Jump to content

Talk:Economy of the United States/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Proposed inclusions

The number of Americans in poverty and poverty rate: 1959 to 2011. United States.

I propose including the graph on the right, the graphs at [1] and [2], and the table below from [3]:

United States' families median net worth source: Fed Survey of Consumer Finances[1]
in 2013 dollars 1998 2013 change
All families $102,500 $81,200 -20.8%
Bottom 20% of incomes $8,300 $6,100 -26.5%
2nd lowest 20% of incomes $47,400 $22,400 -52.7%
Middle 20% of incomes $76,300 $61,700 -19.1%
Top 10% $646,600 $1,130,700 +74.9%

References

  1. ^ Weston, Liz (May 10, 2016). "Americans Are Pissed — This Chart Might Explain Why". nerdwallet.com.

I also propose including, "In the United States between 2001 and 2014, higher income was associated with greater longevity, and differences in life expectancy across income groups increased over time."[4]. EllenCT (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC), a UN/WTO agency that aims to promote sustainable economic development through trade promotion. I would like to propose the addition of an external link (http://www.macmap.org/QuickSearch/FindTariff/FindTariff.aspx?subsite=open_access&country=842&source=1) that leads directly to our online database of customs tariffs applied by United States. Visitors can easily look up market access information for US by selecting the product and partner of their interest. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations, and aims to share trade and market access data on by country and product as a global public good 2) No registration is required to access this information 3) Market access data (Tariffs and non-tariff measures) are regularly updated

Thank you, Divoc (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I did revert you since this link did not meet WP:EL for this article (not broad enough in its scope) --> moved it to Taxation in the United States instead. SSZ (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Economy of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External debt of the USA (and other countries)

An essential data is missing in this article: namely the list of US foreign debt holders (by country) (e.g. Paris Club). The total of US external debt was roughly $18 trillion (source: CIA World Factbook). The problem is that those countries, with few notable exceptions (such as China), are themselves mostly net debtors as countries.

      • What gives?***

Subsidiary question: WHO are the private foreign national holders of the US debt (domestic and foreign US debt)? e.g. "pension fund investment houses" (on behalf of their pensioners - the financial beneficiaries); banks/insurance companies and private individuals (e.g. Rothschild et al.) aka London Club.

Finally, what is the total net private debt of all US citizens? *WHO* are the top lenders (name of beneficial owners-lenders). These numbers must add up correctly. Reliable sources are needed ASAP. Thanks much.

PS: I suspect most, if not, the vast majority of US debt simply cannot be attributed to any major beneficial owners simply because of a built-in secrecy in the system, globally (e.g. Offshore banking /legal trusts/ IBCs / Private foundations/ front men)...by DESIGN? (globally speaking, total assets must always equal total liabilities) 

47.17.16.137 (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
One source: International Debt Statistics (World Bank) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.27.96 (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Source for 2016 year over year growth

Source self-contradicts on percent growth. Reports 1.9% growth, which is correct given other sources, and a growth rate of 1.6%, which is unreported by sources such as BEA. Reference: https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm JCS3 (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

After-taxes gini

The gini coefficient reported is a befote-taxes figure. One would think it more representative to account for the taxes and transfer payments resultant from them to assess income inequality as it exists in reality. The OECD reports this figure and a 2014 number is available. Would any of you favor using it? The figure is close to .39, being slightly above that. JCS3 (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Economy of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable source

The article cites <ref>"[http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TFBE.php The Food Bubble Economy]". ''The Institute of Science in Society.''</ref>. This is a book review published by Mae-Wan Ho, whose opinions are, according to our article, neither neutral nor widely considered significant. This is a very high level article, we should not be dredging the crankosphere for sources I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Economy of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Economy of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Formatting

The formatting of everything starting with "Historical statistics" has problems in at least some cases. In particular, the "References" with Firefox and Google Chrome on a Mac often display as one character per line, because of formatting problems with the figures -- at least as of 2017-12-22. This is a problem that I do not know how to fix. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

second or third largest in PPP

As of 2017-12-22 the second sentence of this article ends by saying that the US is the world's "second largest [economy] by purchasing power parity (PPP)." However, the link to the article on "purchasing power parity" lists the US and third, after China and the European Union. The "European Union" is not a country, but it is arguably an "economy", matching the text. I will change it to match the link. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ludlite: Please be so kind as to check the "Talk" page of an article before reverting a good faith edit.
I agree that the US is the second largest national economy by PPP. However, the US is currently listed third in the Wikipedia article on "List of countries by GDP (PPP)" after China and the EU, cited in this article before I changed it recently. The EU may not be a single "country". However, it is listed second in that article, and it is clearly considered to be an "economy".
If you wish to challenge this point, I suggest you start by documenting your concern in Talk:List of countries by GDP (PPP).
In the meantime, I plan to change the current text from
  • "It is the world's largest economy by nominal GDP and second largest by purchasing power parity (PPP)." to
  • "It is the world's largest national economy by nominal GDP and the third largest economy after China and the EU by purchasing power parity (PPP).<ref>The EU is considered a single economy for many purposes, though its member states each have their own foreign policies unlike the individual states in the US.</ref><ref name=imf2/>
I hope you will find this acceptable.
Thanks for all you do to try to improve Wikipedia and through that to help people all over the world better understand the challenges and opportunities they face. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Politics Could Very Well be the source of the China PPP Hype

China's National Bureau of Statistics previously refuted allegations about its PPP in 2015.[5] Many in the political and media spectrum also once hyped Japan would take over the world's economy for this century, so there is no reason to not suspect the same for China.207.225.131.141 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

real GDP per capita from 1790

As of 2018-03-27 this article includes a plot of US GDP per capita from 1929 to 2011. The documentation for that plot on Wikimedia Commons does not cite a source and does not say if the GDP numbers are real or nominal.

Real US GDP per capita, 1790 to 2015. The vertical lines mark the presidencies of Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt (FDR). The dotted red line indicates the entry of the US into World War II. Under Hoover, the economy declined 8 percent per year for 4 years. Under FDR the economy averaged over 8 percent growth per year for 12 years.

This 1790-2015 plot uses data from www.measuringworth.com. They have US GDP data, nominal, real, and per capita, dating back to 1790. Those numbers have been vetted through an advisory board of economists at leading universities, including Harvard and Stanford. They look like pretty solid numbers to me. I just plotted the measuringworth numbers and noted the following:

  1. I need a log scale or I can't see anything.
  2. The pattern is much clearer if I plot the per capita numbers than the total.
  3. The pattern is even clearer if I also use real (adjusted for inflation) rather than nominal.
  4. Starting the series in 1790 makes it much clearer how exceptional the presidencies of Hoover and FDR were.

DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to US Housing Edit-a-thon

Please join us on 13 December 2020, 12:00-14:00 EST, as we update and improve articles in Wikipedia related to housing in the United States of America. Sign up here. -- M2545 (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Oil ressources

incl. refining industry are missing as an economic factor during mid-1850s-today, e.g. History of the oil shale industry in the United States, Petroleum in the United States, and Oil reserves in the United States. Trillions of USD were made. Unfortunately, I have no time to fulfill this task. --Mateus2019 (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Trading partners of the United States

Hey, as you may know, Brexit happened, in which United Kingdom left the European Union. Should the United Kingdom be its own icon in the infobox? --HyettsTheGamer2 (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism by Jkooppppjhhu?

@Jkooppppjhhu: On 2021-04-19T08:33:45, you made 4 edits changing numbers on this page that look like blatant vandalism to me. Please explain: You require other editors to do extra work, confirming that the changes you made did NOT match the references and the numbers there previously did. DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

GDP for 2021?

