Comparing Estimates of Family Income in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and the March Current Population Survey,

Similar documents
Comparing Estimates of Family Income in the PSID and the March Current Population Survey,

Comparing Estimates of Family Income in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and the March Current Population Survey,

PSID Technical Report. Construction and Evaluation of the 2009 Longitudinal Individual and Family Weights. June 21, 2011

Accurately Measuring the Trend in Poverty In the United States Using The Panel Study of Income Dynamics

Technical Report. Panel Study of Income Dynamics PSID Cross-sectional Individual Weights,

Assessing the PSID t-2 Income Data

Adults in Their Late 30s Most Concerned More Americans Worry about Financing Retirement

Income Inequality, Mobility and Turnover at the Top in the U.S., Gerald Auten Geoffrey Gee And Nicholas Turner

YEARLY CHANGES IN HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION AND FAMILY INCOME. Marshall L. Turner, Jr., Bureau of the Census MATCHED HOUSEHOLDS RESULTS

THE SURVEY OF INCOME AND PROGRAM PARTICIPATION MEASURING THE DURATION OF POVERTY SPELLS. No. 86

Wealth Inequality: Long-Term Trends and the Long Recession

Online Appendix: Revisiting the German Wage Structure

Demographic and Economic Characteristics of Children in Families Receiving Social Security

The Economic Consequences of a Husband s Death: Evidence from the HRS and AHEAD

Transition Events in the Dynamics of Poverty

ISSUE BRIEF. poverty threshold ($18,769) and deep poverty if their income falls below 50 percent of the poverty threshold ($9,385).

Data Appendix: What Do Survey Data Tell Us about U.S. Businesses?

Inflation Targeting and Revisions to Inflation Data: A Case Study with PCE Inflation * Calvin Price July 2011

Married to Your Health Insurance: The Relationship between Marriage, Divorce and Health Insurance.

EstimatingFederalIncomeTaxBurdens. (PSID)FamiliesUsingtheNationalBureau of EconomicResearchTAXSIMModel

Income Data for 2002: A Comparison of Eight Surveys

The 2008 Statistics on Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage by Gary Burtless THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION

Table 1 Annual Median Income of Households by Age, Selected Years 1995 to Median Income in 2008 Dollars 1

MATH , Group Project Worksheet Spring 2012

The State of Young Adult s Balance Sheets: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances

VALIDATING MORTALITY ASCERTAINMENT IN THE HEALTH AND RETIREMENT STUDY. November 3, David R. Weir Survey Research Center University of Michigan

Not All Deleveragings Are Created Equal

Comparing Survey Data to Administrative Sources: Immigration, Labour, and Demographic data from the Longitudinal and International Study of Adults

Income Progress across the American Income Distribution,

If the Economy s so Bad, Why Is the Unemployment Rate so Low?

Many studies have documented the long term trend of. Income Mobility in the United States: New Evidence from Income Tax Data. Forum on Income Mobility

Toshiko Kaneda, PhD Population Reference Bureau (PRB) James Kirby, PhD Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)

The use of linked administrative data to tackle non response and attrition in longitudinal studies

Post-Secondary Schooling and Parental Resources: Evidence from the PSID and HRS. Steven J. Haider. Michigan State University and IZA.

20 Years of School Funding Post-DeRolph Ohio Education Policy Institute August 2018

Handout 5: Summarizing Numerical Data STAT 100 Spring 2016

DEMOGRAPHIC DRIVERS. Household growth is picking up pace. With more. than a million young foreign-born adults arriving

Historical Trends in the Degree of Federal Income Tax Progressivity in the United States

THIS NOTE IS A NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY INTERNATIONAL FINANCE DISCUSSION PAPER NUMBER 582. A Note on Government Gold Policies *

Women in the Labor Force: A Databook

Effective Policy for Reducing Inequality: The Earned Income Tax Credit and the Distribution of Income

Bequests and Retirement Wealth in the United States

Most Workers in Low-Wage Labor Market Work Substantial Hours, in Volatile Jobs

THE DYNAMICS OF CHILD POVERTY IN AUSTRALIA

Poverty and Income in 2008: A Look at the New Census Data and What the Numbers Mean. Brookings Workshop. David Johnson September 10, 2009

Investment Company Institute and the Securities Industry Association. Equity Ownership

