Middle class wages for full timers - at 1978 levels.

[PoliticalChic]

You are using nominal dollars, the real measuring stick is Real Dollarsm which the Wall Street Journal used for the threads OP. Real Dollars are used by economist as the true measuring stick. I thought you and I covered that back a month ot two ago.

1. With the current economic recession a 'blip' that will right itself shortly after the election of 2012, the people of the United States will go right back on the track of ever-increasing standard of living.

2. Let’s be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.

3. That is the reason why our 'poor' are the richest poor people the world has ever known...don't you just love it when some 6% of the 'poor' have jacuzzis!!

... but don't let that stop you from your fav hobby: hand-wringing and whining.

But...why are your here? Aren't your friends waiting for you at the Wall Street protests??

The CPI in 1973 was was 42.6 the CPI in 2004 was 185.2. That means inflation grew 435%( 185.2 over 42.6), so growing the real per capita consumption by only double shows how poorly the American worker did. Thanks helping me with my point.

And that is why folks have so many more 'things'??? Inflation is 'way up' so folks have more???
The whistle on that train of thought is barely audible….
I knew this would happen when they stopped teaching logic.

“A measure of inflation based on changes in personal consumption. Unlike the CPI, which is based on a fixed basket of goods, the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Deflator finds the average increase in prices for all domestic personal consumption. PCE Deflator has been shown to be a more comprehensive and consistent gauge of inflation in the US.” PCE Deflator, (Personal Consumption Expenditure Deflator) - United States

a. The official inflation measures overstate inflation: using the PCE deflator the gain from 1977 to 2005 increases by 50%.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

1940-1980, top marginal tax rates ranged from 70% to 93%. Support for unions and workers' rights was strong, and union membership ranged from the mid-20 percent of the work force to a high of 39%.

1981-present, all that was reversed; Reagan dropped top marginal taxes to 50% his first year in office and, in 1986, revised the tax code to flatten it. Top marginal taxes have ranged from 35% to 39% since then. Support for unions dropped dramatically (actually this began in the Carter years, but got worse under Reagan); rate of illegal firings in union elections increased from 8% or less to 25% or more, and union membership declined to something under 9% today, a level lower than it has been since the beginning of the 20th century.

Would you agree that the latter does NOT represent "progressive economic policy"? And that the former does?

From 1940 to 1980, the U.S. economy experienced average annual per-capita real GDP growth of about 4.25%. From 1980 to the present, average annual per-capital real GDP growth has been barely over two percent. The same was true for the period from 1900 to 1940, which is another time that the economy operated under conservative economic policy.

The economy, when governed by progressive economics, outperformed what it did under conservative economics by more than two to one.

If you require documentation of any of this I can certainly provide it, but you asked for the facts and those are the facts.

You aren't taking into consideration other world forces at work. We could have a booming economy in the 1940s and 50s with 90% top income tax rates because we were the only ones producing anything. Europe's infrastructure was completely blown apart during the war and it took them a good two decades to catch back up.

We began sliding into recession in the 1960s and our competitive edge in many industries has declined ever since because of the emergence of globalization. If we still had those uber high tax rates today the middle class in America would be extinct by now.

The period from the 1890s up until the 1930s was a very prosperous time for America and progressive economic policy was only a matter of discussion in those days. It was barely practiced at all.

Progressive economics destroys economies; it does not grow them.

 

[kiwiman127]

1. With the current economic recession a 'blip' that will right itself shortly after the election of 2012, the people of the United States will go right back on the track of ever-increasing standard of living.

2. Let’s be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.

3. That is the reason why our 'poor' are the richest poor people the world has ever known...don't you just love it when some 6% of the 'poor' have jacuzzis!!

... but don't let that stop you from your fav hobby: hand-wringing and whining.

But...why are your here? Aren't your friends waiting for you at the Wall Street protests??

The CPI in 1973 was was 42.6 the CPI in 2004 was 185.2. That means inflation grew 435%( 185.2 over 42.6), so growing the real per capita consumption by only double shows how poorly the American worker did. Thanks helping me with my point.

Your point is on top of your head.

You crybabies who decry how well Americans are doing will never allow yourselves to see the truth.

There is a test that, based on both your simplicity and that of the test, may prove the point. It is called the 'gates test.'

