Misery index the highest in 28 years

[JRK]

So the big thrust of this thread is that things are now as bad as they were in 1983, under Reagan.

Remember Reagan's big 1983 achievement?

His tax rate was way below where it was prior to him taking office
Carters inflation as well as 18% intrest rates where getting under control
what else?
creating jobs
1980...... 90,528 74,154 24,263 1,077 4,454 18,733
1981...... 91,289 75,109 24,118 1,180 4,304 18,634
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

You're blaming Carter for Reagan's 1983 problems??

interesting.

No I did not blame anyone
I supplied accurate information
the events that took place 80-83 where to off set Carters mistakes, yes
Blame?

 

[JRK]

Son how old are you?

Old enough to know you're not smart enough to carry a conversation.

do you have any idea what was going on in 2008?

YEs.

where would you like to start?
where does GS end up?
ML
BAC?
without tarp there is no investing after October 2008
its the big one
AIG falls
GS falls
C falls
Merryl Lynch falls
BAC falls
are you on medication?

Oh, so I see what you're saying: You're not a capitalist afterall. Never have I seen a so-called conservative claim that the private economy is so dependent on the blessing of government. It's downright scary how you want the government to be hold the hand of the capitalist - unless that capitalist is an industry other than finance.

Let me let you in on a secret: The finance sector isn't your daddy.

Now stop acting like a condescending little fuck. I've forgotten more about "what happened in 2008" then you'll ever know...Oh, and where does GS end up? Right where it is - except in much better shape.

And I'm not blaming GWB. You still haven't figured that out, have ya? Well if you would actually read my posts once in awhile instead of being an uneducated talking point you might figure it out.

What in the hell does factual information have to do with me being a conservative?
Daddy?
Little fuck?
Read your post?
when you put anything that has anything to do with the subject matter
I will
Little Fuck?
Little Fuck?
you wonder why no one respects anything you say

 

[midcan5]

I tried to read that piece but it made no sense. The misery index started in the seventies, historically that is interesting as that was the beginning of lower taxes and deregulation. The seventies were also a reaction to the extremes of the sixties. Personally, if I wake in the morning I'm happy, if the kids are OK I'm happy, if we are all working I'm happy. So who do they ask, or how do they calculate this nonsense? As long as our work is outsourced for profit there will always be a level of misery. Buy American, support a fair wage, support unions and strong worker rights, and we will undo the damage done since Reagan.

"For anyone born after 1945, the welfare state and its institutions were not a solution to earlier dilemmas: they were simply the normal conditions of life - and more than a little dull. The baby boomers, entering university in the mid sixties, had only ever known the world of improving life chances, generous medical and educational services, optimistic prospects of a upward social mobility and - perhaps above all - an indefinable but ubiquitous sense of security. The goals of an earlier generation of reformers were no longer of interest to their successors. On the contrary they were increasingly perceived as restrictions upon the self-expression and freedom of the individual." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land' [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Ill-Fares-Land-Tony-Judt/dp/1594202761/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Ill Fares the Land (9781594202766): Tony Judt: Books[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If a Republican was in there right now,you can bet the Hopey Changeys wouldn't be here making such pathetic excuses. Knowing them,they would probably be calling for Impeachment. "Hope & Change" has failed miserably. Time for some to wake up and accept this reality. They should just pretend a Republican is in there and then think about the Misery so many Americans are suffering. I'm not here calling for Impeachment but i wouldn't mind seeing some real change in 2012. I hope so anyway.

But then they'd stop being useful idiots

 

[mudwhistle]

A number not seen since 1983, a year before Ronald Reagan was re-elected.

Guess it takes time to undo the damage that a lousy President or reckless Congress can do to the economy.

During the Carter years we had both.

And the last couple of years as well.

 

[Stephanie]

Don't forget folks to vote for the boyking and his wonderful comrades in arms again. that way we can ALL ENJOY the EQUAL misery. I guess that is what the Obama meant when he said, we all needed to have some skin (misery) in the game..

