Renters’ Incomes Have Increased About 63% Since 1960

A few months ago I linked to a widely-cited report saying that renters’ incomes have increased by only 5% since 1960. This seemed unlikely since every single income group has recorded far higher growth rates during this period. It also wasn’t clear to me how the report calculated “renters’ incomes” in the first place.

But today is our lucky day! This kind of data is (I assume) available via an analysis of census microdata, but that’s well above my pay grade. However, while poking around the Consumer Expenditure Survey I discovered that every year they report incomes of renters and homeowners. They report only means, not medians, but I estimated medians based on normal census income figures. This probably understates the actual median income, but that’s OK since we’re mostly interested in growth. Here’s the chart:

This only goes back to 1985, but it shows that median renter income has increased about 16 percent since then, though there was a very long period of flatness in there. Renter income increased about 5 percentage points from 1985-2011, and about 11 points since 2014.

Now, this doesn’t tell us anything about the increase since 1960, but it’s hardly possible that it’s lower. The ’60s were a period of strong income growth: even the lowest income groups—which correlate very well with renters’ income—saw increases of 45 percent from 1960-73 and then a decline of 5 percent between 1973-82. With these numbers in hand, here’s my best estimate of the growth of renters’ incomes since 1960:

From 1973 through 2011 growth was basically zero. But the ’60s showed strong growth and so have the past few years. Put it all together, and renters’ incomes have grown somewhere in the neighborhood of 63 percent, maybe more. It’s certainly a far cry from 5 percent.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate