Our Thirty Year Experiment

[uscitizen]

It's interesting to see all the denials or obfuscation of the obvious. Reaganomics, supply side economics, trickle down theory, voodoo economics, whatever incarnation you wish, has failed.

Under this idea that if the wealthy capitalists becomes fabulously wealthy capitalists it will be good for all. All that has happened is that the combined wealth of the nation has been liquidated and put into the pockets of a few.

The vast majority of Americans can see that they work harder and longer just to keep up. Unfortunately the wealthy elite have the media and financial resources to keep about half of America in the dark as to the reason they do.

It is not a coincidence that our slide has corresponded with the radical policy changes bought in by the "conservative era". It's time to end this wreckless experiment, the Reagan Revolution has runs it's course. If we don't turn the ship around now we will hit the iceberg of a permanent elite/underclass society.

That perspective was presented in 2008 at it has been implemented since 2009. How is it working out?

the perspective is working out about like dropping a breath mint in a toilet hole full of crap.
Too little too late.

 

[Flopper]

The wages of the Chinese and other 'third world' middle classes coming up and in line with reality on an ever shrinking planet will do much more. The wages of Europe and her spawn America will balance down a little, but there are still a LOT of resources on this planet to exploit. At some point in time nobody will have a gold toilet, but at the same time, nobody will starve, either.

America will ROCK in the next economy because more and more American workers are getting dividend-paying stock in the companies they work for as compensation, and smart Americans are buying stock in their suppliers and competitors.

The Chinese will do well in the next economy because government will still have a major role and, compared to Americans at least, the Chinese trust the government they are inheriting.

More and more higher paid workers are being offered stock in their company as a part of their compensation which may be a good thing. But for middle class earners, financial advisors recommend against any substantial ownership in company stock. The failure of the company can mean your retirement or savings are wiped out. Layoffs typically come when stock prices are low which again can be devastating for the employee. Few low end workers are able to afford ownership in company stock.

All that tells me is that some people are interpreting good advice badly. When your financial advisor recommends against substantial ownership in company stock she is telling you to diversify and take ownership in not only the company you work for but also take ownership in your competitors, vendors and companies whose products you buy.

The 'American Dream' of home ownership is bullshit. The American dream should be owning a slice of the pie that represents the means of production in this country and that means voting stock ownership in the companies that feed our habits and employ us.

Capitalist Utopia will occur a few generations from now when enough of us loose the fear of collective (government) ownership of company common stock instilled in us by the wealthy to help consolidate and protect their wealth.

The definition of the American Dream has changed. It was once being able to support your family without holding down two jobs, a parent that could be home to care of the kids, being able to send your kids to college, and being able to save a little money for retirement. This was a good dream but in the latter part of the 20th century it wasn't good enough. Americans were sold on the dream that they could become rich beyond their wildest dreams or at least live like were rich. They could become the great capitalist of the 21st century.

Americans poured money into the stock market, startup companies, and homes they couldn't afford. They gambled with the future of their family and they lost. Now, millions of us look back and ask, what was wrong with old dream of just being able to get an honest days pay for honest days work. To be able to afford to own your home and raise your family. Most of us aren't cut out to be business tycoons and work 80 hours a week risking everything to become rich.

 

[asterism]

What a farce of an opening statement!

30 years ago we were still trying to dig our way out of the last round of Progressive Keynesian Economics.

So as a check to reality, let's remember that the US is still the dominant economic and military power in the world. Our Price Purchasing Parity dwarfs any and all others.

And 30 years ago our national debt was around $700 billion.
and we were the dominant world power then too.

If debt is a problem and Republicans are bad for adding to it, how can you justify the current Democrats adding to it at a might higher rate?

If you're concerned about the debt, why do you support those who dig deeper?

 

[Toro]

Please elaborate on how median figures don't do that also.

They can but they are a better representation of a broad population.

A better one is to break a population down by quintiles or deciles or whatever.

From 1997 to 2006, in real terms, income growth for households when measured by income distribution in quintiles (where the lowest quintile are the poorest fifth of households)

Lowest quintile 2.5% in total, 0.3% per annum
Second 4.0%, 0.4%
Third 3.6%, 0.4%
Fourth 5.8%, 0.6%
Highest 9.4%, 0.9%

From 1967 to 2006, income growth was as follows

Lowest 37.6% in total, 1.1% per annum
Second 25.9%, 0.8%
Third 32.1%, 0.9%
Fourth 49.4%, 1.3%
Fifth 82.9%, 2.0%

http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

So you posted a chart that makes a false claim as a means to demonstrate something?

No, I posted a chart to show that the median income was rising.

If you can show otherwise, please do so. You haven't yet.

Ah. Do you have some "average" data this also worthy of consideration or is that inconvenient to include? What's your point here?

My point here is that income has not stagnated, at least not over a few generations.

I'm not sure what your point is here, other than to be obstinate.

 

[saveliberty]

Median really is not a relevant figure here. If a millionaire increases his income by 100,000, that gets averaged among all workers. It appears that everyone is being upwardly mobile, which in fact, is not the case.

 

[uscitizen]

What a farce of an opening statement!

30 years ago we were still trying to dig our way out of the last round of Progressive Keynesian Economics.

So as a check to reality, let's remember that the US is still the dominant economic and military power in the world. Our Price Purchasing Parity dwarfs any and all others.

And 30 years ago our national debt was around $700 billion.
and we were the dominant world power then too.

If debt is a problem and Republicans are bad for adding to it, how can you justify the current Democrats adding to it at a might higher rate?

If you're concerned about the debt, why do you support those who dig deeper?

the republicans tended to spend like drunken sailors at times when the economy really did not need it. I kept hearing how great the economy was during Bush II.
Spending is needed now to help the people and the economy.

I do not spupport those who are spending, I do not think the spending has been properly directed for the most good.

 

[uscitizen]

Please elaborate on how median figures don't do that also.

They can but they are a better representation of a broad population.

A better one is to break a population down by quintiles or deciles or whatever.

From 1997 to 2006, in real terms, income growth for households when measured by income distribution in quintiles (where the lowest quintile are the poorest fifth of households)

Lowest quintile 2.5% in total, 0.3% per annum
Second 4.0%, 0.4%
Third 3.6%, 0.4%
Fourth 5.8%, 0.6%
Highest 9.4%, 0.9%

From 1967 to 2006, income growth was as follows

Lowest 37.6% in total, 1.1% per annum
Second 25.9%, 0.8%
Third 32.1%, 0.9%
Fourth 49.4%, 1.3%
Fifth 82.9%, 2.0%

http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

So you posted a chart that makes a false claim as a means to demonstrate something?

No, I posted a chart to show that the median income was rising.

If you can show otherwise, please do so. You haven't yet.

Ah. Do you have some "average" data this also worthy of consideration or is that inconvenient to include? What's your point here?

My point here is that income has not stagnated, at least not over a few generations.

I'm not sure what your point is here, other than to be obstinate.

Income has not stagnated, however the value of wages has.

 

[boedicca]

INCOME hell. lets look at average wages, someone get a graph on that.
Hell the wall st bonuses alone skew the hell out of income averages.
Average income chart distorts the reality for the working class.

Do you understand the difference between a Median and an Average?

 

[Toro]

Median really is not a relevant figure here. If a millionaire increases his income by 100,000, that gets averaged among all workers. It appears that everyone is being upwardly mobile, which in fact, is not the case.

The median is the middle, not the average. The average is the average.

In your example, if everyone has zero gain and the millionaire has a $100k gain, then the average will rise. However, the gain of the middle person will still be zero. Using the median is meant to remove distortions caused by the average.

 

[Toro]

Income has not stagnated, however the value of wages has.

What do you mean by "the value of wages?"

 

[boedicca]

Income has not stagnated, however the value of wages has.

Just out of curiosity:

- How much computing power do you get for $1,000 today compared to $1,000 twenty years ago?

- What kind of Cellphone could you get for $100 twenty years ago?

- What kind of TV could you purchase for $600 twenty years ago?

It's complete nonsense that the value of wages have stagnated. The areas that consume more wages as a % of a median two income families income are quite telling. Compare:

and

Food, Household, Transportation, and Clothing all consume much less of the family's budget. The two areas of big increases are Taxes and Health Care, the latter highly affected by the encroachment of government via Medicare and Medicaid.


http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/137.html

 

[uscitizen]

INCOME hell. lets look at average wages, someone get a graph on that.
Hell the wall st bonuses alone skew the hell out of income averages.
Average income chart distorts the reality for the working class.

Do you understand the difference between a Median and an Average?

do you understand how the mega incomes of a couple hundred can skew the agerage income for millions?
Why I say average wages not income. the majority live off of wages, not stock income and million dollar bonuses.

Those few mega incomes skew both the median and average incomes.

 

[asterism]

Please elaborate on how median figures don't do that also.

They can but they are a better representation of a broad population.

Sounds like cherrypicking to me.

A better one is to break a population down by quintiles or deciles or whatever.

From 1997 to 2006, in real terms, income growth for households when measured by income distribution in quintiles (where the lowest quintile are the poorest fifth of households)

Lowest quintile 2.5% in total, 0.3% per annum
Second 4.0%, 0.4%
Third 3.6%, 0.4%
Fourth 5.8%, 0.6%
Highest 9.4%, 0.9%

From 1967 to 2006, income growth was as follows

Lowest 37.6% in total, 1.1% per annum
Second 25.9%, 0.8%
Third 32.1%, 0.9%
Fourth 49.4%, 1.3%
Fifth 82.9%, 2.0%

http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

Quintile analysis assumes a static set of groups. The population is not static.

So you posted a chart that makes a false claim as a means to demonstrate something?

No, I posted a chart to show that the median income was rising.

If you can show otherwise, please do so. You haven't yet.

I'm not trying to show otherwise, I'm trying to figure out what you are trying to say.

Ah. Do you have some "average" data this also worthy of consideration or is that inconvenient to include? What's your point here?

My point here is that income has not stagnated, at least not over a few generations.

I'm not sure what your point is here, other than to be obstinate.

Just trying to figure out what you are trying to say.

 

[Toro]

Sounds like cherrypicking to me.

Then you are wrong.

Quintile analysis assumes a static set of groups. The population is not static.

Of course the population is not static. But that is irrelevant when understanding the change in a broad population.

Just trying to figure out what you are trying to say.

And now you should know.

 

[boedicca]

INCOME hell. lets look at average wages, someone get a graph on that.
Hell the wall st bonuses alone skew the hell out of income averages.
Average income chart distorts the reality for the working class.

Do you understand the difference between a Median and an Average?

do you understand how the mega incomes of a couple hundred can skew the agerage income for millions?
Why I say average wages not income. the majority live off of wages, not stock income and million dollar bonuses.

Those few mega incomes skew both the median and average incomes.

No. The mega incomes of a few will do nothing to skew The Median.

 

[uscitizen]

Income has not stagnated, however the value of wages has.

What do you mean by "the value of wages?"

the rise in wages subtracting inflation.


That equals the buying power of your wages.

 

[Toro]

Income has not stagnated, however the value of wages has.

What do you mean by "the value of wages?"

the rise in wages subtracting inflation.


That equals the buying power of your wages.

What I posted was the real increase in income. In economics, "real" means after inflation. Real wages have been rising over the past 30-40 years.

 

[uscitizen]

What do you mean by "the value of wages?"

the rise in wages subtracting inflation.


That equals the buying power of your wages.

What I posted was the real increase in income. In economics, "real" means after inflation. Real wages have been rising over the past 30-40 years.

Is that the true inflation figures or the one that excludes energy and food?

How about wages over the last 10-15 years?

 

[asterism]

Sounds like cherrypicking to me.

Then you are wrong.

If you say so. Try to make your point using more than just one arbitrary standard.

Quintile analysis assumes a static set of groups. The population is not static.

Of course the population is not static. But that is irrelevant when understanding the change in a broad population.

How does one understand the change in a broad population by looking at static slices?

Just trying to figure out what you are trying to say.

And now you should know.

Nope, I still don't.

 

[asterism]

What do you mean by "the value of wages?"

the rise in wages subtracting inflation.


That equals the buying power of your wages.

What I posted was the real increase in income. In economics, "real" means after inflation. Real wages have been rising over the past 30-40 years.

No, just the median of inflation adjusted wages of a specific set of workers. Which workers are included in that set and which workers are not included?