HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A two-income family today...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 03:21 PM

A two-income family today is poorer than a one-income family was in the 1970s

A two-income family today is poorer than a one-income family was in the 1970s
Posted on June 23, 2012

“On several occasions, I have glibly referred to how it now takes two spouses working to equal the wages of a one-income family of 40 years ago. Unfortunately, that is now an understatement. In fact, Western wages have plummeted so low that a two-income family is now (on average) 15% poorer than a one-income family of 40 years ago.” — Jim Nielson | The Street

This death of the American middle class can be blamed on the Republican Party’s decades-long union busting efforts combined with men like Mitt Romney who run companies like Bain Capital for the purpose of creating wealth for the few, by laying off hundreds of thousands of American workers, who once earned living wages and benefits, who once shared in a company’s productivity and success. For decades now vulture capitalists have downsized and closed American companies, offering only low-wage replacement jobs to some of the workers they laid off, while outsourcing most of the formerly American jobs to countries like China and India. And we can also blame a tax code, won by a lobby of the wealthiest among us, that rewards corporations with deductions and loopholes and subsidies for taking American jobs to other countries, enriching a few while cratering our economy at home.

And the Republican Party tells us the One Percenters need more tax cuts (i.e. they need to hoard even more money?) to ‘create’ a few more jobs — tax cuts that would be paid for, by the way, by cutting programs and services that the rest of us depend on. It’s almost comical when you consider this fact: the average Fortune 500 CEO now makes 380 times more than the average worker, CEO pay has grown more than 127 times faster than worker pay over the last 30 years, and their pay increased last year.

More, to these people, is never enough.


http://underthemountainbunker.com/2012/06/23/a-two-income-family-today-is-poorer-than-a-one-income-family-was-in-the-1970s/


113 replies, 18779 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 113 replies Author Time Post
Reply A two-income family today is poorer than a one-income family was in the 1970s (Original post)
kpete Jun 2012 OP
MisterP Jun 2012 #1
Dirty Socialist Jun 2012 #3
dtom67 Jun 2012 #78
JHB Jun 2012 #2
tawadi Jun 2012 #4
Phlem Jun 2012 #28
SoCalDem Jun 2012 #105
HiPointDem Jun 2012 #5
aint_no_life_nowhere Jun 2012 #6
yellerpup Jun 2012 #9
TalkingDog Jun 2012 #45
yellerpup Jun 2012 #53
PassingFair Jun 2012 #60
SunSeeker Jun 2012 #86
Egalitarian Thug Jun 2012 #42
NNN0LHI Jun 2012 #7
hfojvt Jun 2012 #10
SoCalDem Jun 2012 #106
NNN0LHI Jun 2012 #107
hfojvt Jun 2012 #8
jwirr Jun 2012 #17
hfojvt Jun 2012 #19
Egalitarian Thug Jun 2012 #43
TahitiNut Jun 2012 #11
KakistocracyHater Jun 2012 #40
TahitiNut Jun 2012 #68
KakistocracyHater Jun 2012 #108
TahitiNut Jun 2012 #109
KakistocracyHater Jul 2012 #113
Politicalboi Jun 2012 #12
valerief Jun 2012 #20
TahitiNut Jun 2012 #110
valerief Jun 2012 #111
Egalitarian Thug Jun 2012 #44
DLevine Jun 2012 #13
senseandsensibility Jun 2012 #14
Egalitarian Thug Jun 2012 #51
ananda Jun 2012 #15
valerief Jun 2012 #21
newthinking Jun 2012 #67
jwirr Jun 2012 #16
Laelth Jun 2012 #18
Romulox Jun 2012 #22
kenny blankenship Jun 2012 #23
mathematic Jun 2012 #24
Romulox Jun 2012 #25
dkf Jun 2012 #26
Romulox Jun 2012 #27
mathematic Jun 2012 #29
Romulox Jun 2012 #30
mathematic Jun 2012 #34
Romulox Jun 2012 #62
NNN0LHI Jun 2012 #35
ArcticFox Jun 2012 #37
mathematic Jun 2012 #38
NNN0LHI Jun 2012 #52
laundry_queen Jun 2012 #54
mathematic Jun 2012 #59
Romulox Jun 2012 #63
newthinking Jun 2012 #66
Skittles Jun 2012 #79
mathematic Jun 2012 #70
Romulox Jun 2012 #80
mathematic Jun 2012 #83
Romulox Jun 2012 #87
mathematic Jun 2012 #90
Romulox Jun 2012 #93
mathematic Jun 2012 #99
Romulox Jun 2012 #101
Romulox Jun 2012 #81
Romulox Jun 2012 #64
laundry_queen Jun 2012 #76
mathematic Jun 2012 #77
laundry_queen Jun 2012 #84
mathematic Jun 2012 #91
Romulox Jun 2012 #94
laundry_queen Jun 2012 #97
mathematic Jun 2012 #100
newthinking Jun 2012 #102
Romulox Jun 2012 #31
laundry_queen Jun 2012 #56
Romulox Jun 2012 #65
TahitiNut Jun 2012 #69
Romulox Jun 2012 #89
TalkingDog Jun 2012 #46
mathematic Jun 2012 #57
TalkingDog Jun 2012 #73
mathematic Jun 2012 #74
mathematic Jun 2012 #75
TalkingDog Jun 2012 #104
TalkingDog Jun 2012 #48
TalkingDog Jun 2012 #49
Egalitarian Thug Jun 2012 #50
mathematic Jun 2012 #61
TalkingDog Jun 2012 #71
Romulox Jun 2012 #88
mathematic Jun 2012 #92
Romulox Jun 2012 #95
Romulox Jun 2012 #96
NutmegYankee Jun 2012 #103
Romulox Jun 2012 #112
Peaceful Protester Jun 2012 #32
Peaceful Protester Jun 2012 #33
Peaceful Protester Jun 2012 #36
demosincebirth Jun 2012 #39
KakistocracyHater Jun 2012 #41
dajoki Jun 2012 #47
AllyCat Jun 2012 #55
inna Jun 2012 #58
StarryNight Jun 2012 #72
Skittles Jun 2012 #82
EFerrari Jun 2012 #98
DirkGently Jun 2012 #85

Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 03:25 PM

1. so we have to vote for neoliberals to keep the neoliberals out of power?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 03:41 PM

3. Answer

If you cannot tell the difference, I really can't help you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 09:14 PM

78. Just say no ....

You can always tell who the Republican shills are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 03:38 PM

2. I think it's important to note that they do NOT "create wealth for the few"...

...what the do is reroute and redistribute wealth that others have already created, sending it into the pockets of the few (including themselves).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 03:56 PM

4. '15% poorer than a one-income family of 40 years ago'

I believe it. Many of us are working harder just to survive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tawadi (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:36 AM

28. True Dat!

All the while to busy to pay close attention to the politics of the day. I would venture that a large demographic have to settle for what's on TV by the end of the day. Being fed crap and working 12 jobs just to stay above water. Exactly how the ruling class want it. Also the maintain the dumbing down of America because the returns on that investment were huge!

Completely frustrating and sad.

-p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tawadi (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 05:17 PM

105. We married in 1970, had our first son in 1973..last son in 1978

We were never "well-off", but we had a decent place to live, a new car now & then, and vacations from time to time..and I was able to be a stay-at-home Mom until all three were in school all day long.. EIGHT years on one income.

It was not a romp in the park on a sunny afternoon, but we managed comfortably.

Out first son had MAJOR health issues (29 surgeries at Mayo Clinic before he was 8), and our medical coverage was wonderful. We were able to pay our share, and even though it was a great hardship to spend 4-6 weeks in Rochester every January & April, we managed it with NO CREDIT CARDS, and no lingering debt.

