NationStates Jolt Archive

I've said it in a number of other threads, but this report seems to bear it out--it's not that Bush's eceonomy is bad, just that it's bad for some. That some apparently includes working families (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2006-02-23-fed-incomes_x.htm?csp=34).
WASHINGTON — The average income of American families, after adjusting for inflation, declined 2.3% in 2004 compared with 2001 while their net worth rose but at a slower pace.

The Federal Reserve reported Thursday that the drop in inflation-adjusted incomes left the average family income at $70,700 in 2004. The median, or point where half the families earned more and half less, did rise slightly in 2004 after adjusting for inflation to $43,200, up 1.6% from the 2001 level.

The median, or midpoint for net worth rose 1.5% to $93,100 from 2001 to 2004. That growth was far below the 10.3% gain in median net worth from 1998 to 2001, a period when the stock market reached record highs before starting to decline in early 2000.
If you go by average--which I don't like to because the extremes tend to skew the results, families have slid backwards since 2001. But even if you use the median, family incomes rose 1.6% after inflation. That's not 1.6% per year--that's 1.6% over three years, or just over half a percentage point per year, for the period that Bush has kept telling us that the economy is strong and that people are doing well.

The parts of the economy that have done well have been corporations and the very wealthy, who are invested in those corporations who have been doing well. If you're not in those two groups, however, chances are you've not made a lot of progress. Yes, there will be exceptions; no doubt some people on this very forum can say truthfully that they're doing better in the Bush economy. But the overall numbers don't lie. You want to know why lots of working class people still don't have faith in this supposedly booming economy? Because they know what their paychecks look like, and they look stagnant compared to the prices they pay for goods.

It's not the system that's at fault, it's the people. They're just not working hard enough.

For the avoidance of doubt: :p

It's not the system that's at fault, it's the people. They're just not working hard enough.

For the avoidance of doubt: :p
Don't be surprised if that's the line that comes from defenders of the Bush economy.

Don't be surprised if that's the line that comes from defenders of the Bush economy.
Well I've taken the piss out of it already, so they'll have to take a different approach now. Statistical flaws, for example, questioning the integrity of the source (yes, even the Federal Reserve is not safe from communazi infiltration), etc.

The gap is widening. The rise in net worth I assume is due to the skyrocketing housing market in many areas. If you own property you get richer. If you don't, tough for you buddy, the shrinking clout of your paycheck isn't going to help you change that soon. The middle class is thinning, if the trend continues you'll either be rich or poor, with few in between.

Well I've taken the piss out of it already, so they'll have to take a different approach now. Statistical flaws, for example, questioning the integrity of the source (yes, even the Federal Reserve is not safe from communazi infiltration), etc.
I was glad that the article noted both the average and the median situations. Like I said above, average is too easily skewed--note that the average family income is somewhere around $73K while the median is closer to $43K--lots of those high earners push the average up to a point where it's meaningless.

I don't really think this is any different than what happened after the 1991 recession; it took until 1996 for real median income to surpass the level it was at in 1989. Also, from 1989-1994, the stock market was flat (like it is now), which meant that the wealth generated from stock inflows during the period was greatly reduced...since 1967, the performance of family income has been closely tied to the stock market.

You can trend almost perfectly the relation between median income and the stock market; if it were to pick up again, family income would accelerate rather than remain flat to slightly positive, and if the stock market performs poorly it will decline. In fact, the very means we use to fight inflation also stagnates family income; the stock market's performance is very underwhelming during a rising-rate environment (like we have now) and so family income is slower-growing.

At least it's not negative in real terms, which is a good sign given the damage caused by the dotcom/corporate collapse which devastated the stock market. It's also reassuring that the performance is according to trend (it mimics 1989-1994 quite well) and is not declining or stagnating disproportionately. If 2006 proves to be a good year for the economy (and preliminary signs suggest it to be so), and the stock market strengthens, then family income will follow. However, inflation remains a threat which may mute additional gains until it recedes.

The gap is widening. The rise in net worth I assume is due to the skyrocketing housing market in many areas. If you own property you get richer. If you don't, tough for you buddy, the shrinking clout of your paycheck isn't going to help you change that soon. The middle class is thinning, if the trend continues you'll either be rich or poor, with few in between.

If median income continues to rise, it will mean more of the latter hopefully.
However, with 50+% of American households owning stock, improved performance in the indices will result in broad gains in income.

