Posted on: Monday, July 5, 2004
Money colors voters' views of election race
• | Chart: State median income numbers |
By Brian Tumulty
Gannett News Service
"We're definitely not better off than we were before," said bakery store clerk Marie Hopkins, of her and her husband.
"I'm used to living in style. Me and my husband are used to making $60,000 a year," said the 49-year-old from Parsippany, N.J.
"Both of us were laid off. And my husband has had a stroke and two heart attacks. Our rent is $785 a month. Now I'm making $200 a week, and my husband's unemployment ran out. We don't make ends meet."
At the other end of the economic spectrum, Gloria Cardenas Cudia, 54, of Rockford, Ill., has much to be optimistic about.
"We're better off financially than four years ago because I opened my own side business, which is doing well," said the owner and operator of Amor Wedding Chapel, a Las Vegas-style chapel offering weddings and quinceneara parties, which celebrate the coming of age of 15-year-old Hispanic girls.
"This is America, the land of opportunity. Anyone can be successful if they're willing to follow their dreams and work, work, work."
Although unemployment is high in her community because of manufacturers' layoffs, they haven't affected Cudia's husband, who has worked for DaimerChrysler for 37 years.
"I work by choice," she said. "I work for the extras: going to restaurants, entertainment, family events, etc. Having my own business brings in extra revenues, too."
Such contrasts were apparent in interviews with more than 130 people in 19 states from Vermont to Florida in the east to California and Hawai'i in the west. Although the interviews weren't scientific, they underscored what polls have been saying about an evenly divided electorate in this presidential election year.
Many people said their paychecks had not changed much since the previous presidential race, but they had noticed higher gas prices or cut back on some things. About 20 told of personal financial setbacks, such as losing a job that paid better than the new one. Nearly three dozen said they were better off.
Although many acknowledged awareness of an improving economy, some had lingering worries about factory closings and the export of jobs overseas.
"The statistics show the economy is getting better, but nobody really feels that," said Dottie Fay, 57, a public affairs officer from Chillicothe, Ohio. "I'm hoping we wouldn't have as many businesses leave our country, that the philosophy would change, that there would be more incentives, better incentives for businesses."
A significant minority said President Bush's tax cuts had helped them personally, and they ardently support this centerpiece of his economic agenda.
But most even some Bush supporters said the tax cuts had little or no effect on their lives.
Even though he's unemployed, 40-year-old Ernest Powers of Muncie, Ind., praised the Bush tax cuts for opening the door for more entrepreneurship. "Normally, I vote Democrat. But this time I believe President Bush is on the right track," he said.
Many of Bush's detractors are uncertain whether Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry would be much of an improvement."I'm not crazy about Kerry, but I think he shows care and concern for the working class," said Ethan Barden, 29, a teacher from Port Huron, Mich. "Bush is just indifferent to them."
Mark Zandi, chief economist of the consulting firm Economy.com in West Chester, Pa., thinks these contradictory perspectives are especially important in analyzing the American economy in 2004.
"You really have two distinct kinds of households," said Zandi, the haves and have-nots:
- Households with rising incomes vs. those that suffered a setback.
- People whose homes have appreciated dramatically vs. those living in economically troubled communities where values have stagnated.
- People who have paid down their debts vs. those who have fallen deeper into a hole.
- Those who own stocks vs. those who don't.
In looking at people's pocketbooks nationwide, Zandi's firm estimates the current median household income at $42,764 nearly $1,100 less than four years ago when adjusted for inflation. Government figures for 2003 and 2004 aren't available, but Census Bureau numbers confirm a drop from 2000 to 2002.
Family incomes and the national jobs picture have been improving for months, according to government and private economists' numbers. But the recent gains haven't caught up with the decline that occurred between 2000 and 2002.
In 20 battleground states where the presidential campaign is expected to be most heavily contested, median incomes are up in four and down in 11 since 2000.
The Bush administration thinks voters will decide, in the end, they are better off.
"I think clearly they feel a lot better today than they did four years ago," said Commerce Secretary Don Evans, who chaired President Bush's 2000 campaign and is often the administration's chief economic cheerleader.
Evans ticked off a list of positive news: "Unemployment is certainly headed in the right direction. You've got employment in the right direction. People are buying homes in record numbers. Home ownership is at an all-time historic high. Personal disposable income is up 4.3 percent the last 12 months. That's higher than the average of the '70s, the '80s and the '90s."
The Bush administration's most recent strategy has been to accuse Kerry of pessimism. But Kerry's side can point to other facts.
Where job growth has been strongest in the service sector and among small businesses pay and benefits are not as generous to workers as the manufacturing sector, where 2.7 million jobs have been lost.
"The economy can move forward and expand with the top half doing well," Zandi said. "The top half accounts for about two-thirds of all consumer spending. I don't think it can flourish with the bottom half struggling as it is."
Median income
While median household incomes in a dozen states increased in a statistically significant way from 2000 to 2004, the U.S. median half the households earn more, half earn less declined by almost $1,100, or an estimated 2 percent. That's because some populous states like California and Florida are among the 19 states and the District of Columbia where median incomes declined significantly. Here are state median income numbers for 2004, the percentage change in median household income from 2000 to 2004, and whether that change is statistically significant. Figures are in 2002 dollars: |
|||
Alabama | $38,550 | 4.2% | yes |
Alaska | 53,474 | -3.1 | yes |
Arizona | 39,813 | -4.2 | yes |
Arkansas | 33,207 | 7.1 | yes |
California | 47,689 | -2.5 | yes |
Colorado | 47,877 | -5.0 | yes |
Connecticut | 53,539 | 2.2 | no |
Delaware | 50,221 | -4.5 | yes |
D.C. | 39,862 | -7.4 | yes |
Florida | 38,002 | -6.3 | yes |
Georgia | 43,292 | -1.1 | no |
Hawai'i | 48,299 | -10.3 | yes |
Idaho | 38,478 | -2.0 | no |
Illinois | 42,705 | -11.2 | yes |
Indiana | 41,540 | -2.7 | yes |
Iowa | 42,691 | -0.3 | no |
Kansas | 43,421 | 1.3 | no |
Kentucky | 37,372 | -1.3 | no |
Louisiana | 34,683 | 8.1 | yes |
Maine | 37,492 | -3.7 | yes |
Maryland | 56,732 | -0.4 | no |
Mass. | 49,819 | 2.0 | no |
Michigan | 42,906 | -9.7 | yes |
Minnesota | 55,400 | -2.2 | no |
Mississippi | 31,769 | -11.3 | yes |
Missouri | 43,181 | -8.3 | yes |
Montana | 35,553 | 3.9 | yes |
Nebraska | 44,749 | 2.6 | no |
Nevada | 45,278 | -5.2 | yes |
N. Hampshire | 55,480 | 4.3 | yes |
New Jersey | 54,913 | 4.3 | yes |
New Mexico | 36,030 | -1.7 | no |
New York | 42,492 | -0.1 | no |
N. Carolina | 36,487 | -8.8 | yes |
N. Dakota | 38,953 | 3.6 | yes |
Ohio | 43,035 | -4.1 | yes |
Oklahoma | 37,024 | 9.3 | yes |
Oregon | 41,727 | -6.0 | yes |
Pennsylvania | 43,166 | -2.0 | no |
Rhode Island | 43,265 | -1.8 | no |
S. Carolina | 38,103 | -2.9 | no |
S. Dakota | 41,045 | 7.8 | yes |
Tennessee | 37,693 | 5.9 | yes |
Texas | 40,216 | -0.3 | no |
Utah | 47,370 | -4.6 | yes |
Vermont | 43,889 | 6.2 | yes |
Virginia | 50,058 | 1.6 | no |
Washington | 45,973 | 3.5 | yes |
West Virginia | 29,640 | -3.5 | yes |
Wisconsin | 46,508 | -1.2 | no |
Wyoming | 40,608 | -1.9 | no |
U.S. | 42,764 | -2.5 | yes |
Correction: Economy.com provided incorrect data on the U.S. median household income in 2004 for a previous version of this story and graphic.