If you're working for minimum wage your financial problems are yours alone

[ding]

And on a side note : this is why the Fuck I could care less about spelling and grammar...


What for?

I am in the top 16% income wise doing what I love to do fix machines...


.

The problem is really quite simple .... guys like you and me put the lie to the liberal mantra. They don't believe a person can succeed without government intervention. And, because they don't believe it can be done, they can't do it.

Good for you!

That's because they believe that all behaviors should lead to equal outcomes and when they don't they have to rationalize why they didn't. Whereas guys like us know better. We know that all behaviors do not lead to equal outcomes.

Have you noticed the non-rich falling apart through all the Pubcrappe? NO investment,- to save the rich.

No. I haven't noticed that at all. What I have noticed is that their standard of living is shrinking.

Why? Depression? Paying too much in taxes? No cheap training? People are supposed to change jobs every 5 years and no training? Argghh...

No. Because their policy is to inflate their way out of debt. Everything but wages have inflated. There has been no real growth over the last 16 years.

 

[francoHFW]

Reaganism...See sig pp1

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

 

[ghoo]

Your boss didn't kill your ambition.
Your boss didn't make you fail your education.
I didn't kill your ambition.
I didn't make you fail in school.


If you're an adult working for minimum wage it is YOUR irresponsible choices that led you there.

I am not good at english ,who can do me a favor ,sent this letter to president donold trump,t can not ...
论台湾实际拥有核打击能力的紧迫性和必要性
大多数大陆人认为， 台湾必须尽快拥有对大陆沿海14个省24个直辖市的核打击能力。如果台湾被大陆攻占，最终中国将被俄罗斯人肢解（长城以北）和吞并（黄河以南）。
先说必要性：1 部分或全面战争是大陆独裁政权与欧美民主社会斗争的不可回避的终极阶段，让台湾实际用有核打击能力是国内外民主力量以最小代价赢得最大效果的捷径，因为大陆当局走民主的可能性根本不存在。
2对大陆政治的统治集团内部产生离心力，对其国际政治扩张形成一定压力,促其内部政治该弦。 3 对大陆以东南沿海房地产为主的经济给予致命打击。 4 对大陆国内各阶层矛盾起到激化和发酵 ,将老百姓根本利益与当局剥离对立。 5 对大陆军事形成较长时间无法超越的制衡，同时令其外交陷入窘境，发展道一定情况，大陆当局会主动请国际介入。 6 对国内民主力量的鼓舞，大陆人都知道台湾拥有核武器，才会真切的关心政治，尤其是两岸政治，不再做吃了就睡的猪。
最重要的是紧迫性：目前大陆当局对台湾在拥有并亮出核武器前而发动对台湾进攻的可能性在高速膨胀，已超过台湾拥有并亮出核武器后刺激大陆采取军事进攻台湾的风险。事实上大陆已认定台湾拥有核武器，在其亮出核武器前攻占台湾，比其亮出核武器，引发大规模民众恐慌后再攻占台湾而负担的麻烦及风险小的多。

外交辞令：中国是有核国家，台湾是中国一部分，自然也应该有核武器。台湾核武器属台湾自制。

 

[francoHFW]

The problem is really quite simple .... guys like you and me put the lie to the liberal mantra. They don't believe a person can succeed without government intervention. And, because they don't believe it can be done, they can't do it.

Good for you!

That's because they believe that all behaviors should lead to equal outcomes and when they don't they have to rationalize why they didn't. Whereas guys like us know better. We know that all behaviors do not lead to equal outcomes.

Have you noticed the non-rich falling apart through all the Pubcrappe? NO investment,- to save the rich.

No. I haven't noticed that at all. What I have noticed is that their standard of living is shrinking.

Why? Depression? Paying too much in taxes? No cheap training? People are supposed to change jobs every 5 years and no training? Argghh...

No. Because their policy is to inflate their way out of debt. Everything but wages have inflated. There has been no real growth over the last 16 years.

More bad GOP jobs. Must INVEST in job force...

 

[ghoo]

Your boss didn't kill your ambition.
Your boss didn't make you fail your education.
I didn't kill your ambition.
I didn't make you fail in school.


If you're an adult working for minimum wage it is YOUR irresponsible choices that led you there.