The gap is widening. The rise in net worth I assume is due to the skyrocketing housing market in many areas. If you own property you get richer. If you don't, tough for you buddy, the shrinking clout of your paycheck isn't going to help you change that soon. The middle class is thinning, if the trend continues you'll either be rich or poor, with few in between.
The thing to note about that is that you only get richer if you sell and then move to a cheaper market. If your home value goes up and you sell and try to rebuy in the same market, you've really only treaded water, so it's a false sort of wealth. People in south Florida have found that out firsthand, especially when it comes to property taxes--their house may have doubled its value in the last five years, but their taxes have gone up as well, while their income has been stagnant. There was an article in the Sun-Sentinel just last week about people who take a two and a half hour, one-way bus trip to work in the Keys because they can't afford to live down there. It's crazy.

I was glad that the article noted both the average and the median situations. Like I said above, average is too easily skewed--note that the average family income is somewhere around $73K while the median is closer to $43K--lots of those high earners push the average up to a point where it's meaningless.
I detest the casual and uninformed use of the term "average" when dealing with stats. Even though I'm an engineer and not a statistician, I have enough intellectual integrity to always want to see the whole distribution, and its history. It's the only way of getting any meaningful information out of a data set, whatever it happens to be.

If median income continues to rise, it will mean more of the latter hopefully.
However, with 50+% of American households owning stock, improved performance in the indices will result in broad gains in income.
I could very well be wrong in this, but aren't the majority of that 50%, especially among working families, in the stock market via retirement plans, 401(k)'s and the like? If that's the case, then those people aren't going to see gains in income--their retirement portfolio will expand (which is good as long as it isn't lost again like it was in 2001), but that's not the same as gaining income.

Ok, so the Bush economy is killing poor people. Got it. What exactly do you propose be done to remedy the situation?

I detest the casual and uninformed use of the term "average" when dealing with stats. Even though I'm an engineer and not a statistician, I have enough intellectual integrity to always want to see the whole distribution, and its history. It's the only way of getting any meaningful information out of a data set, whatever it happens to be.It's even worse when it's used dishonestly, as it generally is when talking about who tax cuts will benefit--the old "average family" gag.

I could very well be wrong in this, but aren't the majority of that 50%, especially among working families, in the stock market via retirement plans, 401(k)'s and the like? If that's the case, then those people aren't going to see gains in income--their retirement portfolio will expand (which is good as long as it isn't lost again like it was in 2001), but that's not the same as gaining income.

Well, that's a good question, actually. Many people not only have retirement plans but also other investments that they can withdraw money from now; there are also an increasing number of people getting stock options in addition to their income, although they aren't as large a share of their income as they were during the bubble in tech companies. Also, more people trade stocks in addition to their retirement plans, and companies whose stock is performing well generally raise their wages/salaries faster and hire more than ones who aren't, which also drives up income.

It's a combination of direct effects as well as indirect/psychological ones that cause stocks to affect income. I doubt another bubble will happen in the near future, but it's always possible.

Ok, so the Bush economy is killing poor people. Got it. What exactly do you propose be done to remedy the situation?
Kill the poor, take their stuff til there are no poor no more.

Don't be surprised if that's the line that comes from defenders of the Bush economy.
No President has as much effect on the economy as you think - positive or negative.

The amount of money the government spends each year is not nearly as great as the amount of money invested each year by investors.

That aside, I have been steadily making more money since 2000. My income dropped from 1997 to 2000, and I have since recovered with a total increase over time.

So have most of my co-workers - a similar drop over the same time period, followed by a resurgence since 2000.

And I am by no means rich, or even capable of doing anything but working until retirement age.

I've said it in a number of other threads, but this report seems to bear it out--it's not that Bush's eceonomy is bad, just that it's bad for some. That some apparently includes working families (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2006-02-23-fed-incomes_x.htm?csp=34).

If you go by average--which I don't like to because the extremes tend to skew the results, families have slid backwards since 2001. But even if you use the median, family incomes rose 1.6% after inflation. That's not 1.6% per year--that's 1.6% over three years, or just over half a percentage point per year, for the period that Bush has kept telling us that the economy is strong and that people are doing well.

