A long, steep drop for Americans' standard of living

[Nosmo King]

This is the wealth redistribution, folks. What Obama's masters want... the USA to crumble for the good of the rest of the world.

Thanks Obama.

After only two and a half years?

More than a little disingenuous, don't ya think?

But you are right. It is wealth redistribution. From the bottom up. Thanks, Trickle Down economic policies! You've accomplished your goal! The rich have been coddled at the expense of the average American wage earner. Now, when does the Trickle DOWN start?

 

[Samson]

1. An interesting historical anomaly is the period 1945 through 1965, a golden age in many ways. This was the period after the war, when any of our potential competitors were rebuilding from the devastation, making it impossible for the United States economy not to thrive. Beneficiaries included the unions and blue collar high school graduates…who were assured of high paying jobs. That is no longer true, and probably won’t be again, short of a third World War.
H.W. Brands ,“American Colossus: The Triumph of American Capitalism, 1865-1900.”

2. That being said, standard of living is a function of two factors: amount of education one has, and the amount of work one is willing to do.

Do you know the the unemployment rate for college educated?


"However, if one examines the August BLS jobs report closely, one finds something interesting -- the unemployment rate for college graduates (that is, those holding at least a Bachelor’s degree) is only 4.3 percent. Moreover, this figure has slowly declined from 5.0 percent in August 2010.

Or, to put it another way, more than 95 percent of college graduates in the Unites States are working – in the aftermath of one of the worst recessions in living memory."
Institute for Economic Competitiveness | Despite Unemployment Worries, 95% of U.S. College Grads Have Jobs

For September, 2011, it is down to 4.2.


So, in the words of that great intellectual, Flavor Flav, 'Don't Believe the Hype."

I'm pretty sure that you have the data for the unemployed college educated from somewhere. I'm curious. What is it? And does it take into account what the individuals majored in?

1. "I'm pretty sure that you have the data for the unemployed college educated from somewhere. I'm curious. What is it?"
What are you asking here....?
...I'm pretty sure you can subtract 4.2% from 100%, which would tell that 95.8% of college grads are employed....
And that the 4.2% IS the " data for the unemployed college educated."
No?



2. "And does it take into account what the individuals majored in?"
Are you suggesting that a Physics or Computer Sci major stands a better chance of being employed that a "Bitter Women's Studies" or "Drum Majoretted" major.....
...well, Duh!

Um.....I have an employment opportunity for Drum Majorette Majors.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm pretty sure that you have the data for the unemployed college educated from somewhere. I'm curious. What is it? And does it take into account what the individuals majored in?

1. "I'm pretty sure that you have the data for the unemployed college educated from somewhere. I'm curious. What is it?"
What are you asking here....?
...I'm pretty sure you can subtract 4.2% from 100%, which would tell that 95.8% of college grads are employed....
And that the 4.2% IS the " data for the unemployed college educated."
No?



2. "And does it take into account what the individuals majored in?"
Are you suggesting that a Physics or Computer Sci major stands a better chance of being employed that a "Bitter Women's Studies" or "Drum Majoretted" major.....
...well, Duh!

Um.....I have an employment opportunity for Drum Majorette Majors.

You have heard of the Mann Act, no?

 

[expat_panama]

...those still employed are making a lot more money because they get more done than those that couldn't hold a job...

No, they'll be making the same money just working a lot more hours for it.

No, it's not the same money, it's more money. You may have missed the part about how we now know we got 5% fewer people employed while average incomes are still at 99% peak. Another thing is that it's more money with fewer hours--

--remember we're hearing all this belly-achin' about how hard it is to get from part time to find full time work.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...those still employed are making a lot more money because they get more done than those that couldn't hold a job...

No, they'll be making the same money just working a lot more hours for it.

No, it's not the same money, it's more money. You may have missed the part about how we now know we got 5% fewer people employed while average incomes are still at 99% peak. Another thing is that it's more money with fewer hours--

--remember we're hearing all this belly-achin' about how hard it is to get from part time to find full time work.

How much work one does is really the deciding factor between rich and poor....

1. . Productivity of workers in competitive markets is what determines the earnings of most workers; and it is not an accident that labor earns about 70% of the total output of the American economy, and capital earns about 30%.

2. In fact, it is the ‘big government’ mentality that speaks of the distribution of wealth, and of income. In reality, income and wealth are not distributed, they are produced, and in a fair society they come into the world attached to the rightful owner that produced them.

