Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
THE 5 percent of Americans with the highest incomes now account for 37 percent of all consumer purchases, according to the latest research from Moody’s Analytics. That should come as no surprise. Our society has become more and more unequal.
When so much income goes to the top, the middle class doesn’t have enough purchasing power to keep the economy going without sinking ever more deeply into debt — which, as we’ve seen, ends badly. An economy so dependent on the spending of a few is also prone to great booms and busts. The rich splurge and speculate when their savings are doing well. But when the values of their assets tumble, they pull back. That can lead to wild gyrations. Sound familiar?
The economy won’t really bounce back until America’s surge toward inequality is reversed. Even if by some miracle President Obama gets support for a second big stimulus while Ben S. Bernanke’s Fed keeps interest rates near zero, neither will do the trick without a middle class capable of spending. Pump-priming works only when a well contains enough water.
Look back over the last hundred years and you’ll see the pattern. During periods when the very rich took home a much smaller proportion of total income — as in the Great Prosperity between 1947 and 1977 — the nation as a whole grew faster and median wages surged. We created a virtuous cycle in which an ever growing middle class had the ability to consume more goods and services, which created more and better jobs, thereby stoking demand. The rising tide did in fact lift all boats.
During periods when the very rich took home a larger proportion — as between 1918 and 1933, and in the Great Regression from 1981 to the present day — growth slowed, median wages stagnated and we suffered giant downturns. It’s no mere coincidence that over the last century the top earners’ share of the nation’s total income peaked in 1928 and 2007 — the two years just preceding the biggest downturns.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/o...llow-a-strengthening-of-the-middle-class.html
It is astounding to read the hateful and truly ignorant comments that the above post evoked from some of us.
Do you folks truly not understand that a healthy middle class was the engine that made this nation so great and powerful?
Apparently you don't understand that.
I marvel at how ignorant and angry some of our fellow posters really are.
Truly we're living though another age of KNOW-NOTHINGism.
How is that their fault?You're basing all this sniveling on 400 people?!?!?!?
Fuck me running.
BTW, nice use of the opportunity to brag about how much money you make.
400 people that hold more wealth than 50% of the country. (155 million)
And who says that those 155 million of the lower 50% earnings group will remain in that percentile for the entirety of their lives?....Oh yeah, the class war pimps do.
Rube.
How is that their fault?400 people that hold more wealth than 50% of the country. (155 million)
And who says that those 155 million of the lower 50% earnings group will remain in that percentile for the entirety of their lives?....Oh yeah, the class war pimps do.
Rube.
Who is saying it's "their" fault? I'm pointing out a fact...that 400 people in this country hold more wealth than 155 million people.
Wealth inequality is going to just keep growing...and the anger along with it.
"The upper-middle class is also richer; today, those falling within the 60th to 80th percentile in family income have an income range of between $55,000 and $88,000 a year, which is about $24,000 a year higher than 1967."
Ibid.
Yeah, those are feel-good numbers, until one figures in inflation/CPI. Then those numbers look depressing.
Your numbers confirm exactly what I have been posting. Americans are losing by falling behind inflation and it's been happening for decades. Thanks for making my point.
And by the way, the CPI measures inflations sans the increases in the prices for energy and food! Now taking those two expenses only adds to how much the American worker has been losing out to inflation.
The Nominal Dollar to Real Dollar formula is the only way to measure whether a worker is improving himself/herself financially, because it takes in the consideration of inflation versus wage increase.
Here is the historical CPI data and I already gave you a link which has instructions how to use the CPI to figure out monetary growth/wage growth, etc.
Historical Consumer Price Index
Wrong again, my 'moderate' friend...
Folks are not stupid, contrary to the opinion of Liberals, and intuitively know whether or not - as the great man said, 'they are doing better now than last year,'...
..." only way to measure whether a worker is improving himself/herself financially," is to look at the headlind on the NYTimes November 3rd, 2012.
No one will be surprised.
If it is............. What of it?It is astounding to read the hateful and truly ignorant comments that the above post evoked from some of us.