Try that now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 04:03 PM

5. k&r

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 04:04 PM

6. I just wonder what's still keeping the cups and saucers spinning in the air

I'm not an economist and I don't understand it. But are we really manufacturing anything and producing anything tangible anymore or are we just engaged in a big game of monopoly, shifting play money around from one person's pocket to another's?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aint_no_life_nowhere (Reply #6)

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 04:14 PM

9. They'll probably start fighting each other

over it once all the wealth is concentrated. We will become serfs in corporate fiefdoms and wage wars against ourselves. We will pay for those wars in blood, treasure, and collateral damage and the citizen corporations will reap the spoils. As you know, in Monopoly there is only one winner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellerpup (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 02:04 PM

45. We're already serfs. Debt Serfs, Wage Serfs

A freeman became a serf usually through force or necessity. Sometimes freeholders or allodial owners were intimidated into dependency by the greater physical and legal force of a local magnate. Often a few years of crop failure, a war or brigandage might leave a person unable to make his own way. In such a case a bargain was struck with a lord of a manor. In exchange for protection, service was required, in cash, produce or with labour, or a combination of all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom

How many people do you know who can "make his own way" without laboring for someone else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TalkingDog (Reply #45)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 02:44 PM

53. Perhaps I should have used

corporate wage slave. Being in the arts, I know quite a few people who 'make their own way' without laboring for a corporation, but I get what you mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TalkingDog (Reply #45)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 03:55 PM

60. My husband and I made our own way for 15 years, until....

health insurance became too much to pay as the economy dragged down.

I've been a wage slave and a slave for health care for almost 10 years now.

My husband has had a "contractor" for over a year now, and I quit my
HATED job of 9 years, now we are having to pay "gap" health insurance,
and I don't even know if we will qualify, as a family, to but the expensive
health insurance my new job offers.

The laws I've read say that you can be rejected for "pre-existing" conditions
if you are not covered for more than 63 days in a row. Of course, the insurance
with the new job doesn't kick in for THREE MONTHS.

Cobra for 3 months for my family would have been $4,200!

I went for the "gap" insurance, but no one can tell me if that is considered
"coverage enough" to qualify as "being insured" in the over 63 day interim.

National Health Care is my BIGGEST issue. We could all be free to strike
or change jobs with impunity if we had it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PassingFair (Reply #60)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:08 AM

86. +1000! Single Payer = Freedom. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aint_no_life_nowhere (Reply #6)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 01:37 PM

42. That's a lot of it and a great example of lying with figures and statistics.

 

There are so many elements to it that most people just fall asleep or walk away thinking they just don't/can't understand it.

Yes we do still manufacture some things here, but it's a small fraction of what we did, but then you'll hear about how we export a comparable amount to what we did, even though the trade deficit constantly grows. The thing is that today we are exporting raw materials to other nations where the real value is added by turning them into something, whereas that value used to be added here. The real money is in the added value of manufacture, not the raw materials, and that's one of the reasons our manufacturing base was shipped to China and now they're kicking our asses.

The timber-to-lumber industry is a good example, if you are interested. It's a pretty straightforward example and lots of information is easy to find.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 04:10 PM

7. And workers could be making that kind of money before they graduated high school in 1973

I have been attacked here before for posting that this was the way it once was.

Like someone doesn't want the new workers to know this is the way it is supposed to be.

The wealthy want to treat us all like mushrooms. Kept in the dark and fed on manure.

Don

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #7)

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 04:28 PM

10. attacked?

or just had people point out it isn't true?

Sure, some workers could graduate from high school and get good paying jobs with good benefits, but that was hardly true of everybody in the US. As if poverty, unemployment and minimum wage jobs didn't exist in 1973. Of course, the 2011 value of the mimimum wage in 1973 was $7.97 down from $9.12 in 1970 but about to be raised to $8.98 in 1974 and it held at about $8.60 until the inflation of the late 1970s and then the election of Ronald Reagan caused it to not be raised in nine years so that even when it was raised in 1990 (to $3.80) its real value was still only $6.43.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 05:21 PM

106. and back then employers expected to train on the job and pay you while you learned

unpaid internships..hah!

Young people learned on the job and advanced as they learned more.

and companies actually had profit-sharing.. I still remember my husband getting a company financial printout and a check for his share every year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #106)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 06:01 PM

107. That is 100% correct

Thank you for bringing it up.

Don

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 04:13 PM

8. I don't see how that can be true

According to this, inflation adjusted median income was $43,479 in 1975 and was $49,445 in 2010.

Of course, this is 2012 and there has been a farily steady decline in the real median income since it peaked in 1999 at $53,252, except for coming back in 2007 to $52,823.

http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #8)

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 06:20 PM

17. I would think that median income when figured using the kind of wages the billionaires get would

look high but be misleading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 08:41 PM

19. No, because the median averages that out

the median of 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 is 5, because there are two above and two below. The median is where 50% is above and 50% is below. In this case it is the same as the average, which is the sum divided by the number.

But if you took 1, 3, 5, 7 and 31,415,926,535,897,932 - the median is still only 5 whereas the average is about 6,000,000,000,000,000 and whereas the median of 1, 1, 7, 8, and 8 is 7.

My problem with medians is that a rising median does not necessarily help people. For example,

the median of 5, 6, 7, 10, and 12 is 7
the median of 1, 2, 9, 9, and 10 is 9.

The median went up by two, but 80% are worse off. A rising median only helps you if you are either near the median, or rising yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #17)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 01:47 PM

43. The real story here is not the median but the mode. The divide had expanded so far that those above

 

Last edited Sun Jun 24, 2012, 02:25 PM - Edit history (1)

the median are making so much more than those below that the median is skewed. One of the reasons the comfortable are adamant about contradicting what you see for yourself and those around you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 05:07 PM

11. The entire all-consuming goal of the GOP is lower wages ...

... in order that the wealthy can become even wealthier from the labor of others. Labor's "share" of the wealth they create is at historical lows in the U.S. Further, our tax policies make it worse. When the income one receives from one's own labor is taxed at 35%, while the income one receives from the labor of others is below 15%, it's offensive to any sane person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TahitiNut (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 01:26 PM

40. financial service tax, whenever a stock is "traded"

aka a Robin Hood Tax that 15% is ridiculous

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KakistocracyHater (Reply #40)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 06:22 PM

68. Agreed.

Even a 1% tax on the sale or exchange of common stock (more on preferred) would be a minimal subsidy of the enormous services of government in creating and enforcing the very entitlement that is "stock" and the entitlement that is a "corporation." Neither exist at all without the power of the state in creating such legal fictions and enforcing the system of "rules" (laws) regarding their behavior and value. These are things which don't exist in Nature ... and we seem to ignore God's wisdom in not doing so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TahitiNut (Reply #68)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 08:44 PM

108. ever notice how easy they raise sales tax? but financial

services taxes-their god(money) forbid!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KakistocracyHater (Reply #108)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:30 AM

109. Even worse ... tax cigarettes.

It's insane. It's often rationalized by falsehoods -or- the observation that smokers are a minority. The 'minority' causing the MOST damage to the MOST people are those whose wretched wealth is gained from the labor of others who, in the 'race for the bottom,' are forced to accept ever-lower compensation for work that decreases their life expectancy, often drastically.

It's an unspeakable obscenity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TahitiNut (Reply #109)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:08 PM

113. cig taxes are NOT Even worse, people have to put food

back because of sales taxes. Meanwhile my Aunt is slowly dying from emphysema, my Uncle by marriage died of it, BOTH his parents died from smoking......smokers act like tobacco is more addicting then heroin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 05:40 PM

12. We need to tax the rich

That is how we get back to where we once belonged. Raise minimum wage to $10.00 or $12.00 an hour with benefits like single payer from the government. Start infrastructure projects, give tax breaks for companies that hire. More green energy jobs. We need to bring taxes back up to or over 50% for the rich. Let them move if they don't like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 10:12 AM

20. We need to eat the rich, since they've tainted all our food anyway. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #20)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:32 AM

110. I'd be glad to help with the barbecue ... even though I'd avoid them in my diet.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TahitiNut (Reply #110)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 12:54 PM

111. Dogs aren't fussy about what they eat and we 99%ers have lots of dogs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 01:54 PM

44. We need to tax more than income, income tax is a canard to distract us from

 

previously accumulated wealth. Most of the very richest people on earth have relatively modest incomes.

