Thursday, March 15, 2007

Wisconsin Median Income Not Keeping Up

Hey, but at least our taxes are going up. 

Median household income in Wisconsin fell below the national median in 2005 for the first time since 1985, according to a study issued Wednesday by the Wisconsin Taxpayer Alliance.

The state’s 2005 median household income was $44,650, below the national median of $46,326. From 1999 to 2005, Wisconsin’s median household income was down 2.2 percent while nationally it was up 13.8 percent.

The state ranked last in the nation for household income growth during the six-year period and only Michigan also showed a decline.

The study attributed the decline to a decrease in average household size and fewer married women in the work force. From 2000 to 2005, the state population grew 4 percent, but the number of households dropped 7.5 percent while the number of one-person households was up two percentage points to 28.6 percent.

Wisconsin’s median household income was three percentage points below Minnesota’s in 1999, but by 2005 the gap was 21.4 percentage points and Minnesota’s median household income rose 15.3 percent during the period.

(9) Comments
Posted by Owen at 1918 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. attributed the decline to a decrease in average household size and fewer married women in the work force

    The former is a national demographic shift and the latter sounds like a return to traditional family values to me. What’s wrong with that?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 15, 2007 at 2018 hrs


  2. The former is a national demographic shift and the latter sounds like a return to traditional family values to me. What’s wrong with that?

    Wisconsin is a Blue state, and blue people don’t believe in traditional family values remember? (And I do NOT mean you specifically pjr, I am talking in general)

    Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on March 15, 2007 at 2117 hrs


  3. The comparison with Minnesota is key—and the key difference is educational levels attained, i.e., high school degree, college degree, etc.  For the last three decades, Minnesota has invested much in getting its residents through college, and that educational level has attracted new tech industries—while Wisconsin in those decades has dropped, dropped, dropped its share of the funding of the state college system (and raised, raised, raised students’ share, i.e., tuition, of the total cost of educating them).

    This is the predictable result, as there is no greater indicator of future income than education—not household size, marital status, how many in the household are in the workforce, etc.  (but in an economic decline period, it will be married women who are let go at greater rates, as they are more often the temps—so this does not indicate willingness to stay home).

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 15, 2007 at 2145 hrs


  4. Sorry, the rest got cut off:

    Also note that women’s employment is key in this study because— although it’s not clear in Owen’s headine—this is household income, not individual income.  As the linked story makes clear, individual income in Wisconsin is in the top half of the country.

    And Wisconsin long has had a far higher share of women in the workforce than the rest of the country (if paid far less, with women’s educational levels here especially below the national norms) so that’s why this study sees the drop in household income probably is due to fewer married women in the workforce, when individual income levels are still above the norms.

    Or, of course—and ominously, if so—it could be that it’s Dad who has lost his job and Mom who still is at work, and for far less income than he had.  The bottom line is that we need a lot more information than this to understand the reasons for a drop in household income to below national norms in a state with a higher individual income than the norms.

    (Either way, though—workers pay taxes, and our workers are making more than most in the country, so it’s no surprise that our taxes go up, too, is it?)

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 15, 2007 at 2200 hrs


  5. Michael is living with a myth. Divorce rates are lower in blue states on average than the so-called “family values” red states.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2007 at 0441 hrs


  6. Tongue and cheek KR. Tongue and cheek….

    Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on March 16, 2007 at 0543 hrs


  7. This is pretty telling:

    The state ranked last in the nation for household income growth during the six-year period and only Michigan also showed a decline.

    As I have mentioned before, take the same job offer with the same prerequisites in the Indianapolis, Chicago, Minneapolis, and Milwaukee markets - and 10-to-1 odds say the Milwaukee one pays the least.  (I’m speaking anecdotally, but this story seem to support it).

    Bunch of misers up there determining corporate payrolls…

    Posted by David on March 16, 2007 at 1231 hrs


  8. David, where would you take a job.
    Just graduated from U.W. or Marquette, or Whitewater.
    Wisconsin taxes you higher than Chicago, Indy, Minne, Dallas, Denver, D.C.  New York.
    Milwaukee firms have TAXES to deal with.  Wisconsin Companies have a more detrimental TAX CLIMATE.
    So Wisconsin companies offer less???  I’d offer less too, if I had LESS TO GIVE.
    Democrats.  (read liberals) have no clue.  For the most part, Dems/Libs make their decisions…WITH OTHER PEOPLES MONEY.
    It’s called SOCIALISM.  Liberal ideas of REDISTRIBUTION of WEALTH simply do not work in a Free market/Capitalistic economy.
    There comes a tipping point, where the BUSINESS ENTITY has to decide whether doing business in such a negative environment is in their BEST INTERESTS.
    Libs don’t get it.  Liberals believe that YOUR MONEY is THEIR MONEY.
    If you don’t give.  You are evil.  They CARE… you PAY.

    Posted by mickey on March 17, 2007 at 0114 hrs


  9. Pure BS Mickey.

    Corporate taxes in Wisconsin are among the lowest in the country—http://www.waxingamerica.com/2006/03/the_myth_of_hig.html.

    In fact, if you are going to bitch about property taxes, which you will, one reason why they are higher here is because we have shifted the tax burden from corporations to individuals.

    So for sure taxes are not the reason why companies are so stingy here when it comes to salaries, and for sure lower salaries offered to new graduates who as a result decide to move elsewhere.

    BS gets piled on top of BS when companies like the guy from Red Prairie and WMC complaining about not being able to attract new employees when salary survey after survey show our companies pay among the lowest —in fact the state trumpets this and have going back to Thompson at least. Then they blame it on property taxes which they helped pump and which new grads care a rip about.

    What a bunch of leakers and like the rats following the Pied Piper, you dance to the tune.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2007 at 0102 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.