverty threshold would go up as spending went up. Many Americans would find this weird: people get richer, but “poverty” stays stuck. Dean Baker , who takes issue with Samuelson's suggestion that the new poverty measures are politically motivated--Samuelson quotes Heritage 's Robert Rector in labeling the new indicator a "propaganda device"--points out that they were developed by the National Academy of Sciences rather than policymakers. Read Defining Poverty Up: How to create more 'poor' here . And for more economists' responses to Samuelson's column, go first to Mark Thoma's blog , where Thoma responds himself, but also notes several others' criticisms of Samuelson's analysis. Surely we will see more robust debate on these issues as the Obama administration moves closer toward adopting the new measures.