When the gates are opened, do people rush into America or out....?
See what I mean?

Q.E.D.

So, that darn Wall Street Journal has no clue about how to measure economic growth?
Sometimes, you'd be better off not posting on things you obviously have no knowledge about, this is a perfect example.

 

[Trajan]

correlation ( and a mischaracterized partisan one at that) does not equal causation.

I have not mischaracterized the correlation at all.

There are only two ways to get from correlation to causation, since it is inherently impossible to show that anything causes anything directly. We can show a theoretical explanation for WHY the correlation happened, or we can show other situations where the correlation was repeated. I shall do both.

The reason why liberal economic policies performed better than conservative ones is because they aimed, successfully, to narrow income gaps and promote widespread prosperity rather than maximizing the riches of the richest. This increased consumer demand, which increased investment in the production of goods and services to meet that demand, which increased employment and drove wages up, which further increased consumer demand, and so on. Conservative economics has the exact opposite effect.

As for other occurrence of the same causation, I give you this:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html

Here we have the CIA factbook showing income inequality by nation. An examination of this list will show that, by and large, the nations with the highest income inequality also have the poorest economies, and those with the lowest income inequality have the richest economies. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but it holds for the most part.

Narrow income gaps, which result from liberal economic policies, improve economic performance. Wide income gaps, which result from conservative economic policies, retard it.

sure you have becasue your examples lack context and just state and declare with no balance.

for instance your one liner on union membership, as if this was some progenitor ala income disparity. I can argue that the adversarial stances, rolling greediness and contracts most especially thru the 70's and early 80's helped sink co's who were then left no choice but to outsource. *shrugs* now what?


and far as as poor economies, that depends on how you define and what is a "poor economy" and that is a double edged sword, so what was the overall cost in say 1960 for a co. to pay an employee a middle class wage for a year? 10%- 16%? now? to put 45K in someones hands requires a wage of over 75K in many states,.......what was the regulatory cost burden in 1960 vs. now?

 

[Dot Com]

Household income fell last quarter by the most in years.
Today - household income is precisely where it was in 1996 - 15 years ago.
Adjusting for inflation a man working full time today is earning less than he would have in 1978....33 years ago.

The Census Bureau's annual snapshot of living standards offered a new set of statistics to show how devastating the recession was and how disappointing the recovery has been. For a huge swath of American families, the gains of the boom of the 2000s have been wiped out.

Household Income Falls, Poverty Rate Rises - WSJ.com

This has been the case for the last 40 yrs. Welcome to the party.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The CPI in 1973 was was 42.6 the CPI in 2004 was 185.2. That means inflation grew 435%( 185.2 over 42.6), so growing the real per capita consumption by only double shows how poorly the American worker did. Thanks helping me with my point.

Your point is on top of your head.

You crybabies who decry how well Americans are doing will never allow yourselves to see the truth.

There is a test that, based on both your simplicity and that of the test, may prove the point. It is called the 'gates test.'

When the gates are opened, do people rush into America or out....?
See what I mean?

Q.E.D.

So, that darn Wall Street Journal has no clue about how to measure economic growth?
Sometimes, you'd be better off not posting on things you obviously have no knowledge about, this is a perfect example.

When Galileo stated that everything falls at the same speed, he wasn’t referring to your reputation.

Since you have countered neither the facts about consumption having a perpetual upward tilt, nor how bogus your inflation post was....

...it hardly seems that I am the one with 'no knowledge.'

America remains the land of opportunity...and, good news for you, we still turn out Kleenex..for you whiners.

Now, be honest, was the common sense gene recessive in your family?

 

[uscitizen]

Household income fell last quarter by the most in years.
Today - household income is precisely where it was in 1996 - 15 years ago.
Adjusting for inflation a man working full time today is earning less than he would have in 1978....33 years ago.

The Census Bureau's annual snapshot of living standards offered a new set of statistics to show how devastating the recession was and how disappointing the recovery has been. For a huge swath of American families, the gains of the boom of the 2000s have been wiped out.

Household Income Falls, Poverty Rate Rises - WSJ.com

Here we come Jimmy Carter back in your area of failure.

Yep trickle up sure worked well, for the uppers anyway.