The transaction tax is a good idea for several reasons. Couple this with a very high inheritance tax and equilibrium can be achieved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 05:45 PM

13. This is true.

My dad supported my mom & 5 kids working a union factory job back in the 60s & 70s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 05:49 PM

14. I don't know what it will take to wake up tea party types to these facts.

They just don't want to know, but they'll take the rest of us down with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senseandsensibility (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 02:36 PM

51. "(T)ea party types"? We have a bunch right here. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 05:49 PM

15. Overhead wasn't nearly the percentage of income back then either.

Here talking about rent/mortgage, transportation, utilities, healthcare, etc.

TV was free too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 10:14 AM

21. Many jobs could be accessed via public transportation, too. You know, that thing

states have decimated, so people would have to rely on self-purchased cars and self-purchased GASOLINE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 06:07 PM

67. So many "out of pocket" expenses raising children now, far more than before also

Most activities and materials were provided, it is much different now.

Would that be accounted for? I doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 06:10 PM

16. And many jobs are more than the 8 hour day that was usual back then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 07:31 PM

18. k&r for the truth, however depressing it may be. n/t

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 10:15 AM

22. "Should I buy a Prius?" nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 10:21 AM

23. Supply side takes a while to work

Has it really been 40 years? How time flies.
But have no fear, we will reach Mexico-like levels of poverty eventually. Give it time to work. We're trickling down, slowly but surely. Then we can set our sights on Bangladesh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:03 AM

24. This is brazenly untrue.

Doesn't anybody here ever verify? It's like the GMO cyanide grass (which turned out to be just a regular old fashioned plant hybridization).

Median 2-earner families
1970: 56,073
2010: 83,676

Median 1-earner families
1970: 41,851
2010: 42,863

The median 2-earner family is TWICE as well off as the median 1-earner family from 40 years ago. I attribute this to the increased parity in women's employment. The difference between 2-earner now and 1 earner 40 years ago is even greater when comparing the mean.

Data from census.gov

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:08 AM

25. Um, mathematic? Are those figures adjusted for purchasing power (you know, the cost of living?)

2010 workers aren't spending their money in 1970. They have to pay 2010 prices. Even adjusted for inflation, not taking this into accounts amounts to a massive distortion.

That's before we even begin to ponder the justice of incomes standing still while productivity has increased tenfold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #25)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:27 AM

26. If it is not adjusted then the census folks are pretty useless at giving us good information.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #26)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:29 AM

27. I don't think yours is a safe assumption. Moreover, guessing shouldn't be required. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #25)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:42 AM

29. Yes, those figures are adjusted for inflation

The concept of "paying 2010 prices" is inflation.

Part of calculating inflation is determining how people spend their money. Until recently, these expenditure patterns were updated relatively infrequently (once a decade). Now they're updated every two years. The figures I provided calculate inflation using the appropriate historical expenditure patterns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #29)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:46 AM

30. I'd like a link to your figures and methodology, please. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #30)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 12:17 PM

34. Links-a-plenty.

I appreciate your skepticism. Note that practically no skepticism was levied at the OP's false claims in this thread.

Census income data by families:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/families/
The specific data I cite:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/families/2010/F12AR_2010.xls

As noted in the above data file, the series uses 2010 CPI-U-RS, the full CPI-U (including energy and food) adjusted for researching historical price data (the RS stands for research series).
This link contains excellent background on the CPI-U-RS:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1999/06/art4full.pdf

Here's a list of the CPI-U-RS index values used by the census bureau:
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/incpovhlth/2009/CPI-U-RS-Index-2009.pdf


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #34)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 05:00 PM

62. Let me understand the thesis implicit here: despite huge decreases in household wages,

the inflation adjusted purchasing power of current wages has been essentially flat since 1970, based almost entirely on the higher quality (and lower prices) of consumer goods?

Is that it, in a nut-shell?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #30)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 12:26 PM

35. Poster won't be able to do that because the methodology for calculating inflation is not constant

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11480568/1/us-standard-of-living-has-fallen-more-than-50-opinion.html

<snip>Regular readers will recognize the chart below on U.S. average wages.

Using the year 2000 as the numerical base from which to "zero" all of the numbers, real wages peaked in 1970 at around $20/hour. Today the average worker makes $8.50/hour -- more than 57% less than in 1970. And since the average wage directly determines the standard of living of our society, we can see that the average standard of living in the U.S. has plummeted by over 57% over a span of 40 years.

