Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Since the end of 2000, gross domestic product per person in the U.S. has expanded 8.4%, adjusted for inflation, but the average weekly wage has edged down 0.3%.
That contrast goes a long way in explaining why many Americans tell pollsters they don't believe the Bush administration when it trumpets the economy's strength. What is behind the divergence? And what will change it?
Some factors aren't in dispute. Since the end of the recession of 2001, a lot of the growth in GDP per person -- that is, productivity -- has gone to profits, not wages. This reflects workers' lack of bargaining power in the face of high unemployment and companies' use of cost-cutting technology. Since 2000, labor's share of GDP, or the total value of goods and services produced in the nation, has fallen to 57% from 58% while profits' share has risen to almost 9% from 6%. (The remainder goes to interest, rent and other items.)
The stock market has been mostly stagnant or falling, if you measure it in any currency or commodity other than dollars.
The gains in wages in the original source above are measured in current dollars. Unfortunately, the government understates inflation quite a bit. The methodology for measuring it was changed during the 80's and again in the mid 90's. Unemployment is likewise not measured the way it was in the 70's.
Under the leadership of President Bush, since his inception, wage earners have achieved a 6% increase in wages since 2000.
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpswktab1.htm
Christ Toro what do all them lines really mean....................they show nothing regarding the quality of life in those time spans................might as well be lines on a cardiac moniter at a lesbian fun festival...................
Sure, if you don't understand simple graphical representation about the point under discussion, I could see your point.
Toro, in this case the graph bears little or no relevance to the topic at hand. If you factored in inflation and the devaluation of the dollar, that graph would be free falling faster than the Twin Towers. So, without such data, the graph really is simply a squiggly line that means about as much as the pubic hair you found in your coffee this morning.
They are adjusted for inflation. That's what "2006 dollars" means.
First I'll ask all of you.....................because it's very relevant to this discussion also.......................were you even alive during the early years represented by these graphs????????
Also WHAT adjustments were made for inflation......................
They show a decline in poverty till Ronnie and W got their way.
First, the government vastly understates inflation as related to "real" income.
Second, if you look at the data accompanying this graph (you have to click the link) you can see that the vast majority of that income growth occurred in the top 1/5th of the country, in terms of wealth. Basically, the poor are getting screwed harder than ever, but the industrialists and business conglomerates are doing a better job of exploiting the rest of the world than ever before.
I agree that the government has understated inflation this decade. Whether or not it is vastly so is debatable.
You are also correct that the largest gains have accrued to the highest earners. Income inequality has been rising. This has been occurring since about 1970. However, real income growth has been rising for all income stratas, though it has been growing slowest for the poorest.