 

[uscitizen]

1940-1980, top marginal tax rates ranged from 70% to 93%. Support for unions and workers' rights was strong, and union membership ranged from the mid-20 percent of the work force to a high of 39%.

1981-present, all that was reversed; Reagan dropped top marginal taxes to 50% his first year in office and, in 1986, revised the tax code to flatten it. Top marginal taxes have ranged from 35% to 39% since then. Support for unions dropped dramatically (actually this began in the Carter years, but got worse under Reagan); rate of illegal firings in union elections increased from 8% or less to 25% or more, and union membership declined to something under 9% today, a level lower than it has been since the beginning of the 20th century.

Would you agree that the latter does NOT represent "progressive economic policy"? And that the former does?

From 1940 to 1980, the U.S. economy experienced average annual per-capita real GDP growth of about 4.25%. From 1980 to the present, average annual per-capital real GDP growth has been barely over two percent. The same was true for the period from 1900 to 1940, which is another time that the economy operated under conservative economic policy.

The economy, when governed by progressive economics, outperformed what it did under conservative economics by more than two to one.

If you require documentation of any of this I can certainly provide it, but you asked for the facts and those are the facts.

You aren't taking into consideration other world forces at work. We could have a booming economy in the 1940s and 50s with 90% top income tax rates because we were the only ones producing anything. Europe's infrastructure was completely blown apart during the war and it took them a good two decades to catch back up.

We began sliding into recession in the 1960s and our competitive edge in many industries has declined ever since because of the emergence of globalization. If we still had those uber high tax rates today the middle class in America would be extinct by now.

The period from the 1890s up until the 1930s was a very prosperous time for America and progressive economic policy was only a matter of discussion in those days. It was barely practiced at all.

Progressive economics destroys economies; it does not grow them.

Progressive economics such as leveraged buyouts? bottom level interest rates? offshoring jobs? creative home financing?

Yep the right have been the ones pushing progressive economics.

 

[kiwiman127]

Your point is on top of your head.

You crybabies who decry how well Americans are doing will never allow yourselves to see the truth.

There is a test that, based on both your simplicity and that of the test, may prove the point. It is called the 'gates test.'

When the gates are opened, do people rush into America or out....?
See what I mean?

Q.E.D.

So, that darn Wall Street Journal has no clue about how to measure economic growth?
Sometimes, you'd be better off not posting on things you obviously have no knowledge about, this is a perfect example.

When Galileo stated that everything falls at the same speed, he wasn’t referring to your reputation.

Since you have countered neither the facts about consumption having a perpetual upward tilt, nor how bogus your inflation post was....

...it hardly seems that I am the one with 'no knowledge.'

America remains the land of opportunity...and, good news for you, we still turn out Kleenex..for you whiners.

Now, be honest, was the common sense gene recessive in your family?

The last time we discussed Real Dollars, the usage of the CPI to determine real growth and Nominal Dollars versus Real Dollars, you never grasped the concept even after I quoted links that basically offered examples suitable for high school economics.
I'm sorry you couldn't grasp it. Economist use Real Dollars in a constant dollar format to simplify their measurement, just like the Wall Street Journal did.

 

[expat_panama]

...Adjusting for inflation a man working full time today is earning less than he would have in 1978....33 years ago...

Wait, are we still talking about the middle class?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Household income fell last quarter by the most in years.
Today - household income is precisely where it was in 1996 - 15 years ago.
Adjusting for inflation a man working full time today is earning less than he would have in 1978....33 years ago.



Household Income Falls, Poverty Rate Rises - WSJ.com

Here we come Jimmy Carter back in your area of failure.

Yep trickle up sure worked well, for the uppers anyway.

carter didn't do trickel up or down carter did nothing,

 

[kiwiman127]

...Adjusting for inflation a man working full time today is earning less than he would have in 1978....33 years ago...

Wait, are we still talking about the middle class?

Your chart is in nominal dollars, I know for a fact expat, you're much smarter than that.Check out the numbers below in constant 1982 dollars, also check out the average wage for 2011 in 1982 constant dollars that I added.

REAL WAGES: 1964-2004
Average Weekly Earnings (in 1982 constant dollars)
For all private nonfarm workers

1964- $302.52

1965- $310.46
1966- $312.83
1967- $311.30
1968- $315.37

1969- $316.93
1970- $312.94
1971- $318.05
1972- $331.59

1973- $331.39
1974- $314.94
1975- $305.16
1976- $309.61

1977- $310.99
1978- $310.41
1979- $298.87
1980- $281.77

1981- $277.35
1982- $272.74
1983- $277.50
1984- $279.22

1985- $276.23
1986- $276.11
1987- $272.88
1988- $270.32

1989- $267.27
1990- $262.43
1991- $258.34
1992- $257.95

1993- $258.12
1994- $259.97
1995- $258.43
1996- $259.58

1997- $265.22
1998- $271.87
1999- $274.64
2000- $275.62

2001- $275.38
2002- $278.91
2003- $279.94
2004- $277.57
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Benefits:+Real+Wages+(1964-2004)

Current and real (constant 1982-1984 dollars) earnings for production and nonsupervisory
employees on private nonfarm payrolls, seasonally adjusted
August 2011- $292.48
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf

As one can see, wages haven't been near the high of $331.59 from 1972 and in the long run have decreased.
No wonder Main Street America is fed up. But, but we must cut taxes for the job creators even though they have held wages down and haven't created jobs since their big tax cuts in 2003. More jobs were ceated in the 90's when taxes were higher.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The end result of the implementation of Progressive Economic Theory. Four more years of Obama that there will no longer be a middle class

More like the result of 30 years of Reaganomics.

Talk to your fellow "Progressives" they're blaming: Tea Party, bank ATM's, the Japan Tsunami and American laziness. You're reading from an old playbook

 

[uscitizen]

Here we come Jimmy Carter back in your area of failure.

Yep trickle up sure worked well, for the uppers anyway.

carter didn't do trickel up or down carter did nothing,

Actually Carter did better than Nixon or Ford on curbing inflation.
You are too young to remember Nixon's wage and price freeze (except for congressional wages) and his WIN- Whip Inflation Now campaign?

Carters main problem was to get caught in the no more dirt cheap oil thing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yep trickle up sure worked well, for the uppers anyway.

carter didn't do trickel up or down carter did nothing,

Actually Carter did better than Nixon or Ford on curbing inflation.
You are too young to remember Nixon's wage and price freeze (except for congressional wages) and his WIN- Whip Inflation Now campaign?

Carters main problem was to get caught in the no more dirt cheap oil thing.

Nixion got us out of Viet nam, I guess he was to busy with doing that and ford wasn't president long enough.

 

[expat_panama]

...are we still talking about the middle class?

Your chart is in nominal dollars...

First, it's not my chart it's from davemanuel.com, although if you didn't read it in the chart you probably won't read it in the post. Second, he had 'inflation adjusted $' although if you didn't read it in the chart you probably won't read it in the post. Third, this thread is supposed to some how be about the middle class, but it's going all over the place with doom'n'gloom from the WSJ in post 1 to non-sup. wages in your post.

Don't get me wrong, I like the WSJ and BLS blue collar wage numbers as much as the next guy. I was just hoping we'd somehow get the middle class back into the discussion.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Progressive economics such as leveraged buyouts? bottom level interest rates? offshoring jobs? creative home financing?

Yep the right have been the ones pushing progressive economics.

Nobody is saying that the alternatives to progressive economics are flawless. Those other issues are irresponsible economic practices as well, but they are irrelevant to the historical trend that shows progressive economics ultimately fails every time. Progressive economics aren't practiced to maximize economic growth, but rather to engage in social "justice."

The best way to keep an economy healthy is to have minimal taxation and regulation and a steady level of around 2% inflation annually.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, that darn Wall Street Journal has no clue about how to measure economic growth?
Sometimes, you'd be better off not posting on things you obviously have no knowledge about, this is a perfect example.

When Galileo stated that everything falls at the same speed, he wasn’t referring to your reputation.

Since you have countered neither the facts about consumption having a perpetual upward tilt, nor how bogus your inflation post was....

...it hardly seems that I am the one with 'no knowledge.'

America remains the land of opportunity...and, good news for you, we still turn out Kleenex..for you whiners.

Now, be honest, was the common sense gene recessive in your family?

The last time we discussed Real Dollars, the usage of the CPI to determine real growth and Nominal Dollars versus Real Dollars, you never grasped the concept even after I quoted links that basically offered examples suitable for high school economics.
I'm sorry you couldn't grasp it. Economist use Real Dollars in a constant dollar format to simplify their measurement, just like the Wall Street Journal did.