There are no "tricks" here. Indeed, all of the tricks are used by our governments. The green line shows average wages, discounted by inflation calculated with the same methodology for all 40 years. Obviously that is the only way in which we can compare any data over time: through applying identical parameters to it each year.

Then we have the blue line: showing wage data discounted with our "official" inflation rate. The problem? The methodology used by our governments to calculate inflation in 1975 was different from the method they used in 1985, which was different than the method they used in 1995, which was different than the method they used in 2005.

Two obvious points flow from this observation. First, it is tautological that the only way in which data can be compared meaningfully is to use a consistent methodology. If the government thinks it has improved upon its inflation methodology, then all it had to do was take all of its old data and re-calculate it with their "improved" methodology. Since 1970 there is this invention called "computers" which makes such calculations rather simple.

This brings us to the second point: the refusal of our governments to adopt a consistent methodology in reporting inflation statistics can only imply a deliberate attempt to deceive, since it is 100% logically/statistically invalid to simply string together disconnected series of data -- and present it as if it represents a consistent picture. More specifically, we can see precisely what lie our government was attempting to get us to believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #35)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 01:08 PM

37. +1

Unfortunately, too many people refuse to think.

Older people prefer to think their children are just irresponsible maybe. It took me months to convince my parents that everything has changed since they were my age.

They bought a house on a civil engineer's salary. We can't save for a down payment on an attorney's salary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #35)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 01:19 PM

38. The poster most certainly was able to do that.

Tim Nielson, the author of that shoddy analysis, is a gold salesman with a law degree. I don't think it's too outrageous to suggest that the economists working for the bls and census bureau are a better source for economic analysis.

It's true that a consistent inflation methodology needs to be used to analyze historical data. That's why the bls came up with the CPI-U-RS and that's why the census bureau uses it. This would be obvious if you read my post and the links I gave.

Note that the author/salesman uses the shadow government statistics inflation series. This is a junk series put out by a private party. It actually imputes positive inflation from changes in the market basket, among other absurd tactics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #38)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 02:37 PM

52. I agree the author from the linked article does appear to be a crackpot

Thank you for pointing that out with the additional info.

Sorry about my sloppiness.

Don

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #38)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 02:49 PM

54. Is there a purchasing power parity index for wages somewhere?

If not, then none of the aforementioned numbers really matter.

Plus, as mentioned upthread household 'overhead' is far different now than it was back then. Some companies require you to own a cell phone (but don't pay for it). Many places don't have public transportation services. Places where housing is cheaper, are usually further away from the jobs. And so on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #54)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 03:26 PM

59. In what way do you find the CPI-U-RS to be insufficent as a "purchasing power index"?

The cpi tracks price changes for a representative mixture of goods. Like you and others have sort of commented on, this mixture changes over time (though practically speaking it doesn't change that much). I'm not sure what distinction you're making between the inflation index and a purchasing power index. In particular, I don't know of any kind of difference that would make the CPI-U-RS adjusted numbers meaningless.

The overhead argument is a bit of a red herring, as the claim by the OP is about gross income. I encourage you to add data about disposable income, etc, to the thread if you're interested in discussing it. You can probably find some at bls.gov or census.gov.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #59)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 05:09 PM

63. Well, for example, they're not arguing we *can afford* new cars as readily. They've decided instead

that we don't want to be able to afford new cars, since used cars are so good!

Nevermind the fact that any rational consumer would rather have a new car than used, all other things held constant.

In this way, government economists have contradicted the clear signals of the market with their own judgment, and all in order to "prove" that shrinking wages aren't so bad. Also, they have changed their mind as to how pollution controls should affect one's perception of inflation, and have therefore made further changes...

Hard to see any level of precision here. It's more politic than "science", that's for certain!