 

[editec]

FYI

The misery index was initiated by economist Arthur Okun, an adviser to President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960's. It is simply the unemployment rate added to the inflation rate. It is assumed that both a higher rate of unemployment and a worsening of inflation both create economic and social costs for a country. A combination of rising inflation and more people out of work implies a deterioration in economic performance and a rise in the misery index.

source


1948 11.49

Truman 1949 5.10 1950 6.30 1951 11.16 1952 5.32 1953 3.74

Eisenhower 1954 5.91 1955 4.09 1956 5.64 1957 7.64 1958 9.57

1959 6.46 1960 7.00 1961 7.76

Kennedy 1962 6.77 1963 6.88

Johnson 1964 6.44 1965 6.10 1966 6.80 1967 6.62 1968 7.83 1969 8.95

Nixon 1970 10.82 1971 10.25 1972 8.87 1973 11.02 1974 16.67

Ford 1975 17.68

1976 13.45

1977 13.55

Carter 1978 13.69

1979 17.07

1980 20.76

1981 17.97

Reagan 1982 15.87

1983 12.82

1984 11.81

1985 10.74

1986 8.91

1987 9.84

1988 9.57

1989 10.09

Bush, G.H.W. 1990 11.01

1991 11.10

1992 10.52

1993 9.87

Clinton 1994 8.71

1995 8.40

1996 8.34

1997 7.28

1998 6.05

1999 6.41

2000 7.35

2001 7.59

Bush, G.W. 2002 7.37

2003 8.26

2004 8.21

2005 8.48

2006 7.87

2007 7.46

2008 9.61 2009 8.92

Obama 2010 11.29

 

[georgephillip]

FYI

The misery index was initiated by economist Arthur Okun, an adviser to President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960's. It is simply the unemployment rate added to the inflation rate. It is assumed that both a higher rate of unemployment and a worsening of inflation both create economic and social costs for a country. A combination of rising inflation and more people out of work implies a deterioration in economic performance and a rise in the misery index.

source


1948 11.49

Truman 1949 5.10 1950 6.30 1951 11.16 1952 5.32 1953 3.74

Eisenhower 1954 5.91 1955 4.09 1956 5.64 1957 7.64 1958 9.57

1959 6.46 1960 7.00 1961 7.76

Kennedy 1962 6.77 1963 6.88

Johnson 1964 6.44 1965 6.10 1966 6.80 1967 6.62 1968 7.83 1969 8.95

Nixon 1970 10.82 1971 10.25 1972 8.87 1973 11.02 1974 16.67

Ford 1975 17.68

1976 13.45

1977 13.55

Carter 1978 13.69

1979 17.07

1980 20.76

1981 17.97

Reagan 1982 15.87

1983 12.82

1984 11.81

1985 10.74

1986 8.91

1987 9.84

1988 9.57

1989 10.09

Bush, G.H.W. 1990 11.01

1991 11.10

1992 10.52

1993 9.87

Clinton 1994 8.71

1995 8.40

1996 8.34

1997 7.28

1998 6.05

1999 6.41

2000 7.35

2001 7.59

Bush, G.W. 2002 7.37

2003 8.26

2004 8.21

2005 8.48

2006 7.87

2007 7.46

2008 9.61 2009 8.92

Obama 2010 11.29

Think there's a connection...?

"Retirees today are shortchanged on Social Security because they have been shortchanged on wages for their entire working lives.

"The labor economist Richard B. Freeman points out that the hourly earnings of workers dropped by 8 percent from 1973 to 2005 while productivity shot up 55 percent or more.

"The United States is one of the few developed countries where workers are routinely cheated of a share in higher productivity.

And where has the money from the extra productivity gone? It’s gone right to the top, to the top few percent. If wages had been paid fairly based on productivity, there would have been enough money subject to the payroll tax to avoid even a modest shortfall."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/opinion/20geoghegan.html?hp

 

[editec]

FWIW, the misery index only caputres part of what economically-speaking makes people's lives happy or miserable.

For instance, it does not measure the recent losses most people experienced in the NET WORTH that came as a result of the real estate crash.


Given that for most Americans net worth is in large part tied into the equity position on their homes, I'd say that today's misery index is HUGELY UNDERSTATING the real state of economic misery.

 

[8537]

What in the hell does factual information have to do with me being a conservative?
Daddy?

you did not provide factual information. You provided talking points and claimed - with no support whatsoever - that TARP is what saved the economy. Then you asked about my medical history.