The parts of the economy that have done well have been corporations and the very wealthy, who are invested in those corporations who have been doing well. If you're not in those two groups, however, chances are you've not made a lot of progress. Yes, there will be exceptions; no doubt some people on this very forum can say truthfully that they're doing better in the Bush economy. But the overall numbers don't lie. You want to know why lots of working class people still don't have faith in this supposedly booming economy? Because they know what their paychecks look like, and they look stagnant compared to the prices they pay for goods.

Yeah, working families are poorer, debt is skyrocketting, housing sucks, millions of children are living in poverty in one of the world wealthiest nations, higher education costs are crippling, infrastructure is stumbling, and the market has been woozy for years...but hey, at least them faggots can't get married!

Congrats, America. You're getting what you voted for.

Yeah, working families are poorer, debt is skyrocketting, housing sucks, millions of children are living in poverty in one of the world wealthiest nations, higher education costs are crippling, infrastructure is stumbling, and the market has been woozy for years...but hey, at least them faggots can't get married!

Congrats, America. You're getting what you voted for.

Personal debt is apparently higher in the UK. Individuals in the UK owe more as a percentage of their GDP than the people in the US.

The parts of the economy that have done well have been corporations and the very wealthy, who are invested in those corporations who have been doing well. If you're not in those two groups, however, chances are you've not made a lot of progress. Yes, there will be exceptions; no doubt some people on this very forum can say truthfully that they're doing better in the Bush economy. But the overall numbers don't lie. You want to know why lots of working class people still don't have faith in this supposedly booming economy? Because they know what their paychecks look like, and they look stagnant compared to the prices they pay for goods.

Ain't that something.. exactly what Kerry argued during the debates with Bush. And then there are the jobs being shipped overseas.. and still nobody seems to be listening.

Oh that's right Republicans are the only ones who can do national security!!! No wait, didn't they totally bungle the Katrina disaster and knee-cap FEMA to the point of being cripple all in the name of National Security? If FEMA had been in its current state on 9-11 I truly hate to think how many more lives would have been lost on that terrible day.

Roll on November and Mid-Term Elections!

Personally, I'm not all that upset that corporations are doing well. I"m employed by a public company and I like seeing our stock at $30 a share far more than the $3 a share we traded at in 2001. I don't own any, but it means that I'm far more likely to keep working that if the stock had headed down to $0.30 a share. Everyone that works for a public or private corporation should be happy for their continued success.

Yeah, working families are poorer, debt is skyrocketting, housing sucks, millions of children are living in poverty in one of the world wealthiest nations, higher education costs are crippling, infrastructure is stumbling, and the market has been woozy for years...but hey, at least them faggots can't get married!

Congrats, America. You're getting what you voted for.

ROTFLMAO! This would be so much more amusing still, if it wasn't alarmingly accurate. Maybe now us gays can't bring down society as we know it, people might just be waking up to the real issues.

Thanks for the brilliant post!

Ain't that something.. exactly what Kerry argued during the debates with Bush. And then there are the jobs being shipped overseas.. and still nobody seems to be listening!

People who aren't working class are doing very well, and that's why the data confirms that things are going great if you've got the education necessary to succeed in this economy. The days of high pay, low education jobs are gone, and for the better.

People who aren't working class are doing very well, and that's why the data confirms that things are going great if you've got the education necessary to succeed in this economy. The days of high pay, low education jobs are gone, and for the better.
Same thing is happenning in the UK...

If median income continues to rise, it will mean more of the latter hopefully.
However, with 50+% of American households owning stock, improved performance in the indices will result in broad gains in income.

AAAH good old Reaganomics! Trouble is the trickle down theory doesnt work, just creates a new poverty level. I saw on CNN today a report that a large percentage of people eating at soup kitchens are in fact employed but still cannot afford to feed themselves or their family.

ONLY IN AMERICA!

Ok, so the Bush economy is killing poor people. Got it. What exactly do you propose be done to remedy the situation?

Impeach them all.. Send them to Guantanimo for the duration of their second term and hold fresh elections!

Who's with me? ;)

People who aren't working class are doing very well, and that's why the data confirms that things are going great if you've got the education necessary to succeed in this economy. The days of high pay, low education jobs are gone, and for the better.

You forget one thing.. most low income families cannot afford college fees and if they get student loans then they are simply piling on the debt for after college and Bush just increased the interest rates on them as well.

