Reply With Quote
Where'd you see one of those? And, I'm just using the same data reported in the article.A 5 year recession?!?
A 5 year recession?!?When you look at it you'll notice them nice slim shady lines. Those are recessions. Notice after each recession how real incomes historically have dropped and then recovered, as you would normally expect them to do? So perhaps this is just a manifestation of a normally functioning economy.
Where'd you see one of those? And, I'm just using the same data reported in the article.A 5 year recession?!?
...but yet the median annual income remained at $46,326 from 01-05. Nuf said.What makes the numbers so troubling is that they come four years into an economic recovery that by other measures has been robust. From 2001 to 2005, the gross output of the economy increased by about 12% above the rate of inflation, worker productivity surged and corporate profits doubled.
Which tracks the trend after other recessions. What's your point?
What doesn't track the trend of other recessions is that flat wage growth has stayed with us until the next one.
Our "boom" economy has left a *few* people behind.
The other thing is that "income" figure, probably doesn't include the extras that employers USED to pay for, but don't now, like health insurance, or pensions.
Factor THOSE into the equation, and the increasing number of uninsured people and failing pension plans would support doing so, and the so-called "boom" that Bush apologistas like to talk about starts looking a bit thin.
In the same time period corporate executive compensation has been hitting double digit growth.
The only real lesson is that the american worker needs to become a capitalist, conservatives will say.
If the return on capital is the way to increase your income because your earning power is decreasing, then ac ulate capital. Easy, right?
If your real income is falling, how do you find the spare cash flow to have capital to invest?
Consume less, or borrow, both of which have implications in the long run.
Warning!! Regurgitation of white house talking point!! Warning!!
I guess I should counter with some regurgitation of some facts that put the talking point in its proper context...
Critiquing misleading White House statements about the economy, part 1
Income growth and median earnings
A recent White House news release contains this claim regarding income growth:
Real disposable income has risen 2.2 % over the past 12 months. Since January 2001, real after-tax income per person has risen 8.3%.
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060411-9.html)
Since income growth is the primary determinant of living standards, the validity of this claim is central to the White House's argument that their policies are lifting the living standards of most families. The problem here is that the measures cited are of limited use in judging the extent to which the recovery is truly reaching most families.
First, these measures represent the aggregate of trillions of dollars in income generated by the economy. Real disposable income (inflation-adjusted income after taxes) always tends to expand in recoveries because more persons are working. Disposable personal income (DPI) also includes income from business ownership, interest, and dividends, but is also lifted significantly by the high levels of executive compensation, as reflected in recent news reports (see The New York Times, "A cozy arrangement." April 13, 2006).
To measure the effectiveness of the administration's policies, the question is not whether real DPI is growing, but how fast are the growth rates relative to past recoveries. By both measures cited by the White House, the growth over this business cycle is considerably weaker than the average for past cycles.
As shown in Figure A, DPI per capita has gained 8.4% since March 2001, but the average for comparable periods is 11.1%.1 In addition, the 2.3% gain in real DPI over the past year—2005q1-2006q1—falls short of the average growth of 3.6% over comparable periods in past recoveries.
The second problem with the White House's claim is that the increase in inequality in recent years has meant that average income growth is less descriptive of how the typical family is faring. As growth has flowed up the wealth scale, middle and lower income households have not enjoyed even the modest growth shown in the average income figure above. Median family income declined not only in the recession year of 2001, but has consistently fallen in real terms through 2004 (down 2.9 %, or $1,500). Though median income results for 2005 will not be available until late this summer, the trend in median earnings, shown next, suggests things are unlikely to have improved much since 2004.
Figure B shows the trend in real median earnings of full-time workers since 2001. Median earnings, representing the paychecks of the typical working person, have stagnated or declined since 2002, and by the end of the period are little changed from where they began, despite four years of recovery and strong productivity growth.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-07-2006 at 08:04 AM. Reason: Edited for readability and added snarkiness
As I have said so many times before this administration has, in my opinion, gone far beyond even Clintons in lying to your face. It is rarely outright lying, but almost always half-facts that paint only the spin they want.
Secrecy and spin are not the hallmarks of effective leadership.
I expect a little spin from anybody in public office, but the nakedness of it from this administration sickens me.
Do you really think there is any ideology behind it? Banana republics have a long and storied history of the wealthy and powerful using the government to siphon off the middle class. The opinion of the old-money class during the 1930's was that the Great Depression represented a "correction" back to what they considered a proper income distribution.
And when FDR introduced the New Deal, several wealthy families like the Johnsons, the Chases, and the DuPonts attempted a coup to install a fascist state in the U.S.
I doubt at udes have changed all that much.
As long as income growth is flat, the working classes are not going to get all that riled up, because flat income still represents a relatively comfortable life in the U.S. When incomes are steadily getting eaten away, and the middle classes are teetering on the edge of poverty, that can tend to destabilize a government.
What do you think that would look like in the U.S.? A hard turn to the left within the current government framework, or a more violent kind of revolution?
Last edited by Extra Stout; 09-07-2006 at 08:36 AM. Reason: Typos
I do think there is an ideological cover for it.
I think, and have made, a case for that steady eating away of middle class incomes.
I don't think it will be a "hard" turn to the left, but merely the political pendulum swinging, as it always does, back the other way from the current rightward tilt of the US political landscape.
We can only hope that people see through the fascade put out by both major parties and perpetrated by the M$M before they get us into a real war with Iran. We need real leadership in the WH, right now, but instead what we have is a banana repubic. For the time being, unless the Demos win either the Senate or House in November, you can expect much of the same thievery for another two years.I don't think it will be a "hard" turn to the left, but merely the political pendulum swinging, as it always does, back the other way from the current rightward tilt of the US political landscape.
I think you are right about all of this.
The only hope we have is for the principled moderates I know are out there to kick each party's leadership in the butt to do the right thing for once.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