3. In Alan Reynold’s “Income and Wealth,” he studied the data, and found the following. Certainly the top fifth of households has a far greater proportion of same, but it also has six times as many full-time workers as the bottom fifth, heavily composed of two-earner couples with older children or other relatives who work. The bottom fifth is heavily composed of aged or younger couples, the retired or the still in school. Also, some in the bottom fifth because they are part of the underground economy, or in crime, so income is not reported. Or suffer addictions which preclude work.

a. In 2004, 56.4% of households in the bottom fifth featured no work by anyone for the entire year.
HINC-05--Part 1

b.The total number of full time, year round workers in the bottom fifth for 2004 was less than 3 million…which compares to 16.4 million in the top fifth of households. Ibid.

The difference in income does not reflect inequality, but rather, productivity. The fact that the lowest fifth are neither starving, nor living in the streets reflects the intrinsic generosity of our society, and the transfer of incomes via government programs. 80% of income in the bottom fifth is from such transfers; it is only 2% for the top fifth.

c. Other pertinent factors include age and experience of head of household, educational differences, the rise of working women, which increased the number of two-earner families, increased in college educated workers, percent of immigrants in the workforce, which also give the impression of inequality.
Covered in chapters five and nine of Ferrara's "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb."

 

[editec]

In terms of actual purchasing power, the American middle class has been losing ground since about 1969.

IF we broke the national data into quintiles and then posted the MEDIAN incomes for each quintile you'd see just how lopsided the wealth and incomes equity is REALLY becoming.


And since we're all competing to purchase the assets of this nation (this where the zero sum game issue becomes relevant) you'd realize that in terms of socio-economic class, this nation is losing ground.

And we're just now beginning to see how this is effecting not just the unhappy 50% or so, but even those of us who have been winning.

What good is your money if you have to hide in a gated community because most of the rest of the nation is becoming a shithole?

 

[PoliticalChic]

In terms of actual purchasing power, the American middle class has been losing ground since about 1969.

IF we broke the national data into quintiles and then posted the MEDIAN incomes for each quintile you'd see just how lopsided the wealth and incomes equity is REALLY becoming.


And since we're all competing to purchase the assets of this nation (this where the zero sum game issue becomes relevant) you'd realize that in terms of socio-economic class, this nation is losing ground.

And we're just now beginning to see how this is effecting not just the unhappy 50% or so, but even those of us who have been winning.

What good is your money if you have to hide in a gated community because most of the rest of the nation is becoming a shithole?

Wrong again, Techy....
...this is getting to be an embarrassing habit for you!


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.


Want me to say that again about the 'Reagan boom'?

No?....then be good!


And don't ignore post #45!!

 

[likeabird03]

...the recession began in Dec. '07 with 4.7% unemployment, and even though unemployment's now doubled, our average incomes are still within 99% of what they were back then --even adjusting for inflation.

Because businesses don't usually do pay-cuts. They usually lay off workers. An extended period of high unemployment will continue to make wages fall behind inflation however. Why give raises in an economy where unemployment is 9%.

That's your guess. Before we guess again let's look and think more. We can see incomes are holding steady while employment has dropped--

--and since July '07 the number of employees has fallen 5% while average incomes has fallen just 1%.

Now we can guess that those still employed are making a lot more money because they get more done than those that couldn't hold a job. We can also guess that many are getting incomes from sources other than employment.

I did say that businesses prefer to let people go than give pay decreases across the board. Not saying why exactly, probably easier to let people go and make the remaining people pick up the slack (since they're thinking they're lucky to have a job) rather than decrease pay making morale lower across the board. Wages have stagnated for the median income worker in this high unemployment environment, it's a lagging indicator though, much of the downward pressure if yet to come unless the labor market turns around, and quick. Even if the economy started adding jobs at a respectable rate, you wouldn't see wages start to increase until the unemployment rate drops to near the mid single digits. There's too much spare capacity now for wages to go up, or even keep up with inflation.

 

[likeabird03]

1. An interesting historical anomaly is the period 1945 through 1965, a golden age in many ways. This was the period after the war, when any of our potential competitors were rebuilding from the devastation, making it impossible for the United States economy not to thrive. Beneficiaries included the unions and blue collar high school graduates…who were assured of high paying jobs. That is no longer true, and probably won’t be again, short of a third World War.
H.W. Brands ,“American Colossus: The Triumph of American Capitalism, 1865-1900.”

2. That being said, standard of living is a function of two factors: amount of education one has, and the amount of work one is willing to do.

Do you know the the unemployment rate for college educated?


"However, if one examines the August BLS jobs report closely, one finds something interesting -- the unemployment rate for college graduates (that is, those holding at least a Bachelor’s degree) is only 4.3 percent. Moreover, this figure has slowly declined from 5.0 percent in August 2010.