So how are people who want to go to college but cannot affford it ever supposed to get ahead? And as for the education system.. I suppose lowering the standard for no child left behind or schools fudging results to get funding makes for a great education system? Or how about the ever increasing number of private degree mill colleges who promise the earth, give out degrees that are worth nothing to people who just want an education, all the while making millions from the Government via the PEL Grant system?

I don't know what America you are living in or where you are getting your facts from, but it certainly isn't the same one I am:headbang:

You forget one thing.. most low income families cannot afford college fees and if they get student loans then they are simply piling on the debt for after college and Bush just increased the interest rates on them as well.

So how are people who want to go to college but cannot affford it ever supposed to get ahead? And as for the education system.. I suppose lowering the standard for no child left behind or schools fudging results to get funding makes for a great education system? Or how about the ever increasing number of private degree mill colleges who promise the earth, give out degrees that are worth nothing to people who just want an education, all the while making millions from the Government via the PEL Grant system?

I don't know what America you are living in or where you are getting your facts from, but it certainly isn't the same one I am:headbang:
If you think college is the only way to become educated, then you are a fool. But, if one does want to attend college, Georgia and New Mexico, and there may be other states, pay the full tuition for four years of college. The only requirement is a B average out of high school and a B average in college.

You forget one thing.. most low income families cannot afford college fees and if they get student loans then they are simply piling on the debt for after college and Bush just increased the interest rates on them as well.

So how are people who want to go to college but cannot affford it ever supposed to get ahead?

I'm from the same America you are.

I didn't borrow money for college. I worked jobs and paid for it.

I didn't get a grant, scholarship, or a dime from anyone.

I managed to get a BA, and then a law degree. What's your excuse?

No President has as much effect on the economy as you think - positive or negative.

But a President's economic policy isn't exactly impotent either. Tariffs. Trade agreements. Subsidies. The tax burden. Investment in education. Investment in new technologies. Interest payments on debt. Selling off National assests. Public works. All can have subtle but eventually profound influences on the economy.


The amount of money the government spends each year is not nearly as great as the amount of money invested each year by investors.

Doesn't make it inconsequential though.

That aside, I have been steadily making more money since 2000. My income dropped from 1997 to 2000, and I have since recovered with a total increase over time.

So have most of my co-workers - a similar drop over the same time period, followed by a resurgence since 2000.

Yes, and as this study confirms, you and your co-workers are the EXCEPTION.

And I am by no means rich, or even capable of doing anything but working until retirement age.

At which point, your Social Security (which you have already paid for,) might be gone. If we shift to private accounts, as the Bush Admin wants, how does that help people who have already paid so much to Soc Sec?

Think of the economy as a sports team. Yes, it's primarily the talent and drive of the players that makes the difference between winning and losing. Still, no one denies the importance of a coach in defining direction and building confidence.

But a President's economic policy isn't exactly impotent either. Tariffs. Trade agreements. Subsidies. The tax burden. Investment in education. Investment in new technologies. Interest payments on debt. Selling off National assests. Public works. All can have subtle but eventually profound influences on the economy.

Clinton lowered tariffs, normalized trade relations, worked to balance the budget and passed key deregulations laws, and the economy performed well. There's no question his policies worked to the benefit of the US economy. He did have an effect on it, although other factors were in existence that helped.

You forget one thing.. most low income families cannot afford college fees and if they get student loans then they are simply piling on the debt for after college and Bush just increased the interest rates on them as well.

So how are people who want to go to college but cannot affford it ever supposed to get ahead? And as for the education system.. I suppose lowering the standard for no child left behind or schools fudging results to get funding makes for a great education system? Or how about the ever increasing number of private degree mill colleges who promise the earth, give out degrees that are worth nothing to people who just want an education, all the while making millions from the Government via the PEL Grant system?

I don't know what America you are living in or where you are getting your facts from, but it certainly isn't the same one I am:headbang:

Corruption exists, and there are problems with our college financing in several sectors. However, it is undeniable that the exchange of lower-educated jobs for ones requiring a higher education has produced a considerably large gain in all facets of the economy. We need to focus on making education affordable.

I'm from the same America you are.

I didn't borrow money for college. I worked jobs and paid for it.

I didn't get a grant, scholarship, or a dime from anyone.

I managed to get a BA, and then a law degree. What's your excuse?

And there are hundreds of thousands who did the same thing as you and failed because of circumstances beyond their control.

And there are yahoos who lied, cheated, stole, slacked off, and weren't too talented/intelligent to start with who somehow succeed and even thrive. Should we follow their success path too?

You did well AND GOT LUCKY. If you had the ability to put yourself in other's shoes, you'd know that...but unfortunately most conservatives (at least conservatives who are outspoken,) utterly fail to have that ability. They judge everyone as if everyone has the same basic circumstances as themselves.

It's utter BS.

And there are hundreds of thousands who did the same thing as you and failed because of circumstances beyond their control. And there are yahoos who lied, cheated, stole, slacked off, and weren't too talented/intelligent to start with who somehow succeed and even thrive. Should we follow their success path too?

That's why we need a security net for people who do fail, be it through unemployment assistance, job retraining, education grants, or financial aid like food stamps, welfare, or medical aid. However, these benefits should be based upon commitment to getting off of them; to use the cliche "a handup, not a handout".

There is no reason why anyone willing to put the effort, time, and dedication in should be unable to maximize their educational or vocational opportunities because of lack of assistance.

Clinton lowered tariffs, normalized trade relations, worked to balance the budget and passed key deregulations laws, and the economy performed well. There's no question his policies worked to the benefit of the US economy. He did have an effect on it, although other factors were in existence that helped.
One thing that gets ignored very often in any discussion of Clinton's economy is that since the deficit reduction policies that he and the Congress pushed reduced the amount of money the government was borrowing, the banks had to go elsewhere to invest and get a return on their deposits, and in some cases, they went to venture capital funds, who then took chances on companies in the rising dot com industry which fueled the boom (and eventually the bubble). But it was the cash laying around that helped fuel that economy.

And there are hundreds of thousands who did the same thing as you and failed because of circumstances beyond their control.

And there are yahoos who lied, cheated, stole, slacked off, and weren't too talented/intelligent to start with who somehow succeed and even thrive. Should we follow their success path too?

You did well AND GOT LUCKY. If you had the ability to put yourself in other's shoes, you'd know that...but unfortunately most conservatives (at least conservatives who are outspoken,) utterly fail to have that ability. They judge everyone as if everyone has the same basic circumstances as themselves.

It's utter BS.


Luck had nothing to do with it. Hard work and intelligence count for a lot in this world.

meh' my parents have been making 70k combined at the same jobs for the last 13 years. Maybe a little increase because my dad got a promotion recently.

I've said it in a number of other threads, but this report seems to bear it out--it's not that Bush's eceonomy is bad, just that it's bad for some. That some apparently includes working families (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2006-02-23-fed-incomes_x.htm?csp=34).

If you go by average--which I don't like to because the extremes tend to skew the results, families have slid backwards since 2001. But even if you use the median, family incomes rose 1.6% after inflation. That's not 1.6% per year--that's 1.6% over three years, or just over half a percentage point per year, for the period that Bush has kept telling us that the economy is strong and that people are doing well.

The parts of the economy that have done well have been corporations and the very wealthy, who are invested in those corporations who have been doing well. If you're not in those two groups, however, chances are you've not made a lot of progress. Yes, there will be exceptions; no doubt some people on this very forum can say truthfully that they're doing better in the Bush economy. But the overall numbers don't lie. You want to know why lots of working class people still don't have faith in this supposedly booming economy? Because they know what their paychecks look like, and they look stagnant compared to the prices they pay for goods.

Are you shocked? The basic trend seems to be "Republicans (or Tories in my home country) fuck up the economy, Democrats (or Labour) come in and make themselves unpopular fixing the economy, people then vote in the Republicans (or Tories) again".

It's a cycle i've seen since i was a child.

Are you shocked? The basic trend seems to be "Republicans (or Tories in my home country) fuck up the economy, Democrats (or Labour) come in and make themselves unpopular fixing the economy, people then vote in the Republicans (or Tories) again".

It's a cycle i've seen since i was a child.
Yeah, I've mentioned that exact same thing on here many times in the past.

Are you shocked? The basic trend seems to be "Republicans (or Tories in my home country) fuck up the economy, Democrats (or Labour) come in and make themselves unpopular fixing the economy, people then vote in the Republicans (or Tories) again".

No, the Democrats sure as hell can't run the economy; look at pretty much all of Michigan or many of the cities across the country to see that in action. The Republicans aren't really much better, so it's best to keep both of their ideologies out of the economy as much as possible and let the businesses, Federal Reserve, and the American consumer take care of the situation.