Unemployment in the Great Recession Compared to the 1980s

Pathways Fall The Supplemental. Poverty. Measure. A New Tool for Understanding U.S. Poverty. By Rebecca M. Blank

Inequality, Recessions and Recoveries. Fabrizio Perri. February 2014

The Effect of Unemployment on Household Composition and Doubling Up

Savings Services of Local Financial Institutions in Semi-Urban and Rural Thailand

GAO GENDER PAY DIFFERENCES. Progress Made, but Women Remain Overrepresented among Low-Wage Workers. Report to Congressional Requesters

The Probability of Experiencing Poverty and its Duration in Adulthood Extended Abstract for Population Association of America 2009 Annual Meeting

From Communism to Capitalism: Private Versus Public Property and Inequality in China and Russia

Nest Egg for Retirement? The Realities of Asset Holdings for Older Adults

Updated Facts on the U.S. Distributions of Earnings, Income, and Wealth

Labor-Force Participation Rate for Men and Women, Age 25 to 54, and Mothers, 1948 to 2005

CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web

UNEMPLOYMENT RATES IMPROVING IN THE DISTRICT By Caitlin Biegler

Indiana Lags United States in Per Capita Income

IMPACT OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY RETIREMENT EARNINGS TEST ON YEAR-OLDS

Trends in household wealth dynamics, Elena Gouskova and Frank Stafford. September 30, 2002

INCOME MOBILITY IN THE U.S. FROM 1996 TO 2005 REPORT OF THE

While real incomes in the lower and middle portions of the U.S. income distribution have

Trends in Income and Expenditure Inequality in the 1980s and 1990s

Estimating the Supplemental Poverty Measure from the 2014 Panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation

Social Security Reform: How Benefits Compare March 2, 2005 National Press Club

FRBSF ECONOMIC LETTER

An Investigation Into Corporate Investments

Women in the Labor Force: A Databook

A Long Road Back to Work. The Realities of Unemployment since the Great Recession

Gender Pay Differences: Progress Made, but Women Remain Overrepresented Among Low- Wage Workers

CRS Report for Congress

INCOME DISTRIBUTION DATA REVIEW - IRELAND

Household Income Trends April Issued May Gordon Green and John Coder Sentier Research, LLC

Poverty and Income Inequality in Scotland: 2013/14 A National Statistics publication for Scotland

Ruhm, C. (1991). Are Workers Permanently Scarred by Job Displacements? The American Economic Review, Vol. 81(1):

The Urban Institute. The Congressional Budget Ojice

How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty With Selected Sources of Poverty Data

The Benefits of Long-Term Care Insurance and What They Mean for Long-Term Care Financing. By LifePlans, Inc.

Issue Brief. Characteristics of the Nonelderly with Selected Sources of Health Insurance and Lengths of Uninsured Spells

Appendix G Defining Low-Income Populations

2 Exploring Univariate Data

Trends in Income Inequality in Ireland

Women in the Labor Force: A Databook

Status of Working Families in Indiana, 2015 Report

ATO Data Analysis on SMSF and APRA Superannuation Accounts

Wealth Inequality Reading Summary by Danqing Yin, Oct 8, 2018

Women in the Labor Force: A Databook

Topic 11: Measuring Inequality and Poverty

The Application of the Theory of Power Law Distributions to U.S. Wealth Accumulation INTRODUCTION DATA

Using the British Household Panel Survey to explore changes in housing tenure in England

Segmenting the Middle Market: Retirement Risks and Solutions Phase I Report Update to 2010 Data

SNAP Eligibility and Participation Dynamics: The Roles of Policy and Economic Factors from 2004 to

New Expenditure Data in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Comparisons with the Consumer Expenditure Survey Data

Incomes and inequality: the last decade and the next parliament

MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE COULD HELP CLOSE TO HALF A MILLION LOW-WAGE WORKERS Adults, Full-Time Workers Comprise Majority of Those Affected

1 PEW RESEARCH CENTER

Kerwin Kofi Charles, University of Chicago. Sheldon Danziger, University of Michigan. Geng Li, Federal Reserve Board

The Effects of State Policy Design Features on Take-up and Crowd-out Rates for the State Children s Health Insurance Program

Transcription:

Technical Series Paper #10-01 Comparing Estimates of Family Income in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and the March Current Population Survey, 1968-2007 Elena Gouskova, Patricia Andreski, and Robert F. Schoeni Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research University of Michigan March, 2010 This project was supported by funding from the National Science Foundation (SES 0518943).

Comparing Estimates of Family Income in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and the March Current Population Survey, 1968-2007 I. INTRODUCTION Elena Gouskova, Patricia Andreski, and Robert F. Schoeni Institute for Social Research University of Michigan March 2010 The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a nationally representative longitudinal study of families and individuals that began in 1968. The initial focus of the PSID was to examine dynamics of employment, earnings, and income over the life cycle through interviews with roughly 5,000 families. The PSID continues to interview many of these same families today, as well as their descendents. Although the PSID has always had a high response rate of 94-98 percent between each wave, cumulative non-response over the 39-year period is substantial. Moreover, several changes have been implemented to the PSID since the mid-1990s, including the following: Change from a Pencil and Paper Telephone Interview to a Computer- Assisted Telephone Interview in 1993; Suspension of roughly one-half of the low-income sample in 1997; Addition in 1997 of a sample of families who immigrated to the US since 1968; Switch to biannual interviewing in 1999; and A doubling of the length of the interview between 1995 and 1999. As a result, it is important to continually reassess the quality of the PSID data. In this report we investigate the quality of one of the most important data elements total family income updating through 2007 a similar report that examined these data through the 2005 wave (http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/publications/papers/tsp/2007-01_comparing_estimates_psid.pdf). One way to examine the quality of the data is to compare it with a gold standard, or a set of estimates that are widely believed to be highly accurate. For family income, such a gold standard does not exist. However, perhaps the most widely used data source for 1

cross-sectional estimates of family income in the United States is the March Current Population Survey (CPS), which is the basis for the government s official estimates of income and poverty. The objective of this study is to compare estimates of family income between the PSID and the CPS for the entire history of the PSID, survey years 1968 through 2007. Our approach is to use visualization techniques to assess qualitatively the disparities in the empirical distributions of income in the PSID and CPS. Our results show that the distributions match fairly closely in the range between the 5 th and 95 th percentiles throughout the 39-year history of the PSID; historically the PSID estimates have been somewhat higher than the CPS estimates, but the trends are quite similar. The two data sets show less agreement at the upper and lower five percentiles of the distribution. In the next section we briefly describe the data and discuss methodological difficulties related to the comparison of PSID and CPS data. The results are reported in Section III, while the final section summarizes and discusses next steps. II. DATA In the analysis we use CPS total household income data and PSID total family income data beginning in the first year that the PSID data were collected 1968 through the latest year of data 2007. All PSID income data are publicly available in the PSID Data Center (at www.psidonline.org). For the CPS we used the version of the data distributed by Unicon Research Corporation (www.unicon.com). The annual PSID sample size ranges from about 5,000 to 8,000 families. The corresponding numbers for CPS samples of households are roughly 46,000 to 80,000. Because of its large sample, the CPS is able to capture distributional characteristics of the whole population relatively accurately. To correct for the non-randomness in both data sets, weights are used to calculate all estimates. For the PSID, the core family weights are used. In the PSID analysis we analyzed the sample of core families, i.e. families directly related to the original sample of 1968 plus the immigrant sample added in 1997; the Latino sample that was interviewed from 1990 to 1995 was not included. Both surveys collect income during the calendar year prior to the year in which the data were collected. For example, the (survey year) 2007 March CPS collects data on 2

