How do per‑capita GDP and median wage growth compare under Trump and Biden after adjusting for inflation?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Per‑capita GDP rose under both administrations but the pattern reflects different starting points and large pandemic and post‑pandemic swings: analysts find real GDP and GDP per capita roughly comparable across the two presidencies once inflation is accounted for, with Biden presiding over a sharp rebound in 2021 and continued positive growth through 2024 (GIS, Forbes, FactCheck) [1] [2] [3]. By contrast, median wages tell a more mixed story: nominal wages rose under Biden but inflation outpaced those gains in several measures, leaving modest or negative real median‑wage change over much of his term depending on the chosen window and measure (FactCheck, Bankrate, FactCheck) [4] [5] [6].
1. Per‑capita GDP: similar net gains but very different dynamics
Multiple analysts conclude that inflation‑adjusted GDP growth and GDP per capita climbed under both Trump and Biden, and that headline growth over their respective terms can look comparable once the pandemic shock is smoothed out; GIS reports GDP per capita is greater at the end of 2024 than four years earlier and finds broadly comparable GDP performance across the two administrations [1], while Forbes documents that Biden’s term featured a concentrated post‑pandemic surge (6.2% in 2021) followed by slower but still positive growth in 2022–2024 [2], and FactCheck notes real GDP rose 2.8% in Biden’s last year [3]. These findings mean per‑capita GDP increased under Biden after adjusting for inflation, but comparisons with Trump depend heavily on which period is measured (pre‑pandemic Trump, Trump including 2020 collapse, or multi‑year averages) [2] [1].
2. Median wages after inflation: small real gains in some measures, losses in others
On wages, the record is more contested: FactCheck found small increases in some real wage measures — real median weekly wages rose 0.83% between Q4 2019 and Q1 2024 and other hourly/weekly metrics show modest gains depending on the exact start and end dates [4] — but other sources emphasize that inflation outpaced pay for many workers during Biden’s term: Bankrate reports that wage growth under Biden (15% for private‑industry pay from Q1 2021 to Q1 2024) was overtaken by larger price gains such that wages lost ground in real terms on some comparisons [5], and FactCheck’s later tally shows the CPI rose 21.5% over Biden’s four years while average weekly nominal earnings rose 16.7%, implying a roughly 4% decline in real weekly earnings [6]. In short, median‑worker purchasing power improved slightly on narrow measures and windows but deteriorated on broader, widely cited comparisons.
3. Why the numbers diverge: base effects, pandemic rebound and choice of measures
Much of the disagreement stems from base effects and which series analysts use: per‑capita GDP and disposable personal income spike when an economy rebounds from a pandemic trough, inflating Biden’s early‑term growth rates relative to the Trump years that include 2020’s collapse (Forbes, CEPR) [2] [7]; conversely, inflation’s surge in 2021–2022 eroded real wages so that nominal gains look weaker after CPI adjustment (FactCheck, Bankrate, FactCheck) [4] [5] [6]. Political actors and partisan research offices also selectively highlight different metrics — GDP per capita, disposable income, median weekly wages or headline CPI — producing competing narratives: CEPR adjusts per‑capita income upward under Biden to show stronger gains while the House Budget Committee emphasizes labor‑market participation and alleged real‑wage losses [7] [8].
4. Bottom line: per‑capita GDP up for both, median wage gains ambiguous after inflation
The defensible bottom line is that inflation‑adjusted GDP per person increased under Biden and broadly matches or slightly exceeds the comparable multi‑year pace under Trump once pandemic distortions are accounted for [1] [2] [3], but median wage growth after adjusting for inflation is ambiguous: narrow measures capture small real gains while broader comparisons show wages failing to keep up with price increases, leaving many typical workers with little or negative purchasing‑power improvement over the respective four‑year spans [4] [5] [6]. Where interpretation diverges depends on the exact start and end dates, whether nominal or real series are used, and which inflation measure is chosen; the reporting consulted makes those tradeoffs explicit [4] [7] [6].