Given that job growth is a lagging indicator, I'd guess that household income probably follows this trend pretty well.
The first thing that happens is that hours are cut. Next, jobs are cut. Then in recovery, hours are increased before jobs are created. So, I'd guess that household income would follow this plot pretty well.
Well, that would probably only hold true for people with jobs. Given the millions of jobs that have been lost, once those households are accounted for, you'd probably see a rate change, but not an absolute change. Then again, this data is a rate anyway, so it still might be comparable.
Here are the total non-farm earnings from 2000-2010 (prelim data for 1/2010 and 12/2009). This plot shows the same trend for 2008-2010: a sharp decrease, followed by a leveling off. I'd suspect that if this data was plotted in the same manner as the Obama graph that it would look very similar.
One thing that this graph shows is just how much the last decade didn't matter.
Comments
Given that job growth is a lagging indicator, I'd guess that household income probably follows this trend pretty well.
The first thing that happens is that hours are cut. Next, jobs are cut. Then in recovery, hours are increased before jobs are created. So, I'd guess that household income would follow this plot pretty well.
Well, that would probably only hold true for people with jobs. Given the millions of jobs that have been lost, once those households are accounted for, you'd probably see a rate change, but not an absolute change. Then again, this data is a rate anyway, so it still might be comparable.
Here are the total non-farm earnings from 2000-2010 (prelim data for 1/2010 and 12/2009). This plot shows the same trend for 2008-2010: a sharp decrease, followed by a leveling off. I'd suspect that if this data was plotted in the same manner as the Obama graph that it would look very similar.
One thing that this graph shows is just how much the last decade didn't matter.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_too...
Of course what really matters is not hours worked, it is hours worked per capita.
Given population growth, winding up at the same hours a decade out is a significant per capita cut in hours worked.