Do you folks truly not understand that a healthy middle class was the engine that made this nation so great and powerful?
Apparently you don't understand that.
I marvel at how ignorant and angry some of our fellow posters really are.
Truly we're living though another age of KNOW-NOTHINGism.
Why should anyone "understand" what isn't true? Freedom is what made this nation great, not socialized medicine.[/QUOTE]
This is the new slogan of the far right? "Freedom is what made this nation great, not socialized medicine."
It is astounding to read the hateful and truly ignorant comments that the above post evoked from some of us.
Do you folks truly not understand that a healthy middle class was the engine that made this nation so great and powerful?
Apparently you don't understand that.
I marvel at how ignorant and angry some of our fellow posters really are.
Truly we're living though another age of KNOW-NOTHINGism.
Why should anyone "understand" what isn't true? Freedom is what made this nation great, not socialized medicine.
If it is............. What of it?Why should anyone "understand" what isn't true? Freedom is what made this nation great, not socialized medicine.[/QUOTE]
This is the new slogan of the far right? "Freedom is what made this nation great, not socialized medicine."
Well, it's not quite up there with "Give me liberty or give me death"
In what way does that take anything out of your pocket?How is that their fault?400 people that hold more wealth than 50% of the country. (155 million)
And who says that those 155 million of the lower 50% earnings group will remain in that percentile for the entirety of their lives?....Oh yeah, the class war pimps do.
Rube.
Who is saying it's "their" fault? I'm pointing out a fact...that 400 people in this country hold more wealth than 155 million people.
Wealth inequality is going to just keep growing...and the anger along with it.
The fact is when one person is overpaid, other people are being cheated.
The wealthy are thieves. Their wealth is solely due to other people being underpaid.
The wealth gain their wealth by the economically advantaged taken advantage of the economically disadvantaged.
The family took you out of the 'nervous hospital' for the day?
Either that or:
Poor richard has a great case for a lawsuit against whoever was responsible for his lack of a decent edification.
I seriously doubt everyone who is in the lower 50% now will be there for the entirety of their lives but by looking at the numbers, ten years from now there will be more than 155 million in that lower 50%. The median might also be lower ten years from now.
THE 5 percent of Americans with the highest incomes now account for 37 percent of all consumer purchases, according to the latest research from Moodys Analytics. That should come as no surprise. Our society has become more and more unequal.
When so much income goes to the top, the middle class doesnt have enough purchasing power to keep the economy going without sinking ever more deeply into debt which, as weve seen, ends badly. An economy so dependent on the spending of a few is also prone to great booms and busts. The rich splurge and speculate when their savings are doing well. But when the values of their assets tumble, they pull back. That can lead to wild gyrations. Sound familiar?
The economy wont really bounce back until Americas surge toward inequality is reversed. Even if by some miracle President Obama gets support for a second big stimulus while Ben S. Bernankes Fed keeps interest rates near zero, neither will do the trick without a middle class capable of spending. Pump-priming works only when a well contains enough water.
Look back over the last hundred years and youll see the pattern. During periods when the very rich took home a much smaller proportion of total income as in the Great Prosperity between 1947 and 1977 the nation as a whole grew faster and median wages surged. We created a virtuous cycle in which an ever growing middle class had the ability to consume more goods and services, which created more and better jobs, thereby stoking demand. The rising tide did in fact lift all boats.
During periods when the very rich took home a larger proportion as between 1918 and 1933, and in the Great Regression from 1981 to the present day growth slowed, median wages stagnated and we suffered giant downturns. Its no mere coincidence that over the last century the top earners share of the nations total income peaked in 1928 and 2007 the two years just preceding the biggest downturns.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/o...llow-a-strengthening-of-the-middle-class.html
It is astounding to read the hateful and truly ignorant comments that the above post evoked from some of us.
Do you folks truly not understand that a healthy middle class was the engine that made this nation so great and powerful?
Apparently you don't understand that.
I marvel at how ignorant and angry some of our fellow posters really are.
Truly we're living though another age of KNOW-NOTHINGism.
Yeah, those are feel-good numbers, until one figures in inflation/CPI. Then those numbers look depressing.
Your numbers confirm exactly what I have been posting. Americans are losing by falling behind inflation and it's been happening for decades. Thanks for making my point.
And by the way, the CPI measures inflations sans the increases in the prices for energy and food! Now taking those two expenses only adds to how much the American worker has been losing out to inflation.
The Nominal Dollar to Real Dollar formula is the only way to measure whether a worker is improving himself/herself financially, because it takes in the consideration of inflation versus wage increase.
Here is the historical CPI data and I already gave you a link which has instructions how to use the CPI to figure out monetary growth/wage growth, etc.
Historical Consumer Price Index
Wrong again, my 'moderate' friend...
Folks are not stupid, contrary to the opinion of Liberals, and intuitively know whether or not - as the great man said, 'they are doing better now than last year,'...
..." only way to measure whether a worker is improving himself/herself financially," is to look at the headlind on the NYTimes November 3rd, 2012.
No one will be surprised.
No, I'm afraid you are wrong. How else can anyone measure if wages are flat in real terms?
If wages aren't keeping up with inflation, those wages are flat and in fact decreasing because the workers spending capacity has decreased.
Here's link using the Department of Labor statistics that show wages using constant 1982 dollars (Real Dollar) values from 1964 t0 2004. In 1981, the average wage for a non-farm worker was $277.35 the average wage for the non-farm worker in 2004 was $277.57 an increase of a mere 22 cents.
Wages and Benefits: Real Wages (1964-2004) - Working Life
Using Nominal Dollars, the National Wage Yearly Average was 14,531.34 and for 2004 it was 35,648.55.
National Average Wage Index
Please note, the the Department of Labor still uses Real Dollars when issuing reports:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf
The bottom-line is the shiny numbers you posted to make your case do not tell the real story, because Nominal Dollars were used which do not reflect the inflationary value of the dollar.
This all looks good, but is disingenuous. I'm not calling you a liar, it's just that you have to be careful when you read something in the press versus looking up something that deals with something set on a fixed standard.
The Greatest Generation survived the Great Depression and a World War to go on to build
a life that favored the middle class over the wealthy, while having enough children to
pay for their social security in their later years.
Their baby boom offspring, as a generation, have squandered the legacy of their
parents with greed for the almighty dollar, and by forgetting about the class
they grew up in, while placing wealth over their fellow Americans. Greed and
selfishness are what the babyboomers have wrought for their generation,
and that is why this once great nation is in peril.
Americans will need to stop the wealthiest and their mission the past 30 years or so
of massive wealth redistribution out of the middle class and into the top 1%.
That is, if America is going to be strong again. A large solid middle class is what
made this nation strong, and it can be again, if we all stop pandering to the
rightwing propaganda and misguided policies that favor the wealthy over the middle class.
Wrong again, my 'moderate' friend...
Folks are not stupid, contrary to the opinion of Liberals, and intuitively know whether or not - as the great man said, 'they are doing better now than last year,'...
..." only way to measure whether a worker is improving himself/herself financially," is to look at the headlind on the NYTimes November 3rd, 2012.
No one will be surprised.
No, I'm afraid you are wrong. How else can anyone measure if wages are flat in real terms?
If wages aren't keeping up with inflation, those wages are flat and in fact decreasing because the workers spending capacity has decreased.
Here's link using the Department of Labor statistics that show wages using constant 1982 dollars (Real Dollar) values from 1964 t0 2004. In 1981, the average wage for a non-farm worker was $277.35 the average wage for the non-farm worker in 2004 was $277.57 an increase of a mere 22 cents.
Wages and Benefits: Real Wages (1964-2004) - Working Life
Using Nominal Dollars, the National Wage Yearly Average was 14,531.34 and for 2004 it was 35,648.55.
National Average Wage Index
Please note, the the Department of Labor still uses Real Dollars when issuing reports:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf
The bottom-line is the shiny numbers you posted to make your case do not tell the real story, because Nominal Dollars were used which do not reflect the inflationary value of the dollar.
This all looks good, but is disingenuous. I'm not calling you a liar, it's just that you have to be careful when you read something in the press versus looking up something that deals with something set on a fixed standard.
How?
Let me show you how.
In 1949, someone who worked minimum wage over the summer would have enough money to buy the following items from that years Sears catalogue: A Smith-Corona typewriter, Argus 21 35mm camera, Silvertone AM-FM table radio, and Silvertone 3-speed phonograph.
In 2009, the same person, working the same number of hours at minimum wage, would now be able to purchase: A Dell laptop computer, HP color ink printer, scanner, copier, Canon 8 megapixel digital camera, GPS system, 32 LCD HDTV television, 8GB iPod Nano, GE microwave, Haier refrigerator/freezer, Toshiba DVD/VCR combo, RCA home theater system, Uniden cordless phone, RCA AM/FM radio, Camcorder, Sony PlayStation 2, as well as several other things.
Mark J. Perry, Young Americans: Luckiest Generation in History, CARPE DIEM: Young Americans: Luckiest Generation in History
Broaden your horizons, and realize how you are being used by the Left.
No, I'm afraid you are wrong. How else can anyone measure if wages are flat in real terms?
If wages aren't keeping up with inflation, those wages are flat and in fact decreasing because the workers spending capacity has decreased.
Here's link using the Department of Labor statistics that show wages using constant 1982 dollars (Real Dollar) values from 1964 t0 2004. In 1981, the average wage for a non-farm worker was $277.35 the average wage for the non-farm worker in 2004 was $277.57 an increase of a mere 22 cents.
Wages and Benefits: Real Wages (1964-2004) - Working Life
Using Nominal Dollars, the National Wage Yearly Average was 14,531.34 and for 2004 it was 35,648.55.
National Average Wage Index
Please note, the the Department of Labor still uses Real Dollars when issuing reports:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf
The bottom-line is the shiny numbers you posted to make your case do not tell the real story, because Nominal Dollars were used which do not reflect the inflationary value of the dollar.
This all looks good, but is disingenuous. I'm not calling you a liar, it's just that you have to be careful when you read something in the press versus looking up something that deals with something set on a fixed standard.
How?
Let me show you how.
In 1949, someone who worked minimum wage over the summer would have enough money to buy the following items from that years Sears catalogue: A Smith-Corona typewriter, Argus 21 35mm camera, Silvertone AM-FM table radio, and Silvertone 3-speed phonograph.
In 2009, the same person, working the same number of hours at minimum wage, would now be able to purchase: A Dell laptop computer, HP color ink printer, scanner, copier, Canon 8 megapixel digital camera, GPS system, 32 LCD HDTV television, 8GB iPod Nano, GE microwave, Haier refrigerator/freezer, Toshiba DVD/VCR combo, RCA home theater system, Uniden cordless phone, RCA AM/FM radio, Camcorder, Sony PlayStation 2, as well as several other things.
Mark J. Perry, Young Americans: Luckiest Generation in History, CARPE DIEM: Young Americans: Luckiest Generation in History
Broaden your horizons, and realize how you are being used by the Left.
Again, you are relying on what someone wrote not using constant real data. The writer any proven specific data to back his claim.
All economist use the CPI and Real Dollara to gauge real life income growth. I use the CPI Index with my job in strategic planning for the corporation I work for, it's a requirement!
The only thing I am used by are cold hard facts using constant factors, which is the most sound and scientific approach, just like all economists.
You are arguing ideologically, I am arguing using a proven and accepted methodology for measuring real growth of income.
I can see that this discussion is going nowhere. But, thanks for the civil discussion, it was interesting!
moment. Ideologues!!!!!
Nothing constant about the CPI considering the way its calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics has been 'improved' 24 times since 1978.
Carry on