I am not good at english ,who can do me a favor ,sent this letter to president donold trump,t can not ...save the taiwan
论台湾实际拥有核打击能力的紧迫性和必要性
大多数大陆人认为， 台湾必须尽快拥有对大陆沿海14个省24个直辖市的核打击能力。如果台湾被大陆攻占，最终中国将被俄罗斯人肢解（长城以北）和吞并（黄河以南）。
先说必要性：1 部分或全面战争是大陆独裁政权与欧美民主社会斗争的不可回避的终极阶段，让台湾实际用有核打击能力是国内外民主力量以最小代价赢得最大效果的捷径，因为大陆当局走民主的可能性根本不存在。
2对大陆政治的统治集团内部产生离心力，对其国际政治扩张形成一定压力,促其内部政治该弦。 3 对大陆以东南沿海房地产为主的经济给予致命打击。 4 对大陆国内各阶层矛盾起到激化和发酵 ,将老百姓根本利益与当局剥离对立。 5 对大陆军事形成较长时间无法超越的制衡，同时令其外交陷入窘境，发展道一定情况，大陆当局会主动请国际介入。 6 对国内民主力量的鼓舞，大陆人都知道台湾拥有核武器，才会真切的关心政治，尤其是两岸政治，不再做吃了就睡的猪。
最重要的是紧迫性：目前大陆当局对台湾在拥有并亮出核武器前而发动对台湾进攻的可能性在高速膨胀，已超过台湾拥有并亮出核武器后刺激大陆采取军事进攻台湾的风险。事实上大陆已认定台湾拥有核武器，在其亮出核武器前攻占台湾，比其亮出核武器，引发大规模民众恐慌后再攻占台湾而负担的麻烦及风险小的多。

外交辞令：中国是有核国家，台湾是中国一部分，自然也应该有核武器。台湾核武器属台湾自制。

 

[francoHFW]

Your boss didn't kill your ambition.
Your boss didn't make you fail your education.
I didn't kill your ambition.
I didn't make you fail in school.


If you're an adult working for minimum wage it is YOUR irresponsible choices that led you there.

I am not good at english ,who can do me a favor ,sent this letter to president donold trump,t can not ...save the taiwan
论台湾实际拥有核打击能力的紧迫性和必要性
大多数大陆人认为， 台湾必须尽快拥有对大陆沿海14个省24个直辖市的核打击能力。如果台湾被大陆攻占，最终中国将被俄罗斯人肢解（长城以北）和吞并（黄河以南）。
先说必要性：1 部分或全面战争是大陆独裁政权与欧美民主社会斗争的不可回避的终极阶段，让台湾实际用有核打击能力是国内外民主力量以最小代价赢得最大效果的捷径，因为大陆当局走民主的可能性根本不存在。
2对大陆政治的统治集团内部产生离心力，对其国际政治扩张形成一定压力,促其内部政治该弦。 3 对大陆以东南沿海房地产为主的经济给予致命打击。 4 对大陆国内各阶层矛盾起到激化和发酵 ,将老百姓根本利益与当局剥离对立。 5 对大陆军事形成较长时间无法超越的制衡，同时令其外交陷入窘境，发展道一定情况，大陆当局会主动请国际介入。 6 对国内民主力量的鼓舞，大陆人都知道台湾拥有核武器，才会真切的关心政治，尤其是两岸政治，不再做吃了就睡的猪。
最重要的是紧迫性：目前大陆当局对台湾在拥有并亮出核武器前而发动对台湾进攻的可能性在高速膨胀，已超过台湾拥有并亮出核武器后刺激大陆采取军事进攻台湾的风险。事实上大陆已认定台湾拥有核武器，在其亮出核武器前攻占台湾，比其亮出核武器，引发大规模民众恐慌后再攻占台湾而负担的麻烦及风险小的多。

外交辞令：中国是有核国家，台湾是中国一部分，自然也应该有核武器。台湾核武器属台湾自制。

Tweet him lol

 

[Spare_change]

Your boss didn't kill your ambition.
Your boss didn't make you fail your education.
I didn't kill your ambition.
I didn't make you fail in school.


If you're an adult working for minimum wage it is YOUR irresponsible choices that led you there.