Or, to put it another way, more than 95 percent of college graduates in the Unites States are working – in the aftermath of one of the worst recessions in living memory."
Institute for Economic Competitiveness | Despite Unemployment Worries, 95% of U.S. College Grads Have Jobs

For September, 2011, it is down to 4.2.


So, in the words of that great intellectual, Flavor Flav, 'Don't Believe the Hype."

I'm pretty sure that you have the data for the unemployed college educated from somewhere. I'm curious. What is it? And does it take into account what the individuals majored in?

Using this information to determine the employment situation for grads is very misleading. The reported unemployment rate only takes into account those who WERE employed. It doesn't count those who got out of college and have not worked yet and can't find a job. The actual jobless rate for grads is far higher.

 

[likeabird03]

In terms of actual purchasing power, the American middle class has been losing ground since about 1969.

IF we broke the national data into quintiles and then posted the MEDIAN incomes for each quintile you'd see just how lopsided the wealth and incomes equity is REALLY becoming.


And since we're all competing to purchase the assets of this nation (this where the zero sum game issue becomes relevant) you'd realize that in terms of socio-economic class, this nation is losing ground.

And we're just now beginning to see how this is effecting not just the unhappy 50% or so, but even those of us who have been winning.

What good is your money if you have to hide in a gated community because most of the rest of the nation is becoming a shithole?

Wrong again, Techy....
...this is getting to be an embarrassing habit for you!


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.


Want me to say that again about the 'Reagan boom'?

No?....then be good!


And don't ignore post #45!!

Too bad the data only goes up to 2004, much of the decline has only been in the past few years. ALSO - how much of that 74% increase was fed by credit? We're talking 2004 remember. Equity Loans, Credit Cards, etc etc. Yes consumption increased, but most of that was due to the savings rate declining and an expansion of credit during that time period.

 

[Dragon]

No, it's not the same money, it's more money. You may have missed the part about how we now know we got 5% fewer people employed while average incomes are still at 99% peak.

There's a flaw in this reasoning as well, I'm afraid. By using "average income," you are including in the total not only wage-earners but also those whose income derives primarily from holdings and investments; you are including Wall Street high rollers with those who hold down regular jobs. As the entire argument is that most Americans have lost income to the gain of the very wealthy, this is an inherently misleading statistic. Someone earlier mentioned average wages. You dismissed this, but in fact that is the best statistic to use.

The entire nation has not lost ground. A very small, elite portion of it has made out like bandits. It's most of those who don't belong to that elite that have lost ground.

Political Chic's claim that 95.whatever% of college graduates still have jobs is also misleading. It is of course ALWAYS going to be the case that those who are most competitive in the job market will be the best employed. That the unemployment and underemployment status falls largely on those with less than a bachelor's degree does not mean that lack of education on the part of the unemployed is what is causing the unemployment; it means only that those with college degrees are better positioned to capture what jobs still do exist.

 

[likeabird03]

No, it's not the same money, it's more money. You may have missed the part about how we now know we got 5% fewer people employed while average incomes are still at 99% peak.

There's a flaw in this reasoning as well, I'm afraid. By using "average income," you are including in the total not only wage-earners but also those whose income derives primarily from holdings and investments; you are including Wall Street high rollers with those who hold down regular jobs. As the entire argument is that most Americans have lost income to the gain of the very wealthy, this is an inherently misleading statistic. Someone earlier mentioned average wages. You dismissed this, but in fact that is the best statistic to use.

The entire nation has not lost ground. A very small, elite portion of it has made out like bandits. It's most of those who don't belong to that elite that have lost ground.

Political Chic's claim that 95.whatever% of college graduates still have jobs is also misleading. It is of course ALWAYS going to be the case that those who are most competitive in the job market will be the best employed. That the unemployment and underemployment status falls largely on those with less than a bachelor's degree does not mean that lack of education on the part of the unemployed is what is causing the unemployment; it means only that those with college degrees are better positioned to capture what jobs still do exist.

You nailed it. I would also argue that the job market is far worse for even college grads than the numbers indicate. Someone who hasn't worked and is now just getting out of college and can't find a job aren't counted in the official jobless numbers.

 

[editec]

In terms of actual purchasing power, the American middle class has been losing ground since about 1969.

IF we broke the national data into quintiles and then posted the MEDIAN incomes for each quintile you'd see just how lopsided the wealth and incomes equity is REALLY becoming.


And since we're all competing to purchase the assets of this nation (this where the zero sum game issue becomes relevant) you'd realize that in terms of socio-economic class, this nation is losing ground.

And we're just now beginning to see how this is effecting not just the unhappy 50% or so, but even those of us who have been winning.

What good is your money if you have to hide in a gated community because most of the rest of the nation is becoming a shithole?

Wrong again, Techy....
...this is getting to be an embarrassing habit for you!


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.


Want me to say that again about the 'Reagan boom'?

No?....then be good!


And don't ignore post #45!!

Measuring only dollar amounts proves exactly nothing.

One must measure the purchasing power of those dollar amounts.

Do you remember what inflation was doing to your paycheck back in the 70s and 80s?

I do.

 

[editec]

In terms of actual purchasing power, the American middle class has been losing ground since about 1969.

IF we broke the national data into quintiles and then posted the MEDIAN incomes for each quintile you'd see just how lopsided the wealth and incomes equity is REALLY becoming.


And since we're all competing to purchase the assets of this nation (this where the zero sum game issue becomes relevant) you'd realize that in terms of socio-economic class, this nation is losing ground.

And we're just now beginning to see how this is effecting not just the unhappy 50% or so, but even those of us who have been winning.

What good is your money if you have to hide in a gated community because most of the rest of the nation is becoming a shithole?

Wrong again, Techy....
...this is getting to be an embarrassing habit for you!


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.


Want me to say that again about the 'Reagan boom'?

No?....then be good!


And don't ignore post #45!!

Too bad the data only goes up to 2004, much of the decline has only been in the past few years.

Yes it is.

What's going on now is not merely a loss in purchaing power (as we've gotten used to ..sorta) but now we're actually seeing a DOLLAR LOSS in terms of how much money the median income really is.

AFAIK that hasn't happened to the American people in a mighty long time.

Truly now the average American families purchasing power is going down down down.

ALSO - how much of that 74% increase was fed by credit? We're talking 2004 remember. Equity Loans, Credit Cards, etc etc. Yes consumption increased, but most of that was due to the savings rate declining and an expansion of credit during that time period.

Yup.

the American people fought against the erosion of their puchasing power in three ways

1. They sent women to work in huge humbers

2. They expanding their debt-to income loads with credit cards

3. They tapped the unrealized equity of their homes.

Now those strategies no longer work and still the debts remain to be paid.

Hence the depression we're in right now.

40 years of stupid supply side policies have come home to roost.

 

[Dragon]

An interesting historical anomaly is the period 1945 through 1965, a golden age in many ways. This was the period after the war, when any of our potential competitors were rebuilding from the devastation, making it impossible for the United States economy not to thrive.

Wrong. That's a myth, on at least three levels.

First, the period of prosperity lasted until 1973, not just 1965.

Second, the idea that the world was smoking rubble after World War II is, except for Germany and Japan, not true. No other major industrial power (except maybe the Soviet Union) was seriously damaged by the war in terms of industrial capacity, and even Germany and Japan had fully recovered by the mid-1950s. That the U.S. was the last one standing and nobody could compete with us simply has no basis in fact.

Third, having no competition isn't even a good thing. Nor do you think it would be a good thing in any other context than this -- e.g., I'm reasonably certain you don't approve of either mercantilism or blanket protectionism, and both are based on the same "beggar-thy-neighbor" logic as the last-country-standing meme -- and the only reason you approve of it in this context is because it gives you an out from recognizing that the economy did better under government policies that your ideology says should have made things worse.

But in fact, there is no other plausible explanation. Those policies didn't make things worse. They made things better. The economy doesn't perform better when the rich are encouraged and helped to become as astronomically rich as possible. It performs better when income gaps are kept narrow and widespread prosperity, rather than the private fortunes of the richest, is encouraged.

 

[expat_panama]

...you are including Wall Street high rollers with those who hold down regular jobs...

--and if we continue this line of thought we change from hard numbers to feelings about class warfare.

OK, I know it's lots of fun but I got work to do. Let me know when you want to talk serious.

 

[mskafka]

In terms of actual purchasing power, the American middle class has been losing ground since about 1969.

IF we broke the national data into quintiles and then posted the MEDIAN incomes for each quintile you'd see just how lopsided the wealth and incomes equity is REALLY becoming.


And since we're all competing to purchase the assets of this nation (this where the zero sum game issue becomes relevant) you'd realize that in terms of socio-economic class, this nation is losing ground.

And we're just now beginning to see how this is effecting not just the unhappy 50% or so, but even those of us who have been winning.

What good is your money if you have to hide in a gated community because most of the rest of the nation is becoming a shithole?

Wrong again, Techy....
...this is getting to be an embarrassing habit for you!


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.


Want me to say that again about the 'Reagan boom'?

No?....then be good!


And don't ignore post #45!!

Measuring only dollar amounts proves exactly nothing.

One must measure the purchasing power of those dollar amounts.

Do you remember what inflation was doing to your paycheck back in the 70s and 80s?

I do.

Seriously doubt it. But the Cato Institute was around. We sure know that! Oh, Daddy Bear!

 

[editec]

Wrong again, Techy....
...this is getting to be an embarrassing habit for you!


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.


Want me to say that again about the 'Reagan boom'?

No?....then be good!


And don't ignore post #45!!

Measuring only dollar amounts proves exactly nothing.

One must measure the purchasing power of those dollar amounts.

Do you remember what inflation was doing to your paycheck back in the 70s and 80s?

I do.

Seriously doubt it.

Kid I probably wear shoes older than you are.

But thanks for doubting that.

Obviously my posts make me appear young at heart.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. An interesting historical anomaly is the period 1945 through 1965, a golden age in many ways. This was the period after the war, when any of our potential competitors were rebuilding from the devastation, making it impossible for the United States economy not to thrive. Beneficiaries included the unions and blue collar high school graduates…who were assured of high paying jobs. That is no longer true, and probably won’t be again, short of a third World War.
H.W. Brands ,“American Colossus: The Triumph of American Capitalism, 1865-1900.”

2. That being said, standard of living is a function of two factors: amount of education one has, and the amount of work one is willing to do.

Do you know the the unemployment rate for college educated?


"However, if one examines the August BLS jobs report closely, one finds something interesting -- the unemployment rate for college graduates (that is, those holding at least a Bachelor’s degree) is only 4.3 percent. Moreover, this figure has slowly declined from 5.0 percent in August 2010.

Or, to put it another way, more than 95 percent of college graduates in the Unites States are working – in the aftermath of one of the worst recessions in living memory."
Institute for Economic Competitiveness | Despite Unemployment Worries, 95% of U.S. College Grads Have Jobs

For September, 2011, it is down to 4.2.


So, in the words of that great intellectual, Flavor Flav, 'Don't Believe the Hype."

I'm pretty sure that you have the data for the unemployed college educated from somewhere. I'm curious. What is it? And does it take into account what the individuals majored in?

Using this information to determine the employment situation for grads is very misleading. The reported unemployment rate only takes into account those who WERE employed. It doesn't count those who got out of college and have not worked yet and can't find a job. The actual jobless rate for grads is far higher.

Link?

 

[PoliticalChic]

In terms of actual purchasing power, the American middle class has been losing ground since about 1969.

IF we broke the national data into quintiles and then posted the MEDIAN incomes for each quintile you'd see just how lopsided the wealth and incomes equity is REALLY becoming.


And since we're all competing to purchase the assets of this nation (this where the zero sum game issue becomes relevant) you'd realize that in terms of socio-economic class, this nation is losing ground.

And we're just now beginning to see how this is effecting not just the unhappy 50% or so, but even those of us who have been winning.

What good is your money if you have to hide in a gated community because most of the rest of the nation is becoming a shithole?

Wrong again, Techy....
...this is getting to be an embarrassing habit for you!


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.


Want me to say that again about the 'Reagan boom'?

No?....then be good!


And don't ignore post #45!!

Measuring only dollar amounts proves exactly nothing.

One must measure the purchasing power of those dollar amounts.

Do you remember what inflation was doing to your paycheck back in the 70s and 80s?

I do.

Purchasing power??

Sure:

In 1949, someone who worked minimum wage over the summer would have enough money to buy the following items from that year’s Sears’ catalogue: A Smith-Corona typewriter, Argus 21 35mm camera, Silvertone AM-FM table radio, and Silvertone 3-speed phonograph.
In 2009, the same person, working the same number of hours at minimum wage, would now be able to purchase: A Dell laptop computer, HP color ink printer, scanner, copier, Canon 8 megapixel digital camera, GPS system, 32” LCD HDTV television, 8GB iPod Nano, GE microwave, Haier refrigerator/freezer, Toshiba DVD/VCR combo, RCA home theater system, Uniden cordless phone, RCA AM/FM radio, Camcorder, Sony PlayStation 2, as well as several other things.
Mark J. Perry, “Young Americans: Luckiest Generation in History,” CARPE DIEM: Young Americans: Luckiest Generation in History


(Actually, I wasn't collecting a paycheck in the 70's and 80's...)