@Pullar56: I appreciate your work to improve Wikipedia. Sadly, I feel compelled to revert your changes of 2021-04-21T05:01:17 primarily because I can NOT find the numbers you quote in the link you provide: https://www.bea.gov/news/2021/gross-domestic-product-4th-quarter-and-year-2020-advance-estimate.

Secondarily, it seems premature to be posting GDP numbers for the current year. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Pullar56: Why are you Wikipedia:Edit warring? Please provide a credible reference to support your changed or desist from making them. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
This is the report of IMF 2021. Pullar56 (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Wonderful. Can you please provide a complete citation so others can check it for themselves? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@Pullar56: Thanks. I found the GDP numbers in the link you provided for that -- except it rounds to $22.68 trillion, not $22.67.
However, when I followed the second link you provided, I got GDP not GDP per capita. And I don't have 2021 population estimates, so I can't convert $22.68 trillion to GDP per capita.
But even if I can't find the exact source, it's clear that a reasonable basis exists for your numbers. If no one else complains, I plan to worry about other things.
I know I've been a little bit of a pain to deal with, but Wikipedia's reputation for quality depends on this. Have you seen Reliability of Wikipedia#Articles on contentious issues? DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Update charts for 2021 Inflation

The inflation rate is now 8.5%. The charts need to reflect that. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Total annual payroll

What about total annual payroll, 2019 ($1,000) 7,428,553,593; per-capita ? ... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The economy of the United States is a highly developed market economy

The economy of the United States is a highly developed market economy 130.193.227.66 (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Presidents responsible for economy? No. Potential ref to use

According to this Freakonomics report, the President has next to nothing to do with the economy, and it would seem apropos to use this reference somewhere. Since it is often a contentious debate in politics that somehow any President is responsible for the failure or success of the economy.

https://freakonomics.com/2012/01/its-not-the-president-stupid-a-new-marketplace-podcast/ Leitmotiv (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2018 and 15 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gmoney1997.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment

This page seems written by the US government. How much of nominal GDP is on account of the top 10% and how much due to the bottom 50%? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atanu2013 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Atanu2013 If you have a specific concern about content displayed in this article, please describe the passage involved and your concern. This is not a forum to discuss economic inequalitites in the US. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Slavery

I see a single word referring to slavery, but the production due to slave labor was a key engine of American economic growth in the 18th and 19th centuries. Perhaps an editor with facility as to sources and mainstream narratives can start introducing more balanced content? SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

interesting references but did not say what was claimed

@Dan Ratan and SPECIFICO: on 2022-06-11T12:00:19 Dan Ratan made an interesting addition, which SPECIFICO reverted at 2022-06-11T12:32:03, saying, "This content is WP:UNDUE and poorly-sourced".

It seems to me that the sources are important and should be mentioned. However, the verbiage given seemed to me to misrepresent the sources. In particular, the change claimed, "Since the late 1970s, income inequality in the United States has ... constrained economic growth by up to 3.4% of GDP per year". I could not find that claimed in the papers. Figure C in Bevins and Banerjee (2022) showed "The gap between productivity and a typical worker’s compensation has increased dramatically since 1979", noting that 1979-2020 productivity was up 61.8 percent but compensation increased only 17.5 percent, a difference of 34.3 percentage points. That does NOT have any implications I can see relating to overall economic growth. The summary of Bevins and Banerjee includes, "By 2018, the rise in income inequality since 1979 was reducing growth in aggregate demand by about 1.5% of GDP." I'm not sure what that means. I think this article could use a concise summary of those papers, but not this. Sadly, I don't have time and maybe not the competence to summarize those papers adequately. I post here the references in case someone else wants to review them:

DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

How much the upward redistribution of income lowered US economy-wide household spending, as a share of GDP, 1980-2020
@DavidMCEddy: thank you for that detailed discussion. The sentence I inserted is a relatively close paraphrase of the first three sentences of the Conclusion section of the Bivins and Bannerjee (2022) source. I also had intended to include this graph from their Figure E, but forgot. Dan Ratan (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The first and third are poor sources -- self-published. The second does not really support the article text. Certainly a graph showing coincidence does not support claims about causality. SPECIFICO talk 13:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: I respectfully disagree regarding the quality of the sources. The Economic Policy Institute was founded in 1986 by a number of leading economists. The Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation (OECD) is a major intergovernmental organization of 38 countries ranging from the US to Mexico and Luxembourg. Neither should qualify as "self publishing".
You may be accurate regarding the second source.
I have another concern regarding the copyright on the figure that User:Dan Ratan just added: I think it should probably be removed from Wikimedia Commons as a copyright violation, because it is a copy of part of the art from their Figure E. From my perspective, changes in US copyright law since around 1970 were made to benefit the major media at the expense of the public. Art like that, even when excerpted like that, is copyrighted by the original authors or publishers, even if they do not say so in the publication. The people managing Wikimedia Commons are justifiably paranoid about that.
Specifically, you can copyright expression but not ideas nor data. If you get the data plotted in that figure and plot those numbers yourself producing art that is clearly different but communicates essentially the same message, you would own the copyright to the image you produced, and you could then legally upload it to Wikimedia Commons. If you or I got the numbers and plotted them, it would be our "expression", which means that we would own the copyright and could upload it to Wikimedia Commons. If you want to tell me how to get the numbers, I can plot them. [I'm reasonably facile with R (programming language); see, e.g., v:US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita.]
I have another concern about that plot: The average annual income (Gross Domestic Product, GDP, per capita) roughly doubled between 1979 and 2018 -- i.e., increased close to 100 percent. It's not obvious to me if this drag of 1.4 percent is statistically significant. Even if it is, its impact is not as great as one might naively expect from the plot, I think. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Like many such institutions, its past and associate persons from the last century do not make its self-published papers RS today. We use peer-reviewed sources in Economics for such content. OECD publishes many working papers, some of them end up being publshed in RS, some are much less significant. And the material here is not really supporting the narrative of the article text. SPECIFICO talk 14:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: I don't see how you can possibly say the cited material doesn't support the text when the 3.4% figure is explicitly attributed to the EPI and not in Wikipedia's voice. Dan Ratan (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
EPI is an advocacy group (think-tank) and unless their study is cited by an Independent Source WP:IS, then their "research" doesn't deserve to be mentioned in Wikipedia, even if attributed. Just because think-tanks self-publish lots of content doesn't mean their content is important enough to be included Wikipedia. ---Avatar317(talk) 23:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
David, I'll reply to your other concerns later, today I hope, but the copyright issue is addressed at the pages linked from Commons:Threshold of originality#Charts. My understanding is that any graph comprised of numbers, titles, captions, legends, and annotations in common typefaces, along with rules and plotted data in the form of lines and simple geometric shapes and textures of any colors without iconography, logos, or any other elements of creative original authorship, are not eligible for copyright in any jurisdiction. Dan Ratan (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Revise US GDP Growth on "Data" section

The US forecast growth for 2022 and onwards rate need to be revised. The new IMF projections will forecast US annual GDP growth for 2022 is 2.5% as opposed to 3.7% for the old version. 101.117.15.152 (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

$50 trillion "taking"

I saw the discussion following this removal, and its subsequent restoration, and wanted to take up Aquillion on the offer to take the discussion to talk. I support the removal of the sentence, for a few reasons.

First, and most importantly, the underlying research itself never describes the growth differential as a "taking." It is solely a investigation into a counterfactual where 1950s/60s trends continued into the following half century. There is no point, explicitly or implicitly, where the underlying research (n.b. a working paper) states or implies that some value was previously in possession by one group and taken by another. The question is in the difference in income growth rates - almost all groups grew, the question is by how much.