I am not good at english ,who can do me a favor ,sent this letter to president donold trump,t can not ...save the taiwan
论台湾实际拥有核打击能力的紧迫性和必要性
大多数大陆人认为， 台湾必须尽快拥有对大陆沿海14个省24个直辖市的核打击能力。如果台湾被大陆攻占，最终中国将被俄罗斯人肢解（长城以北）和吞并（黄河以南）。
先说必要性：1 部分或全面战争是大陆独裁政权与欧美民主社会斗争的不可回避的终极阶段，让台湾实际用有核打击能力是国内外民主力量以最小代价赢得最大效果的捷径，因为大陆当局走民主的可能性根本不存在。
2对大陆政治的统治集团内部产生离心力，对其国际政治扩张形成一定压力,促其内部政治该弦。 3 对大陆以东南沿海房地产为主的经济给予致命打击。 4 对大陆国内各阶层矛盾起到激化和发酵 ,将老百姓根本利益与当局剥离对立。 5 对大陆军事形成较长时间无法超越的制衡，同时令其外交陷入窘境，发展道一定情况，大陆当局会主动请国际介入。 6 对国内民主力量的鼓舞，大陆人都知道台湾拥有核武器，才会真切的关心政治，尤其是两岸政治，不再做吃了就睡的猪。
最重要的是紧迫性：目前大陆当局对台湾在拥有并亮出核武器前而发动对台湾进攻的可能性在高速膨胀，已超过台湾拥有并亮出核武器后刺激大陆采取军事进攻台湾的风险。事实上大陆已认定台湾拥有核武器，在其亮出核武器前攻占台湾，比其亮出核武器，引发大规模民众恐慌后再攻占台湾而负担的麻烦及风险小的多。

外交辞令：中国是有核国家，台湾是中国一部分，自然也应该有核武器。台湾核武器属台湾自制。

I assume you mean that the US should have nuclear weapons on Taiwan ... because of the One-China policy, we cannot, and would not in any case, provide our nuclear weapons to the government of Taiwan. To so arm Taiwan would be considered an act of war by the mainland.

But, do not be disheartened ... the mainland knows that your ally has nuclear weapons readily available = VERY readily available..

 

[Spare_change]

Reaganism...See sig pp1

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Figures don't lie, but liars figure ....

I notice that you completely ignore the impact of increased productivity as a result of automation, which of course, would increase the profit-per-worker computation. Further, given a constant number of workers, the resulting gains would appear to go down.

Then, of course, you completely ignore the fact that borrowing money, or using savings, to maintain an inflated lifestyle, is not a factor of economy, but of poor money management skills of the worker.

In short, find somebody else to blame --- because you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Slyhunter]

People have life circumstances that sometimes leads to minimum wage jobs. And who's supposed to do these jobs? Someone has to do it. Working at a fast food job doesn't mean you have no ambition.

A lot of people work fast food jobs to put themselves through college or to take care fo family. Some people have a sick parent or sibling.

There are a lot of reasons why someone might work a fast food job. You need to pay them a reasonable wage.

"reasonable wage" is not something that can be imposed by the government, it is decided by how much value a person adds to a service or product via their labor.

"reasonable wage" is what it takes to pay the rent.
you shouldn't have to spend thousands of dollars getting a Bachelor degree to earn more than the minimum wage.

 

[Spare_change]

People have life circumstances that sometimes leads to minimum wage jobs. And who's supposed to do these jobs? Someone has to do it. Working at a fast food job doesn't mean you have no ambition.

A lot of people work fast food jobs to put themselves through college or to take care fo family. Some people have a sick parent or sibling.

There are a lot of reasons why someone might work a fast food job. You need to pay them a reasonable wage.

"reasonable wage" is not something that can be imposed by the government, it is decided by how much value a person adds to a service or product via their labor.

"reasonable wage" is what it takes to pay the rent.
you shouldn't have to spend thousands of dollars getting a Bachelor degree to earn more than the minimum wage.

You don't .... but you do need to work.

Ignore the liberal mantra

 

[francoHFW]

Reaganism...See sig pp1

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Figures don't lie, but liars figure ....

I notice that you completely ignore the impact of increased productivity as a result of automation, which of course, would increase the profit-per-worker computation. Further, given a constant number of workers, the resulting gains would appear to go down.

Then, of course, you completely ignore the fact that borrowing money, or using savings, to maintain an inflated lifestyle, is not a factor of economy, but of poor money management skills of the worker.

In short, find somebody else to blame --- because you're barking up the wrong tree.

BS- The American dream is dying. Infrastructure too.

 

[Spare_change]

Reaganism...See sig pp1

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Figures don't lie, but liars figure ....

I notice that you completely ignore the impact of increased productivity as a result of automation, which of course, would increase the profit-per-worker computation. Further, given a constant number of workers, the resulting gains would appear to go down.

Then, of course, you completely ignore the fact that borrowing money, or using savings, to maintain an inflated lifestyle, is not a factor of economy, but of poor money management skills of the worker.

In short, find somebody else to blame --- because you're barking up the wrong tree.

BS- The American dream is dying.

Reaganism...See sig pp1

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Figures don't lie, but liars figure ....

I notice that you completely ignore the impact of increased productivity as a result of automation, which of course, would increase the profit-per-worker computation. Further, given a constant number of workers, the resulting gains would appear to go down.

Then, of course, you completely ignore the fact that borrowing money, or using savings, to maintain an inflated lifestyle, is not a factor of economy, but of poor money management skills of the worker.

In short, find somebody else to blame --- because you're barking up the wrong tree.

BS- The American dream is dying.

Only for those not willing to work hard enough to keep theirs alive ....

 

[francoHFW]

r

Reaganism...See sig pp1

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Figures don't lie, but liars figure ....

I notice that you completely ignore the impact of increased productivity as a result of automation, which of course, would increase the profit-per-worker computation. Further, given a constant number of workers, the resulting gains would appear to go down.

Then, of course, you completely ignore the fact that borrowing money, or using savings, to maintain an inflated lifestyle, is not a factor of economy, but of poor money management skills of the worker.

In short, find somebody else to blame --- because you're barking up the wrong tree.

BS- The American dream is dying.

Reaganism...See sig pp1

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Figures don't lie, but liars figure ....

I notice that you completely ignore the impact of increased productivity as a result of automation, which of course, would increase the profit-per-worker computation. Further, given a constant number of workers, the resulting gains would appear to go down.

Then, of course, you completely ignore the fact that borrowing money, or using savings, to maintain an inflated lifestyle, is not a factor of economy, but of poor money management skills of the worker.

In short, find somebody else to blame --- because you're barking up the wrong tree.

BS- The American dream is dying.

Only for those not willing to work hard enough to keep theirs alive ....

When you make it as hard as possible (college and training costs) it happens. People are just the same, dupe. see sig pp1

 

[francoHFW]

But thanks for the corrupt depression....How will Trump screw up the economy. But I hope for the best. Change!

 

[Spare_change]

r

Reaganism...See sig pp1

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Figures don't lie, but liars figure ....

I notice that you completely ignore the impact of increased productivity as a result of automation, which of course, would increase the profit-per-worker computation. Further, given a constant number of workers, the resulting gains would appear to go down.

Then, of course, you completely ignore the fact that borrowing money, or using savings, to maintain an inflated lifestyle, is not a factor of economy, but of poor money management skills of the worker.

In short, find somebody else to blame --- because you're barking up the wrong tree.

BS- The American dream is dying.

Reaganism...See sig pp1

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Figures don't lie, but liars figure ....

I notice that you completely ignore the impact of increased productivity as a result of automation, which of course, would increase the profit-per-worker computation. Further, given a constant number of workers, the resulting gains would appear to go down.

Then, of course, you completely ignore the fact that borrowing money, or using savings, to maintain an inflated lifestyle, is not a factor of economy, but of poor money management skills of the worker.

In short, find somebody else to blame --- because you're barking up the wrong tree.

BS- The American dream is dying.

Only for those not willing to work hard enough to keep theirs alive ....

When you make it as hard as possible (college and training costs) it happens. People are just the same, dupe. see sig pp1

You get what you earn, and when you don't work hard enough to earn it, you don't get it.

Of course, your statement makes no sense ... it presumes that college should be available to all. Not everybody is college material, nor should they clog the education system while they fail. To assume that every fry cook, gas station attendant, and barista should have a college degree demeans the value of the degree, and forces the cost of college even higher.

 

[American_Jihad]

But thanks for the corrupt depression....How will Trump screw up the economy. But I hope for the best. Change!

Your still here, I thought TRUMP would be the ultimate reason for your move to greece...

αντίο


psssst, I'm on his ignore list, tell him...

 

[francoHFW]

r

Reaganism...See sig pp1

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Figures don't lie, but liars figure ....

I notice that you completely ignore the impact of increased productivity as a result of automation, which of course, would increase the profit-per-worker computation. Further, given a constant number of workers, the resulting gains would appear to go down.

Then, of course, you completely ignore the fact that borrowing money, or using savings, to maintain an inflated lifestyle, is not a factor of economy, but of poor money management skills of the worker.

In short, find somebody else to blame --- because you're barking up the wrong tree.

BS- The American dream is dying.

Reaganism...See sig pp1

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Figures don't lie, but liars figure ....

I notice that you completely ignore the impact of increased productivity as a result of automation, which of course, would increase the profit-per-worker computation. Further, given a constant number of workers, the resulting gains would appear to go down.

Then, of course, you completely ignore the fact that borrowing money, or using savings, to maintain an inflated lifestyle, is not a factor of economy, but of poor money management skills of the worker.

In short, find somebody else to blame --- because you're barking up the wrong tree.

BS- The American dream is dying.

Only for those not willing to work hard enough to keep theirs alive ....

When you make it as hard as possible (college and training costs) it happens. People are just the same, dupe. see sig pp1

You get what you earn, and when you don't work hard enough to earn it, you don't get it.

Of course, your statement makes no sense ... it presumes that college should be available to all. Not everybody is college material, nor should they clog the education system while they fail. To assume that every fry cook, gas station attendant, and barista should have a college degree demeans the value of the degree, and forces the cost of college even higher.

Whoa, just cheaper, and a techy training program. A little GI bill. If Trump is smart.

 

[Spare_change]

r

Figures don't lie, but liars figure ....

I notice that you completely ignore the impact of increased productivity as a result of automation, which of course, would increase the profit-per-worker computation. Further, given a constant number of workers, the resulting gains would appear to go down.

Then, of course, you completely ignore the fact that borrowing money, or using savings, to maintain an inflated lifestyle, is not a factor of economy, but of poor money management skills of the worker.

In short, find somebody else to blame --- because you're barking up the wrong tree.

BS- The American dream is dying.

Figures don't lie, but liars figure ....

I notice that you completely ignore the impact of increased productivity as a result of automation, which of course, would increase the profit-per-worker computation. Further, given a constant number of workers, the resulting gains would appear to go down.

Then, of course, you completely ignore the fact that borrowing money, or using savings, to maintain an inflated lifestyle, is not a factor of economy, but of poor money management skills of the worker.

In short, find somebody else to blame --- because you're barking up the wrong tree.

BS- The American dream is dying.

Only for those not willing to work hard enough to keep theirs alive ....

When you make it as hard as possible (college and training costs) it happens. People are just the same, dupe. see sig pp1

You get what you earn, and when you don't work hard enough to earn it, you don't get it.

Of course, your statement makes no sense ... it presumes that college should be available to all. Not everybody is college material, nor should they clog the education system while they fail. To assume that every fry cook, gas station attendant, and barista should have a college degree demeans the value of the degree, and forces the cost of college even higher.

Whoa, just cheaper, and a techy training program. A little GI bill. If Trump is smart.

Cute -- and makes a great bumper sticker ... but it doesn't solve the problem, does it? We just end up with more educated minimum wage earners.

 

[francoHFW]

But thanks for the corrupt depression....How will Trump screw up the economy. But I hope for the best. Change!

Your still here, I thought TRUMP would be the ultimate reason for your move to greece...

αντίο


psssst, I'm on his ignore list, tell him...

You can't move there and make any money.

 

[American_Jihad]

But thanks for the corrupt depression....How will Trump screw up the economy. But I hope for the best. Change!

Your still here, I thought TRUMP would be the ultimate reason for your move to greece...

αντίο


psssst, I'm on his ignore list, tell him...

You can't move there and make any money.

Well at least you confirm your the greasy type...