Stagnation and Taxes

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

Middle-class income stagnation began in the United States in 1973. Before then incomes grew 2-3% a year, but since then have grown only about 1% a year. John Quiggin makes a simple point about why workers don’t necessarily feel this for a while:

Standards of living are determined mainly by lifetime incomes, not by income in any particular year. Given the pattern described above, lifetime income for someone who worked, say, from 1940 to 1985 was well below that for someone in a similar class position who started work in 1970, just when the long increase in real wages was slowing for most and stopping for some. For every year of their working life, the 1970 starter gets a wage (adjusted for age, education and so on) that’s as high as the maximum attained by the 1940 starter after 30 years of steady growth. Unsurprisingly, that translates into a bigger house, and more of most items that require savings, whether or not their price has risen relative to the CPI.

To make this more concrete, suppose that Bob earns $10 during the first year of his working life, and forty years later, adjusted for inflation, he earns $20. Bob’s average wage over his lifetime was $15, for a total lifetime income of $600.

Now suppose that Alice begins her career at the end of that period, and further suppose that income growth has flattened completely. Alice earns $20 her first year and $20 her last year, for a total lifetime income of $800. So even with a stagnant income, she’s still better off than her parents, which is probably one of her main points of reference.

But now even that’s coming to an end. Someone who’s entered the workforce in the last decade or so not only has a stagnant income in real terms, but also a stagnant income compared to her parents. That’s a double whammy, and really brings home the reality that things are tight and are going to stay tight. One conclusion you might draw from this is that if you thought the previous generation was resistant to higher taxes, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. When incomes are growing smartly, higher taxes are pretty bearable. When they start to stagnate, they become more onerous. And when they stagnate completely, they become completely intolerable. I hardly need to spell out the long-term problem this poses.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest