Thursday, September 18, 2025

The official poverty rate fell 0.4 percentage points to 10.6% in 2024

See Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2024 from the U.S. Census Bureau. This was a press release from 9-9-25. Excerpts:

"The U.S. Census Bureau today announced that real median household income was $83,730 in 2024, not statistically different from the 2023 estimate of $82,690. The official poverty rate fell 0.4 percentage points to 10.6% in 2024."

  • Median household income was $83,730 in 2024, not statistically different from the 2023 estimate of $82,690.
  • Between 2023 and 2024, median income increased by 5.1% for Asian households and 5.5% for Hispanic households, while it declined by 3.3% for Black households. Median income did not change significantly for White or White non-Hispanic households. (The difference between the 2023-2024 percentage change in median household income for Asian householders and Hispanic householders was not statistically significant.)
  • Income inequality as measured by the Gini index was not significantly different between 2023 and 2024.
  • Household income at the 90th percentile increased 4.2%, but did not significantly change at the 10th and 50th percentiles between 2023 and 2024. 
  • In 2024, the official poverty rate fell 0.4 percentage points to 10.6%. There were 35.9 million people in poverty in 2024.
  • Between 2023 and 2024, the official poverty rate decreased for White, Asian and Hispanic individuals, but did not change significantly for other race groups discussed in the report. 

The 10.6% poverty rate is the 2nd lowest official poverty rate since 1959 when the Census Bureau first started reporting it. The lowest ever was the  10.5% in 2019. See Historical Poverty Tables: People and Families - 1959 to 2024. Then click on Table 2. Poverty Status of People by Family Relationship, Race, and Hispanic Origin. It is an Excel file.

See Historical Income Tables: Families from the Census Bureau. They also have a link for Gini coefficients for family income going back to 1947. See also Historical Income Tables: Households. See also Historical Poverty Tables: People and Families - 1959 to 2024. These Census Bureau links will take you to tables on poverty, incomes and inequality (the Gini coefficient measures inequality). Also see  Income & Poverty Data Tables.

Below are two timeline charts from the Census Bureau. One has income and the other has the poverty rate 

 

 

Related posts:

U.S. Incomes Climbed Last Year, Census Bureau Says (poverty fell and inequality was little changed): Household incomes rose 4% from 2022 to 2023, the first rise since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic (2024) 

Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2022 (2023)

U.S. Incomes Fail to Grow for Second Year in a Row, Census Figures Show (2022)

The Level and Trend of Poverty in the United States, 1939-1979 (2018)

More On Poverty (2012)

What has happened to the distribution of wealth in recent years? (2011)

Some Possibly Surprising Facts About Poverty (2012)

The U. S. Poverty Rate Was 10.5% in 2019, An All-Time Low (2020)

Mean Family Income By Quintiles (2017) 

Tuesday, September 16, 2025

Is it dangerous to say that entrepreneurs are heroes? (Part 2)

This is an addition to yesterday's post Is it dangerous to say that entrepreneurs are heroes?

See Does Congruence with an Entrepreneur Social Identity Encourage Positive Emotion Under Environmental Dynamism? by Charles Murnieks, Jeffery S. McMullen & Melissa S. Cardon. From 2017.

Here are excerpts. The part where they mention heroes is mentioned it is in bold red. Where they mention my name is in bold blue within the red.

"Introduction 

Comparative mythologist Joseph Campbell (1949) suggests that most cultures have some version of a “mono-myth,” which describes a journey that heroic individuals undertake in pursuit of a valuable goal amidst highly uncertain or perilous conditions. At the beginning of this journey, the protagonist rarely perceives himself as heroic, and is reluctant to depart on his quest because the dangers involved seem overwhelming. However, as the journey unfolds, the protagonist undergoes a transformation. By experiencing trials and tribulation, and successfully overcoming challenges, the protagonist becomes a hero. He experiences elation at achieving his goal despite tremendous adversity, and begins to view himself differently in the process. The mono-myth narrative is informative because it highlights the tension between the hero and a hostile environment. Even though the hero is afraid and reluctant to embark on the journey, the environment is fundamental in helping him to develop. By achieving his goal despite adversity, he feels heroic. Ironically, the intense hostility of the environment is actually what makes the story compelling, because it creates a background against which the protagonist’s actions are viewed as difficult and ultimately valiant, instead of mundane and ordinary.

Entrepreneurship scholars highlight similarities between Campbell’s mythological hero and the entrepreneur of entrepreneurship theory (Catford and Ray 1991; McMullen and Dimov 2013; Morong 1994). Morong (1994), in particular, illustrates how Schumpeter’s existentialistic portrayal of the entrepreneur offers an economic equivalent of Campbell’s archetype. Schumpeter’s (1934) entrepreneur undertakes a journey into an environment filled with uncertainty and peril where others fear to tread. Theoretical portrayals of the entrepreneur, such as Schumpeter’s (1934) or Knight’s (1921), are not isolated musings; they are part of the progressive revelation of the entrepreneur’s economic role in a market-based society. 

Although we employ the mono-myth narrative to emphasize the importance of the environment in the self-construal of the entrepreneur, we are mindful of scholars who caution against taking this metaphor too far and characterizing entrepreneurs as iconic superheroes imbued with extraordinary qualities (Ogbor 2000; Williams and Nadin 2013). They warn that entrepreneurs are not atomistic agents of change isolated from social influence (Dodd and Anderson 2007). They also remind us of the body of trait research that has failed to define the psychological profile of the fabled entrepreneurial “hero” (Gartner 1989). Perhaps most relevant to our investigation, these scholars caution against undersocialized methodologies that favor mythical depictions while ignoring consideration of the surrounding environment and how it impacts the entrepreneur’s journey. We wholly concur that entrepreneurship is more than an individualistic act and entrepreneurs themselves must be studied as social animals connected to context (Bruyat and Julien 2001; Dodd and Anderson 2007). Our reference to the mono-myth is meant to reinforce the idea that entrepreneurs do not develop their self-portrayals absent external input. Rather, the opposite is true; their selfperception is tied to their surroundings. Despite the emergence of studies that are beginning to explore how socio-environmental factors influence entrepreneurs (e.g., Fauchart and Gruber 2011; Powell and Baker 2014), significant gaps still exist concerning the black box of different facets that are influenced and the manner in which these interactions occur. An empirical void still surrounds the specific constructs involved and the nature of their relationships. We address these gaps, by focusing explicitly on entrepreneur social identities and the positive emotions they generate. This approach is valuable because it integrates social influences (in the form of social identities) and environmental factors to determine how they impact one very specific, and important, aspect of the entrepreneurial journey: the feelings the individual experiences as s/ he works to found a new enterprise. 

Social identities are cognitive schemas that incorporate meaning and expectations into social structure, thus translating general prescriptions for perception and feeling into specific imperatives at the individual level (Mead 1934; Stryker and Burke 2000). The entrepreneur social identity encompasses a host of characteristics that demarcate it from others in society. For this study, we concentrate on entrepreneur social identities defined by a connection to creating and founding1 new organizations (Bruyat and Julien 2001; Gartner 1989, 1990). We contend that as individuals grow closer to the prototype of the entrepreneur social identity, positive emotion (PE) is generated. Moreover, we posit that the environment plays a key role in how the individual interprets the journey toward achieving congruence with the entrepreneur social identity. Thus, this paper addresses two primary research questions: (1) what is the effect of social identity congruence on entrepreneurs’ positive emotions, and (2) how does environmental dynamism moderate this relationship? 

In a manner analogous to the mono-myth narrative, we argue that dynamic environments which appear turbulent may facilitate an individual’s entrepreneurial journey. Whereas environmental dynamism is a deterrent to the average everyman, it may increase the PE generated among entrepreneurs. Our logic draws from other social identities that call on actors to exhibit prototypical characteristics within perilous environments. For example, soldiers and firemen both seek to conform to their social identities despite threats to their own lives inherent in doing so. Their assumption of the characteristics prototypical of these identities is made heroic to some extent by the environment in which they operate. Typically, carrying a child out of a house on a normal day may not be viewed as valiant or result in high levels of PE. However, undertaking this action in a war zone, or when a house is burning and engulfed in flames, changes the meaning of the action as well as the generation of emotion. In this sense, achieving congruence with the social identity of a soldier or a fireman, amidst a challenging environment, yields higher positive emotion. In fact, it is possible that this PE satisfies “the need to feel alive” which Campbell claims underlies life’s vicissitudes and results from overcoming one’s fears to act courageously in the face of daunting surroundings." 

"Conclusion 

Our purpose in this study was to undertake an empirical investigation of the interaction between how entrepreneurs view themselves and how the external environment acts to influence those perceptions. Our findings lend credence to the fact that positive emotion among individual entrepreneurs is influenced by the congruence an individual experiences between their self-concept and the social identity of entrepreneur, an effect that is heightened by environmental dynamism. We take up the line of research initiated by Farmer, Yao, and KungMcintyre (2011) into entrepreneur identities, and hope to open the door to further empirical investigations into the burgeoning theories and questions that are developing in this stream. Some scholars suggest that civilization is a story about our endless attempt to reduce uncertainty and control our environment (North 2005). This highlights the importance the environment plays in our own existential struggle to achieve effectance. Indeed, Campbell (1949) argues that our primal drive is not the will to pleasure or power, but rather the simple desire to feel alive and that this comes from overcoming uncertainty."

Monday, September 15, 2025

Is it dangerous to say that entrepreneurs are heroes?

Back in the early 1990s, I wrote a paper called "The Creative-Destroyers: Are Entrepreneurs Mythological Heroes?"  

A reviewer at a journal said "The conclusion that entrepreneurs are heroes seems to be very dangerous!" That was in 1993.

There is a picture of this review below. After that is a link to where I posted this paper here on my blog. Then there are also links to the many people have said that entrepreneurs are heroes.

 

"The Creative-Destroyers: Are Entrepreneurs Mythological Heroes?" (Part 1). I posted it in several parts and all of the parts are linked at Part 1. For a short, one page version see An Essay In Honor Of "Small Business Saturday" And Entrepreneurs Everywhere.

Many people over the years have said that entrepreneurs are heroes.

Are we confounding heroism and individualism? Entrepreneurs may not be lone rangers, but they are heroic nonetheless by Jeffery S. McMullen in 2017.

See The Entrepreneur on the Heroic Journey by Dwight R. Lee & Candace Allen in 1997.

See Kirzner’s Entrepreneur and the Hero’s Journey by Amir Iraji in 2025.

See Towards a mythic process philosophy of entrepreneurship by Lauri J. Laine & Ewald Kibler. 

See  Who Says Entrepreneurs Are Heroes? (Remarks prepared for the first HERO'S JOURNEY ENTREPRENEURSHIP FESTIVAL, March 31st, 2007 at Pepperdine University). You can also read it here. This has even more people who have said it.

See Does It Matter If We Call Entrepreneurs Heroes? This also has more people who have said it.

Sunday, September 14, 2025

Health Insurance Costs for Businesses to Rise by Most in 15 Years

Insurers say that the rising premiums are driven by growing healthcare costs

By Anna Wilde Mathews of The WSJ

Any time the cost of producing a good or service rises the price consumers pay will rise.

Excerpts from the article:

"Costs for employer coverage are expected to surge about 9.5% in 2026, according to an estimate from Aon, while an employer survey by WTW suggested 9.2%."

"the recent average of roughly $25,500 for a family plan."

"Insurers say rising premiums for health coverage are driven by the growing cost of healthcare. The causes include higher prices for hospital care, expanding use of services—due in part to higher prevalence of conditions such as cancer in the working-age population—and pricey drugs, including the popular weight-loss and diabetes treatments known as GLP-1s.

Employers are moving to blunt the spike, and tactics such as changing plan designs are likely to shave a percentage point or two from the average increase, the benefits firms said. Some are pushing more costs to employees through larger payroll deductions for premiums or higher out-of-pocket charges such as deductibles."

"60% [of larger employers] were planning to look at replacing their health insurer or pharmacy-benefit manager in the next few years. It also found that nearly a third of employers surveyed are giving priority to new plan designs that could include changes such as limits on access to certain doctors or hospitals." 

"Rising employer healthcare costs are driven in part by the continuing impact of inflation, which has been playing out in higher prices negotiated by hospital systems. New, higher-cost drug therapies, including the GLP-1s, are also raising spending, insurers and benefits consultants say."

"Americans are using more healthcare services, partly due to rising care for serious health issues such as cancer, cardiovascular conditions such as atrial fibrillation, and musculo-skeletal problems that can lead to lower-back and joint procedures"

"Diseases that we usually thought of as for elderly, we’re seeing more and more in a younger, working-age population"

Related posts:
 
 
 
The EU forbids the use of gender to help calculate car insurance premiums, leading women to pay more and men to pay less (2021)
 
 

Some History of Insurance (2019

Technology Was Supposed to Transform Insurance Pricing. It Hasn’t (2023) 

Obscure Model Puts a Price on Good Health—and Drives Down Drug Costs (2020)

Pharmacy-benefit managers and drug prices (2023)

Patients Lose Access to Free Medicines Amid Spat Between Drugmakers, Health Plans  (2023)

Employers Cut Off Access to Weight-Loss Drugs for Workers  (2023)

Home Insurance Is So High in This Florida Town, Residents Are Leaving (2023) 

Nice EV You Got There—Can You Afford to Insure It? EVs are fast and full of technology. That makes them fun to drive but tougher to insure (2024)

New type of insurance protects against porch pirates (2024)

Social media, insurance and asymmetric information (2019)

California to Toughen Rules on Group Discounts for Car Insurance (2020)

Saturday, September 13, 2025

There Is Now Clearer Evidence AI Is Wrecking Young Americans’ Job Prospects (but the news is not all bad)

Young workers face rising AI competition in fields like software development, but some also benefit from AI as a helper, new research shows

By Justin Lahart of The WSJ. Excerpts:

"Young workers are getting hit in fields where generative-AI tools such as ChatGPT can most easily automate tasks done by humans, such as software development"

[ther is] "evidence that in fields where AI can help people in their work, rather than replace them, employment among young people is improving."

"ChatGPT rolled out during a period when the Federal Reserve was curbing economic growth by sharply raising interest rates, and job growth was moderating from the pandemic-related hiring surge. The new research helps tease out the AI impact from those other factors." [a reminder about ceteris paribus, to hold all other factors constant]

"areas where AI can automate many of the tasks workers perform . . . such as software developers, receptionists, translators and customer service representatives . . . : Overall employment in those categories has softened since late 2022 relative to other occupations"

"Among software developers aged 22 to 25, for example, the head count was nearly 20% lower this July versus its late 2022 peak."

"Other factors could be hitting those computer-science jobs, including a general slump in employment at technology companies or pandemic-related education disruptions. But the data suggest such possibilities can’t explain away the AI effect on other types of jobs."

[the study was] "also able to rule out other factors that might skew the data, such as the interest-rate sensitivity of different businesses"

"AI might help medical professionals make accurate diagnoses more quickly"

"occupations where researchers have found AI could act as a helper, rather than a replacement, actually saw employment growth that exceeded overall employment"

Related posts:

AI Is Forcing the Return of the In-Person Job Interview: More companies are returning to face-to-face meetings to counter cheating by candidates—and more ominous digital threats (2025) 

AI’s Overlooked $97 Billion Contribution to the Economy: The AI ‘dividend’ may not be evident yet in estimates of gross domestic product but it’s making life better and more productive (2025) 

AI Is Wrecking an Already Fragile Job Market for College Graduates (is the problem structural Unemployment & the case of a skills mismatch?) Companies have long leaned on entry-level workers to do grunt work that doubles as on-the-job training. Now ChatGPT and other bots can do many of those chores (2025) 

No, AI Robots Won’t Take All Our Jobs: Instead, they will boost productivity, lower prices and spur the evolution of the labor market (2025) 

IBM CEO Says AI Has Replaced Hundreds of Workers but Created New Programming, Sales Jobs: The tech company promises higher total employment as it reinvests resources toward roles like software development (2025)

Technological Disruption in the Labor Market (2025)

Why AI Might Not Take All Our Jobs—if We Act Quickly (2025)

Some good news on productivity (2025) (AI is mentioned)

Some economics of A.I. (2025) 

The AI-Generated Population Is Here, and They’re Ready to Work (2024)

Robots writing science fiction (2024) 

Will technology cost artists their job? (2023)

“Why did the human stare at the glass of orange juice?” “They were trying to concentrate.” (2023) (Partly about AI being used to tell jokes)

The $900,000 AI Job Is Here (2023) 

Prompt engineers chat with generative-AI chatbots (creative destruction and how the economy just keeps creating new types of occupations & professions) (2023)

Are robots writing fake product reviews? (2022)

What if companies can't afford real models for their ads? Use AI generated fake pictures (2020) 

An AI Breaks the Writing Barrier (2020) 

What Econ 101 Can Teach Us About Artificial Intelligence: Here's why advancing technology often leads to more jobs for humans, not fewer (2017)  

Thursday, September 11, 2025

The Seasonally Adjusted CPI Was Up 0.3825% In August

Here are the changes in the seasonally adjusted CPI each of the last six months: 

Mar -0.0500%
April 0.2209%
May  0.0810%
June 0.2870%
July 0.1966%
Aug 0.3825%
 
The last decline before March 2025 was June 2024 when it was down 0.0029%.
 
See Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All Items in U.S. City Average from FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data) compiled by the Research Division at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis for data on the seasonally adjusted CPI.
 
That site shows a graph but if you click on the Download button you will get the actual numbers in Microsoft Excel.
 
The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All Items in U.S. City Average (CPIAUCSL) was 323.364 in Aug. and 322.132 in July. Since 323.364/322.132 = 1.003825, that means it was up 0.3825%. If we had that every month for 12 months it would be up 4.69%.
 
It was 314.131 in Aug. 2024. Since 323.364/314.131 = 1.0294, that means it was up 2.94% over the last 12 months.
 
The non-seasonally adjusted CPI was 323.976 in Aug. and 314.796 in Aug. 2024. That was up 2.92%. So pretty close to the seasonally adjusted CPI. This is still above the Fed's target of 2.0% (although they prefer to use the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index which was 2.6% higher in July 2025 than July 2024).
 
For more information, see Consumer prices rose at annual rate of 2.9% in August, as weekly jobless claims jump by Jeff Cox of CNBC. Excerpts: 

"The consumer price index posted a seasonally adjusted 0.4% increase for the month, the biggest gain since January, putting the annual inflation rate at 2.9%, up 0.2 percentage point from the prior month and the highest reading since January. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been looking for respective readings of 0.3% and 2.9%.

For the vital core reading that excludes food and energy, the August gain was 0.3%, putting the 12-month figure at 3.1%, both as forecast." 

The article also discusses what types of products are going up in price and what is going down. There is a graph of the monthly year-over-year percent change in prices and core prices going back almost 4 years. 

Other related links:
 
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All Items Less Food and Energy in U.S. City Average (CPILFESL) This is also from from FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data), compiled by the Research Division at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. It has the seasonally adjusted core CPI.
 
 
 
The Bureau of Labor Statistics makes seasonal adjustments. See Consumer Price Index Summary.
 
The table below has the annual inflation rate since 1914 in the columns labeled CPI %Ch. or CPI percentage change. It is from Consumer Price Index Data from 1913 to 2025 and is not seasonally adjusted. It is also the December to December change in the CPI. That site also looks at how the 12 month average for the CPI changed from one year to the next.

Year

CPI %Ch.

 

Year

CPI %Ch.

 

Year

CPI %Ch.

 

Year

CPI %Ch.

1914

1

 

1944

2.3

 

1974

12.3

 

2004

3.3

1915

2

 

1945

2.2

 

1975

6.9

 

2005

3.4

1916

12.6

 

1946

18.1

 

1976

4.9

 

2006

2.5

1917

18.1

 

1947

8.8

 

1977

6.7

 

2007

4.1

1918

20.4

 

1948

3

 

1978

9

 

2008

0.1

1919

14.5

 

1949

-2.1

 

1979

13.3

 

2009

2.7

1920

2.6

 

1950

5.9

 

1980

12.5

 

2010

1.5

1921

-10.8

 

1951

6

 

1981

8.9

 

2011

3

1922

-2.3

 

1952

0.8

 

1982

3.8

 

2012

1.7

1923

2.4

 

1953

0.7

 

1983

3.8

 

2013

1.5

1924

0

 

1954

-0.7

 

1984

3.9

 

2014

0.8

1925

3.5

 

1955

0.4

 

1985

3.8

 

2015

0.7

1926

-1.1

 

1956

3

 

1986

1.1

 

2016

2.1

1927

-2.3

 

1957

2.9

 

1987

4.4

 

2017

2.1

1928

-1.2

 

1958

1.8

 

1988

4.4

 

2018

1.9

1929

0.6

 

1959

1.7

 

1989

4.6

 

2019

2.3

1930

-6.4

 

1960

1.4

 

1990

6.1

 

2020

1.4

1931

-9.3

 

1961

0.7

 

1991

3.1

 

2021

7

1932

-10.3

 

1962

1.3

 

1992

2.9

 

2022

6.5

1933

0.8

 

1963

1.6

 

1993

2.7

 

2023

3.4

1934

1.5

 

1964

1

 

1994

2.7

 

2024

2.9

1935

3

 

1965

1.9

 

1995

2.5

 

 

 

1936

1.4

 

1966

3.5

 

1996

3.3

 

 

 

1937

2.9

 

1967

3

 

1997

1.7

 

 

 

1938

-2.8

 

1968

4.7

 

1998

1.6

 

 

 

1939

0

 

1969

6.2

 

1999

2.7

 

 

 

1940

0.7

 

1970

5.6

 

2000

3.4

 

 

 

1941

9.9

 

1971

3.3

 

2001

1.6

 

 

 

1942

9

 

1972

3.4

 

2002

2.4

 

 

 

1943

3

 

1973

8.7

 

2003

1.9

 

 

 

Here is a timeline graph of this data: