What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Middle class wages for full timers - at 1978 levels.

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
29,278
Reaction score
11,985
Points
940
Location
On a hill
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
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
123,747
Reaction score
39,916
Points
2,290
The end result of the implementation of Progressive Economic Theory. Four more years of Obama that there will no longer be a middle class
 

Dragon

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
5,481
Reaction score
578
Points
48
The end result of the implementation of Progressive Economic Theory. Four more years of Obama that there will no longer be a middle class

Oh, please. Progressive economic theory was implemented from the late 1930s until 1981. Right-wing economic theory has been implemented since then, and Obama has certainly not succeeded in reversing that, if he's even tried, which I would dispute.

It's not progressive economic theory that's gotten us into this mess. Progressive economic theory, decades ago when we actually used it, gave us the most prosperous period in our nation's history.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
81,292
Reaction score
11,695
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
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.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
81,292
Reaction score
11,695
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
The end result of the implementation of Progressive Economic Theory. Four more years of Obama that there will no longer be a middle class

Oh, please. Progressive economic theory was implemented from the late 1930s until 1981. Right-wing economic theory has been implemented since then, and Obama has certainly not succeeded in reversing that, if he's even tried, which I would dispute.

It's not progressive economic theory that's gotten us into this mess. Progressive economic theory, decades ago when we actually used it, gave us the most prosperous period in our nation's history.

to dispute the argument you would need some facts other than your opinion.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
123,747
Reaction score
39,916
Points
2,290
The end result of the implementation of Progressive Economic Theory. Four more years of Obama that there will no longer be a middle class

Oh, please. Progressive economic theory was implemented from the late 1930s until 1981. Right-wing economic theory has been implemented since then, and Obama has certainly not succeeded in reversing that, if he's even tried, which I would dispute.

It's not progressive economic theory that's gotten us into this mess. Progressive economic theory, decades ago when we actually used it, gave us the most prosperous period in our nation's history.

Right. Started with an economy worse than the 7 Biblical Leans Years and didn't improve until Hitler conquered France and ended with 21% prime Rate.

That's some track record
 

Trajan

conscientia mille testes
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
29,048
Reaction score
5,458
Points
48
Location
The Bay Area Soviet
The end result of the implementation of Progressive Economic Theory. Four more years of Obama that there will no longer be a middle class

Oh, please. Progressive economic theory was implemented from the late 1930s until 1981. Right-wing economic theory has been implemented since then, and Obama has certainly not succeeded in reversing that, if he's even tried, which I would dispute.

It's not progressive economic theory that's gotten us into this mess. Progressive economic theory, decades ago when we actually used it, gave us the most prosperous period in our nation's history.

the "_________" theory that got us here, gave us a few decades of grace beyond Europe which had to catch up to us, THEN beat us to the abyss some 25 30 years ago. Now? its our turn in the barrel.
 

Dragon

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
5,481
Reaction score
578
Points
48
to dispute the argument you would need some facts other than your opinion.

Not a problem.

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.
 

kiwiman127

Comfortably Moderate
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
11,782
Reaction score
3,416
Points
350
Location
4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
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

And some wonder why Main Street America is getting more and more frustrated. This has been going on for over thirty years. It's no wonder why the working class saw a record low when in came to their share of the American overall income. If they saw a record low, who saw realized a record high?
US corporations are saying that the reason the economy is stagnant is because consumers aren't spending. It's kinda hard to spend when you have less and less expendable income and the consumer class is the working class.
And who determines wages in the US anyway?
 

Dragon

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
5,481
Reaction score
578
Points
48
the "_________" theory that got us here, gave us a few decades of grace beyond Europe which had to catch up to us, THEN beat us to the abyss some 25 30 years ago. Now? its our turn in the barrel.

False. The idea that Europe was flattened by World War II is untrue except as applied to Germany. Most of Britain's industry was out of range of the Luftwaffe and was never touched. France, Norway, and the Low Countries were all conquered so quickly that their industrial capacity hardly suffered at all. Italy fared somewhat worse but not that badly; Spain, Switzerland, Portugal, and many other countries were neutral and entirely untouched by the war.

Germany was severely hurt, of course, but even German industry was fully recovered by the mid 1950s.

We did not prosper after the war because the rest of the world was flattened. In the first place that makes no theoretical sense (it's based on "beggar-thy-neighbor," the same flawed idea as underlies mercantilism and blanket protectionism), but in addition it's based on a falsehood, because the rest of the world WASN'T flattened.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
81,292
Reaction score
11,695
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
to dispute the argument you would need some facts other than your opinion.

Not a problem.

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.

There's so much bullshit I have got to see a source, because I actually wasof voting age when Reagan was president and knew what it was like to live in an carter economy.
 

Trajan

conscientia mille testes
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
29,048
Reaction score
5,458
Points
48
Location
The Bay Area Soviet
to dispute the argument you would need some facts other than your opinion.

Not a problem.

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.


your declarative statements don't impress, you are still employing opinion, "facts" in this context especially, rarely stand alone, correlation ( and a mischaracterized partisan one at that) does not equal causation.
 

Dragon

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
5,481
Reaction score
578
Points
48
There's so much bullshit I have got to see a source, because I actually wasof voting age when Reagan was president and knew what it was like to live in an carter economy.

Very well. I find that attitude quite often from younger people whose memory only goes back to Carter.

First, regarding tax rates:

Historical Top Tax Rate

Note that from 1940 to 1980, top marginal tax rate never dropped below 70%. It reached a high of 94% during World War II (partly to pay for the war of course), and in peacetime had a high of 92% in 1952 and 1953. It dropped to 50% in 1982, and then to 28% in 1988. The highest it has reached since then was 39.6% during the Clinton years.

Next, regarding unions:

Labor Market Reporter: US Trade Union Membership: 1900-2000

By 1950 union membership was up to 24.3% of the laborhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illegal_Union_Firing_1952_-_2007.svg

Part of the cause of this in recent decades has been outsourcing and automation which have resulted in a decline in manufacturing jobs. Part, and most importantly, is due to the increase in government hostility towards unions, making it increasingly difficult to unionize service industries where the replacements for manufacturing jobs are mostly found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illegal_Union_Firing_1952_-_2007.svg

Note that this closely follows changes in the presidential administration. There was a strong uptick in illegal firings under Carter, and a bigger one under Reagan. Illegal firings have remained high ever since, a little lower under Clinton but never returning to the low levels of the pre-Carter years.

What's obvious to me from this is that government policy has become less aggressive in enforcement of labor law. Businesses now see fines for illegal firings when they are caught as part of the cost of doing business, not as expensive in the long run as allowing a union to be formed. Obama MAY be finally reversing this -- we'll see.

I used to have a nice study by Paul Krugman on growth of per-capita GDP from 1900 to 2000 (which gave a too-rosy picture of the post-Reagan years because it omitted the slack 2000s and the Great Recession, but still showed a much better performance from 1940 to 2000). Unfortunately, that's no longer on line and I haven't been able to find good statistics elsewhere. It did show that real per-capita GDP grew more than twice as fast from 1940 to 1980, overall, as it did from 1981 to the present, or from 1900 to 1939.

What I can tell you is that the 1970s, or more accurately 1973-1982, represent an anomaly for the period. Those were the years when OPEC first embargoed us and then kept oil prices artificially high, until new oil reserves came on the market in 1983. I included those lackluster years in with the better ones that went before because they were operating under essentially the same economic paradigm.
 

Dragon

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
5,481
Reaction score
578
Points
48
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.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
111,859
Reaction score
46,454
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
to dispute the argument you would need some facts other than your opinion.

Not a problem.

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.

1. It is important to distinguish between more Americans getting richer, and only the rich getting richer. The latter, of course, is the default position of the Old Left Media. For example, the Left bemoans the declining percentage of Americans in the moderate-income range, between $35,000-$50,000. This is regularly called the ‘vanishing middle class.’

2. What is missed…and not by accident, is that the ‘disappearance’ is largely due to fact that the percentage of households with real incomes higher than $50,000 increased from 24.9% in 1967 to 44.1% in 2003, and the percentage with real incomes lower than $35,000 fell from 52.8% in 1967 to 40.9% . More On The Certain Equality Of Reaganomics - Forbes

3. “…in 1967 only one in 25 families earned an income of $100,000 or more in real income, whereas now, one in six do. The percentage of families that have an income of more than $75,000 a year has tripled from 9% to 27%. But it's not just the rich that are getting richer. Virtually every income group has been lifted by the tide of growth in recent decades.”
Great American Dream Machine

Thus, the middle class was growing richer, and moving up, rather than shrinking. Further, what is the basis for decrying workers having higher incomes, or, to put it another way, how can same be harmful to other workers with ‘less-skilled’ jobs?
 

kiwiman127

Comfortably Moderate
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
11,782
Reaction score
3,416
Points
350
Location
4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
to dispute the argument you would need some facts other than your opinion.

Not a problem.

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.

1. It is important to distinguish between more Americans getting richer, and only the rich getting richer. The latter, of course, is the default position of the Old Left Media. For example, the Left bemoans the declining percentage of Americans in the moderate-income range, between $35,000-$50,000. This is regularly called the ‘vanishing middle class.’

2. What is missed…and not by accident, is that the ‘disappearance’ is largely due to fact that the percentage of households with real incomes higher than $50,000 increased from 24.9% in 1967 to 44.1% in 2003, and the percentage with real incomes lower than $35,000 fell from 52.8% in 1967 to 40.9% . More On The Certain Equality Of Reaganomics - Forbes

3. “…in 1967 only one in 25 families earned an income of $100,000 or more in real income, whereas now, one in six do. The percentage of families that have an income of more than $75,000 a year has tripled from 9% to 27%. But it's not just the rich that are getting richer. Virtually every income group has been lifted by the tide of growth in recent decades.”
Great American Dream Machine

Thus, the middle class was growing richer, and moving up, rather than shrinking. Further, what is the basis for decrying workers having higher incomes, or, to put it another way, how can same be harmful to other workers with ‘less-skilled’ jobs?

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.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
111,859
Reaction score
46,454
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Not a problem.

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.

1. It is important to distinguish between more Americans getting richer, and only the rich getting richer. The latter, of course, is the default position of the Old Left Media. For example, the Left bemoans the declining percentage of Americans in the moderate-income range, between $35,000-$50,000. This is regularly called the ‘vanishing middle class.’

2. What is missed…and not by accident, is that the ‘disappearance’ is largely due to fact that the percentage of households with real incomes higher than $50,000 increased from 24.9% in 1967 to 44.1% in 2003, and the percentage with real incomes lower than $35,000 fell from 52.8% in 1967 to 40.9% . More On The Certain Equality Of Reaganomics - Forbes

3. “…in 1967 only one in 25 families earned an income of $100,000 or more in real income, whereas now, one in six do. The percentage of families that have an income of more than $75,000 a year has tripled from 9% to 27%. But it's not just the rich that are getting richer. Virtually every income group has been lifted by the tide of growth in recent decades.”
Great American Dream Machine

Thus, the middle class was growing richer, and moving up, rather than shrinking. Further, what is the basis for decrying workers having higher incomes, or, to put it another way, how can same be harmful to other workers with ‘less-skilled’ jobs?

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??
 

kiwiman127

Comfortably Moderate
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
11,782
Reaction score
3,416
Points
350
Location
4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
1. It is important to distinguish between more Americans getting richer, and only the rich getting richer. The latter, of course, is the default position of the Old Left Media. For example, the Left bemoans the declining percentage of Americans in the moderate-income range, between $35,000-$50,000. This is regularly called the ‘vanishing middle class.’

2. What is missed…and not by accident, is that the ‘disappearance’ is largely due to fact that the percentage of households with real incomes higher than $50,000 increased from 24.9% in 1967 to 44.1% in 2003, and the percentage with real incomes lower than $35,000 fell from 52.8% in 1967 to 40.9% . More On The Certain Equality Of Reaganomics - Forbes

3. “…in 1967 only one in 25 families earned an income of $100,000 or more in real income, whereas now, one in six do. The percentage of families that have an income of more than $75,000 a year has tripled from 9% to 27%. But it's not just the rich that are getting richer. Virtually every income group has been lifted by the tide of growth in recent decades.”
Great American Dream Machine

Thus, the middle class was growing richer, and moving up, rather than shrinking. Further, what is the basis for decrying workers having higher incomes, or, to put it another way, how can same be harmful to other workers with ‘less-skilled’ jobs?

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.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
111,859
Reaction score
46,454
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
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.

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.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$142.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top