http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...owth/30854705/
Printable View
Link doesn't work
http://i.imgur.com/QNjkBDd.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex
Jimmer going in RAW
Longer Hours, Not Higher Wages, Have Driven Modest Earnings Growth for Most American Households
American households are working longer hours—hours they used to have for other activities such as leisure or family time.
These longer hours are the main reason why household earnings increased over the last 35 years.
Between 1979 and 2007, annual earnings of most households (those between the 20th and 80th percentiles of earnings) increased by 15.2 percent, rising to just under $60,000 by 2007.
During this period, the average hourly wages of these households grew $1.05 per hour, while annual hours rose by 289 hours.
http://www.epi.org/publication/longer-hours-not-higher-wages-have-driven-modest-earnings-growth-for-most-american-households/
Guarantee it won't end the year there. The rising dollar (based on speculation of US interest rate increases) is going to really hurt corporate exports.
Peace dividend....
Just wit till the next GOP president, they'll bomb Iran and our budget will skyrocket AGAIN
OK, so if we extrapolate the 2000 and 2010 consensus to a quarters growth...Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
2000: 281,421,906
2010: 308,745,538
308745538/281421906 = 1.09709134725283
1.09709134725283^.025 = 1.002319246
OK...
A 0.23% population increase with a 2.3% GDP growth.
How does that factor in with the quarterly cost of living adjustment, which appears not to be published yet.
If you can find 2nd quarter COLA, please post it to.
but conservative ideology says STRONG DOLLAR = BIG DICKQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
What are you trying to communicate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
What if inflation was 2.3% as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Th'Pusher
It would then be negative growth per capita...
WhoooooooshQuote:
Originally Posted by Splits
Of course there inflation, standard of living has been going down since the 70s in ways but better in others. Overall net loss IMO. We are having to work longer harder and dying from years of stress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
GDP is mostly disconnected from, unrepresentative of the conditions for the 99% Human-Americans.
If Americans' income had kept up with GDP in the last 4o+ years, household income would be closer to $100K instead of half of that.
ad nauseam: Nearly all economic gains are going to the top 1%, who fight like hell to hold wages down, bust union power, and block Fed minimum wage increases
iow, FUCK GDP
unemployed?
underemployed?
long-term unemployed?
salaries of new hires?
average household debt (and interest payments)?
avg age of cars?
affordability of housing? purchases and rentals?
Boo you are an idiot. Are you saying liberals want a weak dollar so imported goods for the Walmart crowd cost more? I would think you would love a strong dollar since it hurts exports and revenue for corporate fat cats.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
very weak $, or very strong, it cuts both ways. weak dollar allows foreign countries to buy $ cheaper which they need to import oil.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
More libcuck hypocrisy ITT.
> "Obummer is a great president! Just look at all this economic growth!"
> "Bernie is right... economic growth means nothing if all the wealth isn't being forcibly redistributed to us at gunpoint!"
You're really going to try napkin math with me again? Are you just a glutton for punishment? We established a long time ago that you are not qualified to just cherry pick numbers and try and fit them together. On the contrary, you've looked quite stupid when we start looking into things like normalization and time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Do you really want to do this?
Go for it shit sucker.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
Well, you've made no real argument other than you hope numbers turn out some way. I've said all that needs to be said at this point. You're still not qualified to just merge stats from different sets like that. We've talked about this before. You can try and peddle that shit on someone more ignorant. They opened up registration!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Liar.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
I didn't say I hoped for anything you lying sack of shit. I just presented some facts, and posed a question.
What the fuck is wrong with your pathetic ass, that you have to make so much shit up chronically?
:downspin:
Yes, we all agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
You spin very, very well.
Like the stock market gains, middle class is largely isolated from these gains.
No doubt wage stagnation is real.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
There is likely some impact to retirement plans but that's very much "easy come easy go".
These economic numbers paint a Rosie picture that just isn't true. Everywhere I look I see people struggling. Obamas 5% unemployment just isn't bill clintons 5%. I guess a lot of people just still aren't even looking?
Shows how fucked things are that a 2.3 quarter is "good". Expect annual to be around 1.5. No sign of the "good old days" of 3-4% every year returning any time soon.
With the baby boomer entitlement train still rolling to its peak the economy has the giant yoke that is your generation and it's self serving tax policies that took 30 years of elections to fully fuck up. X doesn't seem much better, frankly.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Unless you have been living under a rock, the economic mechanic/reality has been discussed ad nauseum.
"baby boomer entitlement train"
Ms of BB's are fucked due to having lost their good jobs in the Banksters Great (Jobs) Depression, due to paying $100Ks over their earning years for health INSURANCE (not care), etc, etc, etc.
Your inter-generational conflict doesn't exist. It a smokescreen, distraction created by the VRWC/1%/BigCorp to hide the actual Class Warfare, rich vs everybody else.
there is a macro reality to the retirement of the boomer generation. its been well enumerated. so has the distribution of wealth. stuff like that is well documented in the historical record and boomer hoarding sticks out. The legislative agenda for the boomer generation has always been reducing taxes and ensuring entitlements. One of the more famous electoral rebukes of the modern era is Bush Sr losing his seat for raising their taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
I'm not saying that its you personally but what I am talking about is real.
your "reality" applies to the top 1% or 5% of your hated boomersQuote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
google this: average savings seniors
and Repugs/VRWC want to raise SS retirement age to 68 or more, but of course there ia nothing, if any, but shitty jobs for people above 65.
:lol If you want to be honest then you take the savings of seniors and you compare it to the savings in the US or other age groups. Savings rates have been at historical lows in the country. The whole discussion on wealth subsumes that frankly.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
I don't hate. As I said the phenomenon is enumerated. The 1% is 75% boomer. When you compare that to history, it's way out of whack. The voting record and senior entitlements is on the demographic itself. So is how said demographic voted from 1985 on after the whole generation reached voting age.
so you agree, finally. It's 1% vs the non-1%, Wealth Class Warfare. NOT the entire boomer generation as you say greedily "hoarding" wealth.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
It's not one or the other. You're as bad as the rest of the mouthbreathers around here.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
:lol
Fuzzy is such a whiney little bitch.
His personal failure just HAS to be baby boomers fault.
Do you think it's lost on people that you are flinging shit against the wall instead of addressing what I said?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
I think your just mad because I make fun of you for ratting out your brother to the authorities and being an entitlement whore.
LOL...Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
You really wish you could get in a shit fight with people. The problem is, you are the only one flinging shit.
He makes up degrading stories about me and I'm the one trying to start shit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
He said his brother called the cops on him in reprisal. It is what it is.
He seeks out government handouts and says your stupid if you don't. It is what it is.
Much like you with your flaglot and opinions on minorities.
LOL...Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
You are so pathetic, counting what you see as faults in other people.
How many of these 14 points apply to you?
http://www.alternet.org/personal-hea...serable-people
Again, I was talking about demographics and CC made a personal attack in the form of story time as he is wont to do. You fixating on me in the face of that makes you look disingenuous and upset.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Want to talk about it?
Meh, what comes around, goes around.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
:lol Fuzzy is an impotent whiny little bitch.
Own it, Fuzzy.
thank you for very restating my obvious point. my tit for tat with fattie started the whole thing, dimwit. you and tweedledee cried foul remember? Now you come back with this? :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
like I say all the time: you will say anything, sophist.