4. Transportation. The annual average difference between the CPI-U and CPI-U-RS transportation components between 1978 and 1998 was near zero, reflecting several changes that roughly offset each other. Specifically, while downward adjustments were made to the CPI-U-RS to incorporate the effects of changes in the quality of used cars and the effects of the geometric-mean formula, net upward adjustments resulted from the deletion from the CPI-U-RS of the index for automobile finance charges and from an upward adjustment based on the backing out of a prior adjustment for changes in quality for mandated pollution controls made to the CPI-U over the period. While annual changes in the CPI-U and CPI-U-RS transportation measures were usually within one-half percent of each other, the CPI-U-RS transportation measure was a full percentage point higher than that of the CPI-U in 1980, a year in which the CPI-U-RS reflected a large upward adjustment to remove the aforesaid previous downward adjustment in the measurement of pollution-related changes in the quality of 1981-model automobiles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #63)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 05:59 PM

66. Most who are old enough to have worked 30 years ago know that the government figures do not reflect

the real changes in purchasing and livability.

Sure, electronics are realitively cheaper, but that is worth little if the price of most of the necessities of life have gone up dramatically while wages have not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Reply #66)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 09:18 PM

79. ABSOLUTELY CORRECT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #63)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 06:51 PM

70. Your criticism of quality adjustments and substitutions is not novel

Economists are aware of the perils of over adjusting these factors. That's why you see things like the 1999 decision to change pollution from a quality to a price adjustment. Honestly, considering the large negative externalities of pollution, I don't know why they wouldn't view pollution controls as an increase in quality. Perhaps its because pollution controls are government mandated so it's not like people can choose to buy "lesser quality" cars that don't have them.

As a hypothetical, let's say a man in 1970 makes just enough to buy an average car, an average house, and an average TV. Compare him to a man from 2010 that makes just enough to buy an average car, an average house, and an average TV. You would say, with no quality adjustments, that these men earn the same amount of money. But then why would anybody that isn't absolutely crazy prefer the goods that the 1970 man bought?

I'll note that cars and houses are not hedonically adjusted. The value of the increased quality is estimated the old-fashioned way: by comparing prices to things with the feature to things without the feature.

Regarding substitutions, CPI is meant to capture the change in prices in a basket of representative goods. If people are changing what they're buying then the basket needs to change. Spending habits just don't stay the same over time. For example, people spend more on entertainment now than they did 40 years ago.

The statement "any rational consumer would rather have a new car than used, all other things held constant" is either not true or a banal tautology (depending on what you mean by "all other things"). I know at current prices I prefer a used car to a new car. If you mean literally all other things held constant than the definition of "rational consumer" requires preferring more wealth to less wealth, so yes a new car is preferable. Personally, in such a situation, I'd take the new car, sell it, and buy a used car.

Measuring prices isn't easy. That's why I trust the data-driven, scientific methods and analysis of the professional, experienced, government employed economists over that of the random internet-based gold seller who was the source of the false claim in the OP. But feel free to maintain that these economists are engaged in a massive government conspiracy to screw regular americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #70)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 09:32 PM

80. "All other things held constant" means ALL other things held constant. It's literal language.

If you'd prefer a used car to a new car, for the same price (ALL other things held constant, remember,) for example, you are simply not a rational consumer.

The rest of your post is mere justification for the subjective nature of those figures. You made your initial assertions to this thread with such confidence. Your above post represents MAJOR backpedaling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #80)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 09:57 PM

83. I stand by every last thing I said.

My "assertions" are actual data. I'm not backpedaling at all. The OP was and is spectacularly wrong. Your skepticism is selectively applied and there is no way I can convince you that the data is the data.

So its "banal tautology". Sell the new car and buy a used one. Pocket the $5k. That's the freakin' definition of economic rationality. That same rational consumer would go with the 2010 products from my hypothetical.

And what's to comment on your rental example? It's straightforward. Month 1 the rent did not include broadband, month 2 the rent did include broadband. So the BLS makes a quality adjustment to the price observed, adjusting it upward. Broadband isn't free. Not making this adjustment would be wrong. It also doesn't matter that the person's renting from their parents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #83)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:24 AM

87. "All things held constant" means the PRICE IS THE SAME. It's the *literal* meaning of the phrase.

"So its 'banal tautology'. Sell the new car and buy a used one. Pocket the $5k."

Is English not your first language? This is the second (and final) time I'll explain the meaning of this straightforward phrase. The price of the new car and the used car is the same in this example. Every time. Please focus.