income received during (income year) 2006. All estimates are expressed in constant 2006 dollars using the CPI-U. (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt). The comparison of PSID and CPS data is not straightforward. The major difficulty is that the surveys use different definitions of family. This difference comes from the fact that the PSID is a longitudinal study following the same set of families over nearly 40 years. In order to do this successfully the PSID adopted a definition of family that fits the study design. As a result, the PSID definition of family is broader, encompassing unmarried couples living together and sharing resources as well as single-person families. In order to obtain the most comparable estimates of income, we base our analysis on the CPS household unit rather then on the family unit. The definition of CPS household comes closer to matching PSID family than does CPS family. However, while close, the PSID family and the CPS household are still not the same concepts. First, not all people living within a household that contains a PSID family are members of that family. Furthermore, the PSID does not collect information on income of household members who are not members of the PSID family. For this reason we would expect the PSID estimate of family income to be lower than the CPS estimate of household income. One of the other major differences between the CPS definition of household and the PSID concept of a family is represented by cases where one or more PSID families reside in the same household. This happens, for example, when a grown child marries and leaves the parental home to live independently, but then eventually comes back to live with their parents. It is PSID practice to treat the parent s family and the new adult child s family (even if it consists of a single person) as separate families and obtain full, independent interviews from both of them. When the PSID began in 1968 each PSID household had only one PSID family. But over time as family members split up and then joined back together again, the share of PSID family units living in a household with another PSID family unit began to rise. Since about the late 1970s, roughly 4 to 9 percent of PSID families lived in the same household as another PSID family (Table 1). The drop in 1997 is explained by the fact that after 1996 approximately 2,000 low-income families were dropped from the study. This drop also suggests that the practice of living in the same dwelling is more likely 3

among low-income families. The drop in 1994 is due to the fact that a large number of families that had attrited prior to 1993 were brought back into the PSID in this year. During this effort to bring back attriting families, it was also decided that if there were more than one PSID attriting family living in the same household, only one interview would be conducted, thereby merging all family units into one. In order to account for the fact that more than one PSID family unit may live in the same household, we aggregated income for all family units living together; we refer to this new measure of income as PSID aggregated family income. We use the term aggregated family rather than household to underscore the fact that this unit still does not represent a household as defined by the CPS. For the aggregated families, we used a simple average of the weights of these families to serve as their weights in all analyses reported in this study. III. RESULTS PSID Aggregate Income Versus PSID Family Income The first step is to aggregate income for PSID households with more than one PSID family. A comparison of the 50 th percentile of the distribution of total family income and total aggregated family income is shown in Figure 1. After the late-1970s, on average, aggregated family income is about 5 percent higher. In a prior study using data through the 2005 wave ((http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/publications/papers/tsp/2007-01_comparing_estimates_psid.pdf)), we investigated the extent to which the increase due to aggregating family income is larger for low versus high income families. We restate the findings here which are summarized in Figure 2, panels A-C. In panel A we plot the ratio of aggregated family income to unaggregated family income for the 5 th percentile versus the 90 th percentile; each income year 1967-2004 generates a combination of estimates for the 5 th and 90 th percentiles, so there are 34 data points on the chart (because PSID began interviewing biannually after 1997). We see that at the bottom 5 th percentile, the ratio ranges from 1.0 (typically in the first 5-10 years of PSID interviewing before PSID families began co-residing) to 1.15, with a substantial number of years between 1.05 and 1.10. Aggregating is much less important (in relative terms) 4

for the higher income families, with aggregated income never more than 5 percent higher than unaggregated income. As a result, almost all of the data points fall below the 45- degree line in Panel A; that is, aggregating income among households with more than one PSID family is more important for the bottom of the income distribution than the top. Panels B and C plot the 5 th percentile versus the 50 th and 30 th percentiles, respectively, to determine whether aggregating income is only important for the very poorest families. We find that for many years aggregation is actually more important for families at the median of the distribution than for families at the 5 th percentile. The evidence is even stronger at the 30 th percentile. In sum, aggregation of families within the same household is quite important for the poorest families, of relatively little importance for the highest income families, but also of importance for middle-income families. PSID Versus CPS The central objective of the study is to compare different percentiles of the distribution of total aggregate family income in the PSID with total household income in the CPS. The official tabulations of the 20 th, 40 th, 60 th, 80 th and 95 th household income percentiles based on the CPS are provided by US Census Bureau. 1 For our analysis we want to compare the full distribution, not just these five percentiles. Therefore, we have calculated our own estimates based on the CPS. To make sure that we are using the CPS data appropriately, we first compared our calculations with the published tabulations, and this comparison is displayed in Table 2. For almost every year and percentile, our estimates are within 1 percent of the published tabulations. Therefore, we proceed to examine additional points in the income distribution. The results of the analysis are summarized in Figures 3A-3D for various points in the income distribution. The PSID and CPS track each other fairly closely throughout the 39 years of the panel study. Moreover, this result is true for all points in the distribution between, roughly, the 5 th and 95 th percentile. It is only the tails of the distribution where the estimates diverge substantially. Two exceptions should be noted. First, the PSID estimate for income (survey) year 1992 (1993) is unusually high relative to both the CPS for 1992 and the PSID in 1991 1 These estimates are available at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h01ar.html. 5

and 1993. This divergence is especially large for the 70 th and 80 th percentiles. Second, the peak of the boom in the late 1980s was 1989 according to the CPS, while for the PSID the peak was 1-2 years earlier at most percentiles. IV. CONCLUSIONS This report examines the comparability of the estimates of total family/household income reported in the PSID and the CPS. At almost all points in the distribution, we find that the estimates based on the PSID are higher than the estimates based on the CPS. Moreover, the magnitude of the gap is fairly constant through the 39-year history of the PSID. While there are some unexplained differences that need to be investigated, the close agreement in the trends is remarkable given the substantial differences between the two surveys and the amount of change that both surveys have undergone during the past four decades. 6

Table 1. Share of PSID Families Living in the Same Household as Another PSID Family Survey year Percent Year Percent 1968 0.0% 1985 8.8% 1969 0.0% 1986 8.5% 1970 0.0% 1987 8.4% 1971 0.3% 1988 8.8% 1972 1.0% 1989 9.1% 1973 2.5% 1990 8.3% 1974 2.0% 1991 8.6% 1975 2.9% 1992 9.3% 1976 3.1% 1993 9.1% 1977 3.6% 1994 6.7% 1978 4.3% 1995 7.1% 1979 4.0% 1996 7.3% 1980 6.5% 1997 4.7% 1981 7.6% 1999 4.5% 1982 8.8% 2001 4.8% 1983 8.9% 2003 5.4% 1984 8.7% 2005 6.1% 2007 6.3% 7

Table 2. Income Limites for Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of households Calculated with CPS Data 20th Percentile 40th Percentile 60th Percentile 80th Percentile 95th Percentile Income year Our Estimate Ratio* Our Estimate Ratio* Our Estimate Ratio* Our Estimate Ratio* Our Estimate Ratio* 1967 3,000 1.00 5,800 1.01 8,254 1.01 11,700 1.01 18,200 1.04 1968 3,323 1.00 6,300 1.00 9,030 1.00 12,688 1.00 19,850 1.00 1969 3,600 0.99 6,884 1.00 9,937 1.00 13,900 1.00 21,769 1.00 1970 3,687 1.00 7,065 1.00 10,276 1.00 14,661 1.00 23,175 1.00 1971 3,800 1.00 7,244 1.00 10,660 1.00 15,200 1.00 24,138 1.00 1972 4,050 1.00 7,800 1.00 11,530 1.00 16,500 1.00 26,560 1.00 1973 4,418 1.00 8,393 1.01 12,450 1.00 17,985 1.00 28,509 1.02 1974 4,758 1.02 8,943 1.01 13,143 1.01 19,048 1.01 30,280 1.01 1975 5,000 1.00 9,384 1.00 14,180 1.00 20,360 1.00 32,129 1.00 1976 5,405 1.00 10,070 1.00 15,340 1.00 22,070 1.00 35,000 1.00 1977 5,734 1.00 10,800 1.00 16,462 1.00 24,000 1.00 38,000 1.00 1978 6,318 1.00 11,946 1.00 18,075 1.00 26,288 1.00 42,050 1.00 1979 7,000 1.00 13,024 1.00 20,030 1.00 29,067 1.00 47,000 1.00 1980 7,478 1.00 14,020 1.00 21,500 1.00 31,474 1.00 50,300 1.01 1981 8,024 1.00 15,000 1.00 23,200 1.00 34,300 1.00 55,200 1.00 1982 8,400 1.00 15,976 1.00 24,410 1.00 36,398 1.00 60,040 1.00 1983 8,819 1.01 16,500 1.01 25,379 1.01 38,325 1.01 62,835 1.01 1984 9,500 1.00 17,780 1.00 27,393 1.00 41,380 1.00 68,500 1.00 1985 9,941 1.00 18,704 1.00 28,975 1.00 43,550 1.00 72,004 1.00 1986 10,247 1.00 19,600 1.00 30,419 1.00 45,950 1.00 77,091 1.00 1987 10,800 1.00 20,500 1.00 32,000 1.00 48,363 1.00 80,928 1.00 1988 11,382 1.00 21,500 1.00 33,506 1.00 50,593 1.00 85,640 1.00 1989 12,096 1.00 23,000 1.00 35,350 1.00 53,710 1.00 91,733 1.00 1990 12,500 1.00 23,662 1.00 36,200 1.00 55,205 1.00 94,700 1.00 1991 12,588 1.00 24,000 1.00 37,070 1.00 56,760 1.00 96,399 1.00 1992 12,664 0.99 24,300 0.99 38,000 1.00 58,200 1.00 99,270 1.00 1993 12,967 1.00 24,679 1.00 38,793 1.00 60,300 1.00 102,800 1.02 1994 13,426 1.00 25,200 1.00 40,100 1.00 62,841 1.00 106,546 1.03 1995 14,400 1.00 26,914 1.00 42,004 1.00 65,276 1.00 113,942 0.99 1996 14,768 1.00 27,760 1.00 44,012 1.00 68,150 1.00 119,834 1.00 1997 15,400 1.00 29,200 1.00 46,000 1.00 71,700 1.00 127,590 0.99 1998 16,116 1.00 30,412 1.00 48,509 1.00 75,400 0.99 132,876 0.99 1999 17,196 1.00 32,000 1.00 50,685 0.99 80,000 0.99 142,894 0.99 2000 17,920 1.00 33,004 1.00 52,372 1.00 82,250 0.99 146,825 0.99 2001 17,974 1.00 33,350 1.00 53,150 1.00 84,135 0.99 151,370 0.99 2002 17,916 1.00 33,396 1.00 53,300 1.00 84,322 1.00 150,450 1.00 2003 17,984 1.00 34,000 1.00 54,608 1.00 87,140 1.00 154,953 0.99 2004 18,500 1.00 34,761 1.00 55,600 0.99 88,334 1.00 157,350 1.00 2005 19,100 1.00 36,000 1.00 57,838 1.00 92,048 1.00 166,000 1.00 2006 20,010 1.00 37,812 1.00 60,014 1.00 97,413 1.00 174,020 1.00 "Our estimate" is the estimate we calculated using the CPS microfiles. "Ratio" is the ratio of the published census estimate to "our estimate." 8