Little fuck?
Read your post?
when you put anything that has anything to do with the subject matter
I will
Little Fuck?
Little Fuck?
you wonder why no one respects anything you say

Yes, little fuck. And no, I don't expect far right sycophants such as yourself to respect what I say. I also don't expect drug dealers to respect police.

 

[georgephillip]

FWIW, the misery index only caputres part of what economically-speaking makes people's lives happy or miserable.

For instance, it does not measure the recent losses most people experienced in the NET WORTH that came as a result of the real estate crash.


Given that for most Americans net worth is in large part tied into the equity position on their homes, I'd say that today's misery index is HUGELY UNDERSTATING the real state of economic misery.

Isn't there also a difference in the way inflation is calculated today compared to 30 to 40 years ago?

 

[8537]

FWIW, the misery index only caputres part of what economically-speaking makes people's lives happy or miserable.

For instance, it does not measure the recent losses most people experienced in the NET WORTH that came as a result of the real estate crash.


Given that for most Americans net worth is in large part tied into the equity position on their homes, I'd say that today's misery index is HUGELY UNDERSTATING the real state of economic misery.

Isn't there also a difference in the way inflation is calculated today compared to 30 to 40 years ago?

The only significant change is in the basket of goods included in the calculation.

 

[JRK]

What in the hell does factual information have to do with me being a conservative?
Daddy?

you did not provide factual information. You provided talking points and claimed - with no support whatsoever - that TARP is what saved the economy. Then you asked about my medical history.

Little fuck?
Read your post?
when you put anything that has anything to do with the subject matter
I will
Little Fuck?
Little Fuck?
you wonder why no one respects anything you say

Yes, little fuck. And no, I don't expect far right sycophants such as yourself to respect what I say. I also don't expect drug dealers to respect police.

Thats easy to be that way behind a key board huh?
there is no reason for that childish behavior here are any where else
YOU ARE THE PROBLEM
DO ME A FAVOR
GO AWAY
YOUR NOT WELCOME HERE ANYMORE

 

[edthecynic]

A number not seen since 1983, a year before Ronald Reagan was re-elected.

Guess it takes time to undo the damage that a lousy President or reckless Congress can do to the economy.

During the Carter years we had both.

And the last couple of years as well.

Except the Carter Recession, the shortest in history, was over in July 1980 so we were already in recovery when St Ronnie's regime took over in 1981. Reagan then proceeded to create the Reagan Depression, one of the worst in history, so the "lousy President" whose damage it took him time to undo was himself!!!!

Unlike Carter passing a recovering economy to Reagan, Bush passed a crashing economy, the worst since the Reagan Depression, to Obama but you CON$ expect Obama to fix it in less time than Reagan took to destroy the Carter recovery.
No double standard there!

 

[pinqy]

FWIW, the misery index only caputres part of what economically-speaking makes people's lives happy or miserable.

For instance, it does not measure the recent losses most people experienced in the NET WORTH that came as a result of the real estate crash.


Given that for most Americans net worth is in large part tied into the equity position on their homes, I'd say that today's misery index is HUGELY UNDERSTATING the real state of economic misery.

Isn't there also a difference in the way inflation is calculated today compared to 30 to 40 years ago?

The only significant change is in the basket of goods included in the calculation.

The weighting is actually a minor part. The most significant changes was going to a rental equivalence for housing in 1983 (to remove the investment component of home ownership), changing how often the basket is updated (to avoid the fiasco in the late 70's early 80's when home computers weren't in the basket), changing to a geo-means average for lower level item categories (to deal with substitution bias), and the expanded use of hedonic regression (to better handle quality changes). BLS Handbook of Methods (history of changes starts on page 8).

Of course pretty much everything you read about how terrible these changes were is inaccurate or outright lies. Common Misconceptions about the CPI

 

[mudwhistle]

A number not seen since 1983, a year before Ronald Reagan was re-elected.

Guess it takes time to undo the damage that a lousy President or reckless Congress can do to the economy.

During the Carter years we had both.

And the last couple of years as well.

Except the Carter Recession, the shortest in history, was over in July 1980 so we were already in recovery when St Ronnie's regime took over in 1981. Reagan then proceeded to create the Reagan Depression, one of the worst in history, so the "lousy President" whose damage it took him time to undo was himself!!!!

Unlike Carter passing a recovering economy to Reagan, Bush passed a crashing economy, the worst since the Reagan Depression, to Obama but you CON$ expect Obama to fix it in less time than Reagan took to destroy the Carter recovery.
No double standard there!

Sorry, Obama and the Dem had something that Reagan did not have; An overwhelming majority along with full control of Congress.

They could have pushed up the time it takes to reverse the damage because they had the power to do so.

Instead they passed a Stimulus that didn't stimulate anything, and a health care bill that is proving not to be the cost saver that it was advertized to be.

Add to that Obama's anti business rhetoric, his threats of higher taxation down the road, his undercutting and political maneuvering in opposition to the GOP, and his failure to show leadership in cutting spending.....everyone is coming to the realization that Obama doesn't really care about fixing the problem. He's mainly concerned with his re-election. He feels it's better to tear down the Repugs rather than supporting and implementing policies that work in the real world much less work the way he promised.

The guy feels that running this country means bad-mouthing anyone who opposes him and and making everyone else look flawed. He deflects what's going on with a series of useless campaign speeches in front of crowds that were selected to appear favorable to him. I dare him to speak to a group of Tea Party members. He knows the kind of reception he would get after the label he and his supporters placed on them. "Tea-Baggers.....Terrorist suspects.....Racists".

The Great Divider at his best. Course what would one expect from a community rabble-rouser.

 

[JRK]

A number not seen since 1983, a year before Ronald Reagan was re-elected.

Guess it takes time to undo the damage that a lousy President or reckless Congress can do to the economy.

During the Carter years we had both.

And the last couple of years as well.

Except the Carter Recession, the shortest in history, was over in July 1980 so we were already in recovery when St Ronnie's regime took over in 1981. Reagan then proceeded to create the Reagan Depression, one of the worst in history, so the "lousy President" whose damage it took him time to undo was himself!!!!

Unlike Carter passing a recovering economy to Reagan, Bush passed a crashing economy, the worst since the Reagan Depression, to Obama but you CON$ expect Obama to fix it in less time than Reagan took to destroy the Carter recovery.
No double standard there!

thats 46 million jobs created from 1980 thru 2008, I see no depression there
you can also clearly see the jobs began going away as noted here

Also no-one expected Obama to fix this mess, the government had little to do with it. What we did not expect him to do was create a 1-1.5 trillion dollar slush fund for the unions and others who have nothing to do with creating jobs
That was all deficit
And having a change to the way our private sector insures us needs attention, it did not need Obama care
I do not know where to even start with that

1979...... 89,932 73,864 24,997 1,008 4,562 19,426


1980...... 90,528 74,154 24,263 1,077 4,454 18,733
1981...... 91,289 75,109 24,118 1,180 4,304 18,634
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
1985...... 97,511 80,978 23,585 974 4,793 17,819
1986...... 99,474 82,636 23,318 829 4,937 17,552
1987...... 102,088 84,932 23,470 771 5,090 17,609
1988...... 105,345 87,806 23,909 770 5,233 17,906

2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

One more thing
the only loony person in this conversation is the one that feels it necessary to call simple information, loony

 

[edthecynic]

Guess it takes time to undo the damage that a lousy President or reckless Congress can do to the economy.

During the Carter years we had both.

And the last couple of years as well.

Except the Carter Recession, the shortest in history, was over in July 1980 so we were already in recovery when St Ronnie's regime took over in 1981. Reagan then proceeded to create the Reagan Depression, one of the worst in history, so the "lousy President" whose damage it took him time to undo was himself!!!!

Unlike Carter passing a recovering economy to Reagan, Bush passed a crashing economy, the worst since the Reagan Depression, to Obama but you CON$ expect Obama to fix it in less time than Reagan took to destroy the Carter recovery.
No double standard there!

Sorry, Obama and the Dem had something that Reagan did not have; An overwhelming majority along with full control of Congress.

They could have pushed up the time it takes to reverse the damage because they had the power to do so.

Instead they passed a Stimulus that didn't stimulate anything, and a health care bill that is proving not to be the cost saver that it was advertized to be.

Add to that Obama's anti business rhetoric, his threats of higher taxation down the road, his undercutting and political maneuvering in opposition to the GOP, and his failure to show leadership in cutting spending.....everyone is coming to the realization that Obama doesn't really care about fixing the problem. He's mainly concerned with his re-election. He feels it's better to tear down the Repugs rather than supporting and implementing policies that work in the real world much less work the way he promised.

The guy feels that running this country means bad-mouthing anyone who opposes him and and making everyone else look flawed. He deflects what's going on with a series of useless campaign speeches in front of crowds that were selected to appear favorable to him. I dare him to speak to a group of Tea Party members. He knows the kind of reception he would get after the label he and his supporters placed on them. "Tea-Baggers.....Terrorist suspects.....Racists".

The Great Divider at his best. Course what would one expect from a community rabble-rouser.

Just more of your typical lies!
he didn't have enough of an "overwhelming majority" to overcome the GOP filibusters, and it was the GOP who politically maneuvered that filibuster threat to oppose anything that would help the economy. And it was the Teabaggers who chose the name "Teabagger" for their movement even going so far as to sell buttons proclaiming just how PROUD they were to be Teabaggers!!! So don't play the CON$ervative perpetual VICTIM card over the name "Teabagger."

 

[edthecynic]

Guess it takes time to undo the damage that a lousy President or reckless Congress can do to the economy.

During the Carter years we had both.

And the last couple of years as well.

Except the Carter Recession, the shortest in history, was over in July 1980 so we were already in recovery when St Ronnie's regime took over in 1981. Reagan then proceeded to create the Reagan Depression, one of the worst in history, so the "lousy President" whose damage it took him time to undo was himself!!!!

Unlike Carter passing a recovering economy to Reagan, Bush passed a crashing economy, the worst since the Reagan Depression, to Obama but you CON$ expect Obama to fix it in less time than Reagan took to destroy the Carter recovery.
No double standard there!

thats 46 million jobs created from 1980 thru 2008, I see no depression there
you can also clearly see the jobs began going away as noted here

Also no-one expected Obama to fix this mess, the government had little to do with it. What we did not expect him to do was create a 1-1.5 trillion dollar slush fund for the unions and others who have nothing to do with creating jobs
That was all deficit
And having a change to the way our private sector insures us needs attention, it did not need Obama care
I do not know where to even start with that

1979...... 89,932 73,864 24,997 1,008 4,562 19,426


1980...... 90,528 74,154 24,263 1,077 4,454 18,733
1981...... 91,289 75,109 24,118 1,180 4,304 18,634
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
1985...... 97,511 80,978 23,585 974 4,793 17,819
1986...... 99,474 82,636 23,318 829 4,937 17,552
1987...... 102,088 84,932 23,470 771 5,090 17,609
1988...... 105,345 87,806 23,909 770 5,233 17,906

2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

One more thing
the only loony person in this conversation is the one that feels it necessary to call simple information, loony

That's funny, because St Ronnie saw a depression in 1980. So you are saying that Reagan was a premeditated liar!!! As your own numbers show that more jobs were lost after Reagan cut taxes in 1981 than in the 6 month Carter "Depression" which would make Reagan's DEPRESSION a super depression by Reagan's own definition of depression!!!

During his 1980 Labor Day speech at New Jersey's Liberty State Park, Republican presidential nominee Ronald Reagan listed the economic failures of his opponent, President Jimmy Carter. With the Statue of Liberty as a backdrop, Reagan used the moment to respond to Carter, who had accused Reagan of misusing the term "depression" to describe a recession that began in January of that year. "Let it show on the record that when the American people cried out for economic help, Jimmy Carter took refuge behind a dictionary. Well, if it's a definition he wants, I'll give him one. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his."
Economy: Are We in a Recession or Depression? - Newsweek

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A number not seen since 1983, a year before Ronald Reagan was re-elected.

I agree
This is why so many of us look to the correct policies such as lower taxes as well as smart de regulation
Deficit spending was not for the unions, it was utilized to stimulate the economy

Taxes are lower than they were in 1983.

Of course Reagan's 1983 misery index was already 8 points lower than it was when he was elected. Obama's is 2 points higher.

In 1983 the top tax rate was 50%.

Math is hard, especially if you're a liberal.