1. There is an old saying..."we can only judge others by outselves.'
Based on same, I find it hard to believe that there are Americans living as well as we are, having as much material wealth as we have, yet bemoaning how terrible things are...
...you know, you.

2. If I were to read a novel based around the idea that hugh swathes of the public could be convinced that things are so bad, while living in luxury unknown in prior times, I'd throw the book away...cause..."we can only judge others by outselves."

3. But here you are, large of life...and the explanation is one of two: either you are paid to paint the bleak picture that you do...
...or- and I mean this in the kindest way: you are really, really dumb.

4.Hard for me to envision folks who can be convinced that reality is not reality....but Wordsworth wrote:

TELL me not, in mournful numbers,. Life is but an empty dream!—. For the soul is dead that slumbers,. And things are not what they seem.'

Guess he was pre-seeing you.

5. Folks buy, and consumer spending has always been the fuel for the economic engine.
Not for you.
For you, we're all starving, and have been for decades.
Wrong.

"For many consumers, these changes will not be long-term. These consumers are likely to return to their pre-recession spending patterns once the economy improves."
How the Down Economy Is Impacting Consumer Buying Behavior - KnowThis.com: Marketing Tutorials, News, How-to and More

The Bush tax cuts, and the tacit understanding of Obama that these fuel consumer spending on all sorts of things, as has always been true, indicates how wrong you are in what passes for thinking by the Left.


Review:
a. Americans are doing well, with an ever-increasing standard of living.

b. Once the recession is over, Obama gone, things will go right back to same.

c. Soft minded individuals (insert your name here) will never realize that they are
being played to vote Leftie.

d. Bet you are the kind of low personage who would have seventeen items and be in the express line, 'cause you're convinced that only rich, white Republicans have the shopping-carte blanche to be there!
Man the barricades!!


Folks with your jaundiced view are so dumb you can only hitchhike in one direction.

 

[Dragon]

You aren't taking into consideration other world forces at work. We could have a booming economy in the 1940s and 50s with 90% top income tax rates because we were the only ones producing anything. Europe's infrastructure was completely blown apart during the war and it took them a good two decades to catch back up.

As I pointed out already, this commonly-believed idea is completely and utterly FALSE. Europe's industrial capacity was for the most part untouched by the war. The only significant exception was Germany. Britain's industries were mostly located in the northern part of the island, beyond the range of the Luftwaffe, and survived the Blitz completely intact. France, Norway, the Low Countries, and Denmark were all conquered by lightning strikes that left their industrial capacity mostly undamaged. Many European countries were neutrals and so were not involved in the fighting at all. Even Germany, which was severely impacted by Allied bombing, was back to its prewar productivity by the mid-1950s, and that's with part of the country hacked off and occupied by the Soviets.

We cannot credit postwar prosperity to the fact that the rest of the world was destroyed by war, because that is NOT a fact.

We began sliding into recession in the 1960s

No, we did not. The 1960s were the most prosperous decade of the entire postwar boom. There might have been a recession during the decade somewhere, but overall it was very, very prosperous.

No, the decline in that prosperity did not come about until 1973, and this happened as a result of the OPEC oil embargo.

The period from the 1890s up until the 1930s was a very prosperous time for America

Compared to the postwar decades, no, it was not. The growth in per capita GDP during those years was only about half what occurred from 1940 to 1980.

 

[expat_panama]

...The period from the 1890s up until the 1930s was a very prosperous time for America and progressive economic policy was only a matter of discussion in those days...

Actually, that era was just about our worst, here's percapita real gdp graphed--

--and the numbers are here.

Then again, making up history is really how things are done here, this whole thread began in a fantasy with--

Household income fell last quarter by the most in years.
Today - household income is precisely where it was in 1996 - 15 years ago.
Adjusting for inflation a man working full time today is earning less than he would have in 1978....33 years ago...

--and the supposed source of the nonsense was some moron at the WSJ.

Anyone who wants can divide real incomes from bea.gov by households from census.gov and plot this:

--and the actual numbers show we're at the level first reached in Jan '08 before it hit the all time high in mid '08. That's when Obama got elected...