Second, there is the issue of the actual sources cited in the article - Time and Business Insider. Assessing these sources is critical, since the description of a "taking" is entirely in these sources, and not the research itself. Aquillion describes these sources as "high-quality," but this is not the case. Let's start with Business Insider. WP:RS/P notes the last discussion on RS/N found no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider (though few participants endorsed it as generally reliable). Note that Price, an author on the working paper, did not use any "taken" language, in his remarks to BI. The Time source may appear at first glance to be a better bet, but note that this is part of the "Ideas" section at Time, which is their opinion vertical, and is explicitly disclaimed, at both RS/P for Time specifically, and more generally at WP:RSEDITORIAL, as in inappropriate for general sourcing.

In conclusion, the underlying research does not support this phrasing, it is solely used for rhetorical effect in sources inadequate to drive the phrasing on en.Wikipedia. I have removed the sentence from the article, but welcome further discussion. MarginalCost (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The underlying paper is a self-published working paper at RAND and is not a valid source for article content on this topic, even with attribution. I agree with the removal. SPECIFICO talk 12:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Explain the relationship between education and unemployment

H 41.113.185.200 (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The section of this article on "Unemployment" begins with Main articles: Unemployment in the United States and List of U.S. states and territories by unemployment rate. Go to "Unemployment in the United States". That article includes a section on "Education".
It is often possible to say almost anything in a more clear, concise and compelling way. This is Wikipedia, and anyone who has not been blocked for malicious editing can change anything in articles that are not protected, e.g., for a history of vandalism. You might, for example, try to reword the section of the current article to include something like, "Unemployment tends to be lower among people with more education."
However, please understand that someone else might revert your change, because this current article on "Economy of the United States" is already quite large, and it seems relatively easy to find that information from this article, already.
Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Large errors in economic info sidebar

Nominal GDP is listed as 183 billion USD, figures for GDP per capita is also wrong and PPP is not even listed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.45.22.138 (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fixed some of the vandalism. I should have seen it before but missed it.
@Dhother: Is there any way to interpret what you've done other than vandalism? I plan to report your actions to an administrator, who I hope will bock you from further editing. We need honest editors trying to improve the quality of information available to the public. We do NOT need vandals and trolls trying to degrade it. DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

GDP per IMF

@Capri69: Where do you get "$25.350 trillion (nominal; 2022)"? When I look at the source cited, I get 20,148.775 billion = $20.1 trillion.  ??? DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

US GDP

US GDP of $20.1 trillion is so obviously wrong and outdated for the year 2022. The figure from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which publishes GDP numbers every quarter, has the figure at $24.88 trillion for Q2 2022. For figures such as GDP, labor, or population statistics it is best to cite from sources that track this data in real time i.e. on a quarterly basis in order to have authoritative and verifiable information. 216.240.30.25 (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The US GDP of $20.1 may be "obviously wrong" to you, but it's consistent with the reference cited:
"World Economic Outlook Database, April 2022". IMF.org. International Monetary Fund. April 2022. Retrieved April 19, 2022.
The standard Wikipedia rules are:
  1. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
  2. Wikipedia:Citing sources, especially Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
  3. Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
So many changes have been made to this page that failed to cite credible sources, that I recently requested semi-protection, which was granted.
If you feel that the $20.1 trillion is "obviously wrong", you need to provide a credible source. You can provide that here. I suggest you start by documenting here a link to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) web page containing such figures, accompanied by an explanation of why you think it's better than the IMF numbers currently being used. If you present a persuasive argument, someone like me will change it. If I change it, I might want to cite both the BEA and IMF numbers and references in the footnote companion to the number, with a brief comment about why we think the BEA numbers are better.
May I encourage you to create a Wikimedia account, if you do not already have one. You may know that many Wikimedians edit under assumed names. As noted with Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection, after you have had an account for 4 days and made 10 edits (that were not rejected as apparent vandalism), you become "autoconfirmed", and can change things yourself in articles that are semi-protected. However, if you change something like a GDP number to something that contradicts the source cited, you can expect someone like me to revert that edit: What Wikipedia says should match the citations ;-)
Thanks for your interest in improving Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Instead of a putdown, you could have found a nice RS to update the number in the article. SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: I was not trying to put you down: I was dealing with an anonymous editor, who insisted on making changes that contradicted with the source that was cited. I'm NOT going to spend my time looking for other sources that may not be easy to find.
AND I perceived two errors in your edit:
  • Most importantly, am I correct that you changed <ref name="GDP IMF"> so other citations to that reference were wrong? I looked at another use of that reference, and could not find it in the source you cited. I fixed that.
  • Secondly, you wrote the number as "$24,88 trillion", NOT "$24.88 trillion". I fixed that.
What have I missed or misunderstood here? How might I have handled this more gracefully? DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Look at the timestamps. I said don't insult the IP. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Why USA is considered as developed country