Figure 1. PSID Family Income and PSID Aggregated Family Income, 50 th Percentile: 1967-2006 60,000 50,000 Annual Income (2006 $) 40,000 30,000 20,000 PSID Aggregated Family PSID Family 10,000 0 9

Figure 2. Plots of Relative Values (PSID Aggregate Family Income/PSID Family Income) for Different Percentiles [Each point is a given year, 1967-2004] Panel A: 90th Percentile vs 5th Percentile Panel B: 50th Percentile vs 5th Percentile 1.20 1.20 1.15 1.15 90th percentile 1.10 1.05 50th percentile 1.10 1.05 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 5th percentile 5th percentile Panel C: 30th Percentile vs 5th Percentile 1.20 1.15 30th percentile 1.10 1.05 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 5th percentile 10

Figure 3A. 10 th -40 th Percentiles of PSID Aggregated Family Income and CPS Household Income, 1967-2006 [Top (blue/dotted) line=psid; Bottom (purple/solid) line=cps] 45,000 40,000 40th percentile Annual Income (2006 $) 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 30th percentile 20th percentile 10,000 5,000 10th percentile 0 Income Year 11

Figure 3B. 50 th -80 th Percentiles of PSID Aggregated Family Income and CPS Household Income, 1967-2006 [Top (blue/dotted) line=psid; Bottom (purple/solid) line=cps] 120,000 100,000 80th percentile 80,000 70th percentile 60,000 60th percentile 40,000 50th percentile 20,000 0 Income Year 12

Figure 3C. 1 st -5 th Percentiles of PSID Aggregated Family Income and CPS Household Income, 1967-2006 [Top (blue/dotted) line=psid; Bottom (purple/solid) line=cps] 12,000 10,000 5th percentile 8,000 6,000 4,000 3rd percentile 2,000 0 1st percentile Income Year 13

Figure 3D. 90 th -99 th Percentiles of PSID Aggregated Family Income and CPS Household Income, 1967-2006 [Top (blue/dotted) line=psid; Bottom (purple/solid) line=cps] 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 99th percentile 250,000 200,000 97th percentile 150,000 100,000 90th percentile 50,000 0 Income Year 14

15