A project of the
Institute for Policy Studies

Myths of Economic Statistics

The American economy is growing. It’s not roaring, but it’s growing, and at a good pace.

According to the latest figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, real US gross domestic product (GDP) rose at an annualized rate of 2.8% in the third quarter of 2013, which covered July through September.

For comparison, the long-term trend rate in US GDP growth is about 2% per year.

This year’s fast GDP growth underlines one of the great myths of economic statistics: the myth that growth benefits everyone, or at least most people.

Under the great economics assumption of “ceteris paribus” growth does benefit everyone. “Ceteris paribus” is Latin for “everything else the same.”

If the overall structure of the economy remains the same, then higher GDP means more income for everyone.

Unfortunately, the overall structure of the economy has been changing rapidly in recent years, and not for the better.

Corporate revenues may be increasing slowly as the economy grows by two or three percent per year, but corporate profits are exploding. So are executive salaries and bonuses.

We are witnessing a massive shift in the structure of the economy away from benefits for ordinary workers and retirees in favor of a small number of relatively rich and powerful people.

The latest economic statistics illustrate this. The Bureau of Economic Analysis doesn’t collect data on income distribution (why not?) but it does collect data on after-tax disposable income.

After-tax disposable income has been rising at a rate of around 4.5% this year, or about 3.5% after adjusting for inflation.

Yet we know from Census Bureau data that the median income — the income of the typical person — has not increased at all for several years. In fact, real median income is still more than 7% below 2007 levels.

That’s despite the fact that the economy as a whole has now bounced back to well above 2007 output levels.

Economic growth? Yes. Ceteris paribus? No. Everything else has not remained the same. The economy is bigger than it was in 2007, but it’s a different economy.

And let’s remember: the 2007 economy was nothing to write home about. In fact, the 2000s were already one of the worst decades in economic history before the recession hit. We only forget that because the 2010s are shaping up to be even worse.

But the US economy is growing. It’s been growing all along. Growth is not the problem.

Economic structure is the problem. Or in a word: inequality. Ordinary Americans haven’t had a raise (in real, inflation-adjusted terms) since 1972. Instead, all of America’s economic growth for forty years has gone to an elite minority.

The myths of economic statistics all come down to the fact that the purpose of the economy isn’t to generate profit. The purpose of the economy is to serve the people who depend on it. When it doesn’t, maybe it’s time to consider a different kind of economy. One that works for everyone.

  • geonomist

    Reformers tend to make their goal of reform harder for themselves. Instead of slamming profit, they should demand that everyone get some.

    Economies can’t help but churn out a surplus. It’s all of a society’s spending for the land and resources it uses. Such spending is a surplus because nobody has to be rewarded for producing nature since none of us did. People only need to be paid for providing their labor and capital, inputs they did provide.

    The value of land, generated by society’s demand for the land, is ideal for sharing, for making into our common wealth. We could all pay Land Dues into the public treasury and get rent shares — a Citizen’s Dividend — back. Sort of like what Alaska does with some oil revenue and Singapore with some location value. Since site value rises with economic growth, then a rising GDP would , at last, lift all boats. Help it along at

  • Ishi Crew

    it may be good that BEA doesn’t collect data on income distribution (if they don’t because alot of these agencies do many things which are hard to find). Census, and possibly BLS, and maybe some others do collect data on income distribution. I think redundancy is an economic problem—its also good that BEA doesn’t do research on creating new kind of potato chip or junk food in my opinion because others are doing it and there likely are better things to do though i’m not sure what—-i don’t know if we even need another blog on inequality; there are thousands of them out there, just like evening news shows—-every city has someone reading the same lines from some news script for money (often about crime caused because some people cannot get any money because its all been taken by news anchors and others, who also likely have ‘too much’ and could share (but then they would have less crime to report on—their job). ..

Read previous post:
Are Heartless People Simply Born That Way?

People who cut food stamp benefits — and gut child labor laws — most all had empathy when they came...