Conclusion 202.164.131.74 (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

US GDP per capita

@DiscoStu42: Thanks for providing a complete link for per capita = Increase $76,027 (est 2022):

"World Economic Outlook Database, April 2022". International Monetary Fund. April 2022. Retrieved April 19, 2022. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |websi te= ignored (help)

Help me understand the previous number, $60,436, which I got by going to that website without your addition:

"World Economic Outlook Database, April 2022". IMF.org. International Monetary Fund. April 2022. Retrieved April 19, 2022.

When I did what seemed to be the obvious things to get that number, it took me to:

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2022/April/weo-report?c=111,&s=NGDP_R,NGDPRPC,&sy=2020&ey=2027&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1

This gave me $60,436. As far as I can see, these two numbers, $60,436 and $76,027 seem to represent the same thing coming from the same source but are very different.

What are the differences between these two numbers? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @DavidMCEddy,
The difference is that the $60,436 is chained to 2017 dollars. So basically it doesn't account for any of the inflation between 2017 and 2022. DiscoStu42 (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

ref Global Econ Prospects v. World Economic Outlook2022Oct?

@C.J. Griffin: Thanks for reverting my erroneous change. I've fixed the error: The 1.6 and 1.0% are NOT in the earlier report that was cited, and citing Twitter feels a little spooky to me: Better to cite the complete report, as I tried to do and failed. I hope you concur with this latest change. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the citations are working again. Thanks. C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Real wages for most workers

Evolution in income inequality in the US 1947-2010

@JArthur1984: I question the claim of your source that, "Real wages for most workers in the United States and median incomes have either declined or remained stagnant for the last twenty to forty years.[1]"

I have not seen that book, but the author is either looking at different figures from what I've seen or his claim that "real wages ... have either declined or remained stagnant" is inadequately nuanced, in my judgment. The data I've seen are summarized in the accompanying plot and the description accompanying it on Wikimedia Commons, at File:IncomeInequality9b.svg. That cites multiple sources and is used in multiple articles on Wikiversity, listed on that Commons page.

It's fair to say that the ultra-wealthy have taken the vast majority of the increases in productivity since 1970. There may be other figures, e.g., counting increases in taxes on the poor and middle class and / or decline in social services and other effects, that support your claim. However, if that's the case, I would want to see a citation to something more specific than a citation to p. 303 in a more general book with a title like, The United States vs. China : the quest for global economic leadership.

