Reply With Quote
Link doesn't work
Link doesn't work
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...
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How does that factor in with the quarterly cost of living adjustment, which appears not to be published yet.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
What are you trying to communicate?
What if inflation was 2.3% as well?
It would then be negative growth per capita...
Whooooooosh
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.
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 to hold wages down, bust union power, and block Fed minimum wage increases
iow, 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.
very weak $, or very strong, it cuts both ways. weak dollar allows foreign countries to buy $ cheaper which they need to import oil.
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.
Do you really want to do this?
Go for it sucker.
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 on someone more ignorant. They opened up registration!
Liar.
I didn't say I hoped for anything you lying sack of . I just presented some facts, and posed a question.
What the is wrong with your pathetic ass, that you have to make so much up chronically?
Yes, we all agree.
You spin very, very well.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