Thanks for your efforts to try to improve public access to the sum of all human knowledge. I hope you'll forgive me for reverting this particular addition pending further clarification and documentation. DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bergsten, C. Fred (2022). The United States vs. China : the quest for global economic leadership. Cambridge. p. 303. ISBN 1-5095-4735-5. OCLC 1255691875.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we can use the graph you cited, can we? And it's inappropriate to try and use it to "rebut" a secondary source. It looks like WP:SYNTH to me. Do the sources you cite themselves say, explicitly, that real wages (that means, inflation-adjusted, which is something I notice the description on the graph you created does not specify) have increased? And if so, can you provide a specific quote so we can compare it to what the cited source says? Also, since the chart is clear synthesis, I'm going to remove it from the one place it's used on Wikipedia proper - at least on Wikipedia, whatever comparisons it represents have to be made in the sources it summarizes in order to avoid WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. You cannot produce a chart comparing disparate date points that aren't compared in the sources in order to reach a specific conclusion not made in those sources. --Aquillion (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
That plot represents quantiles of family income. I do NOT suggest we use that.
However, I'd be surprised if "Real wages for most workers in the United States and median incomes have either declined or remained stagnant for the last twenty to forty years", given that plot of income. That plot combined US census data for the income quantiles from the Census Bureau with data from Piketty and Saez for the top quantiles. Ignore the top quantiles, because they are not relevant to this discussion, except to explain how real wage growth would have doubtless been limited, with the ultra-wealthy taking most of the benefits of productivity growth.
Does Bergsten (p. 303) cite other sources for that claim? If yes, what are they? If no, I'm skeptical. Thanks for your questions. DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
No trouble, @DavidMCEddy. @Aquillion is correct: the source is speaking in terms of "real wages" which your graph does not rebut. (Even then, if there is disagreement between different reliable sources, the approach would be to include information from the alternative interpretations in proportion to their due weight).
The stagnation of American real wages over the last forty years is non-controversial, and when I revert, I'll include additional sources for your further edification.
As to the Bergsten book, it's a great and thorough read. I'd recommend it highly. Recall that Bergsten is as qualified an economist as they come, and was both Economic Deputy to Kissinger at the National Security Counsel and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs. I'll grant you that the title is a bit "airport book" style sensational, but book titles are generally under publisher control. Bergsten does not have an in-line citation for that proposition, but as I've said I'll include other sources. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
@JArthur1984: Thanks. Just don't say something that would seem to contradict US Census Table F-1 without a credible explanation and citation ;-)
That Census table shows that the bottom 20th percentile of the distribution of household incomes has been pretty close to stagnant since 1970. That suggests that many people in that bottom quintile would have fallen behind during that period. Even the 99th percentile increased only 73% while GDP per capita doubled between 1970 and 2010. Conclusion: You had to be in the top one half of one percent of the income distribution to get what might naively be called your fair share of the benefits of productivity improvements -- unless you believe that productivity improvements are driven by the actions of the ultra-wealthy, a claim that seems to be contradicted by a substantial body of economics research that I've seen.
I have not looked carefully at the numbers since 2010, but I'd be surprised if they were dramatically different from the previous 40 years.
On a related issue, are you familiar with the observations of Thomas Piketty (2021). A Brief History of Equality. Belknap Press. ISBN 978-0-674-27588-1. Wikidata Q115434513., pp. 138-139:
In the United States, the national income per inhabitant rose at a rate of 1.8 percent per annum between 1870 and 1910 without an income tax, and then at 2.1 percent between 1910 and 1950 after its introduction, and at a rate of 2.2 percent between 1950 and 1990, when the top tax rate reached, on average, 72 percent. The top rate was then cut in half, with the announced objective of boosting growth. But in fact, growth fell by half, reaching 1.1 percent per annum between 1990 and 2020.
I think his case is weakened by lumping everything between 1910 and 1950 together, but I've checked his analysis using data from MeasuringWorth, Wikidata Q88193829, and I've found his results to be plausible, though still not uncontroversial. My previous analysis of those data are available in Wikiversity:US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita. That article includes "Appendix. Companion R Markdown vignette", which makes it relatively easy to update and revise in any reasonable way. I've updated the R Markdown vignette and largely confirmed these claims of Piketty. However, I have not yet updated the article.
If you are interested or know someone who might like to collaborate on pushing some version of that to publication someplace, I'd be happy to collaborate on such a project, assuming we could agree on the contents. I have a good record of joint publications from previous successful collaborations; I've had better luck with joint publications than as a single author. Moreover, getting something on this published in a refereed academic journal is not on the critical path for something else I'm doing, so I'm not eager to take the lead on this but might be willing to work with someone else. DavidMCEddy (talk)`
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economy_of_the_United_States/Archive_5&oldid=1186868622"