"And what's to comment on your rental example?"

I didn't make any rental example. Just like you don't make much sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #87)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:42 AM

90. English is certainly my first language.

So I'll give you a lesson.
Price does not mean the same thing as value (look it up!). A new and a used car, even of the same price, do not have the same value. Thus the rational consumer chooses the more valuable one by the definition of "rational".

And your rental example is the one about living in your parent's basement. If you didn't mean it to be a rental situation then the BLS is obviously not collecting any price data on it. So either it was a rental example or I ignored it, not demonstrating a flaw in anything I've said (as you claimed in another post), but as a completely irrelevant attempted derailment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #90)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:54 AM

93. You've done all that arguing only to concede the point?

"A new and a used car, even of the same price, do not have the same value."

Right. ALL ELSE HELD EQUAL, A NEW CAR IS MORE VALUABLE EACH TIME.

Which is why any fool would choose a new car instead of used one, for the same price (all other variable being held equal though, remember? )

EDIT: Edited this for simplicity, since the poster I'm responding to has such a hard time with getting other posters' points (see below, e.g.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #93)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:08 AM

99. And you somehow try to use this as justification that CPI should not adjust for quality

With all these great things nowadays having more value than things 40 years ago, it'd be nice if that was somehow reflected in the price index. OH IT IS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #99)


Response to mathematic (Reply #70)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 09:33 PM

81. I notice you skipped the parent's basement example, btw. It's an indictment of your methods, imo. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #59)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 05:10 PM

64. Similarly, the *quality* of parent's basements is surely rising, what with broadband and all...

and therefore living at home is becoming more valuable.

Same logic, precisely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #59)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 08:08 PM

76. I know what CPI is thanks

just took an exam on it yesterday. I'm saying the CPI 'basket of goods' is not always representative of the items that are needed for particular households in this day and age (for instance, the Canadian CPI has a weighting of 12% for Recreation/education and reading, wtf? how do those all belong together, and if recreation is getting cheaper and artificially lowering the CPI, how does that help poor people?) Also, I'd like to know what the adjustments for quality consist of, and if other bias changes like new goods, or commodity substitution or outlet substitution are even considered.

Not going to touch your disposable income stuff. I quickly looked at census.gov and couldn't find any disposable income stuff or real GDP per capital statistics. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #76)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 09:01 PM

77. You really should read the CPI documentation

I'm kinda surprised you haven't considering you were tested on it. Here's the link:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch17.pdf

The basket of goods is often not representative of any particular group. It's a composite. A classic example is that the elderly have a different spending pattern than the general population. The CPI-U doesn't claim to represent the changes in prices for them. The BLS does publish the CPI-E which is an inflation index weighted to reflect the expenses of that demographic.

The basket of goods itself is constantly being updated and it's based on the Consumer Expenditures Survey by the BLS. Originally this was once a decade but starting early last decade it's every 2 years.

When no price for item in the CPI sample can be found, the BLS looks for a new item to replace it.
There are three possibilities to determine the price change:
1. The prices are directly compared
2. The value of the difference in quality between the items are estimated, chiefly through:
a. Manufacturer cost data
b. Hedonic regression
3. The new item price is imputed, for cases where the data is missing/uncollectable.

Substitution effects are only applicable for very specific expenditure categories. An example is that one type of steak can be substituted for another type of steak but not for ground beef. The substitution effect is implemented via a geometric formula.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #77)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:19 PM

84. I'm in Canada

so probably different but thanks. And you still aren't understanding what I was getting at. But that's okay, I can see you aren't a 'big picture' person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #84)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:48 AM

91. Amazing

I give you straightforward answers to your questions. I give you a link with way more detail than you'll probably ever want. And you give me some lame you're-too-dull-to-ever-see-what-I-see nonsense. Well I can't see into your gut, so if the truth's in there you're going to have to do a better job of explaining it. (In the future, and to other people. I'm through explaining things to fundamentalists for the evening).


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #91)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:55 AM

94. Just *AMAZING* that anyone dare pose a question that you aren't able to answer. How rude! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #91)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:04 AM

97. Fundamentalist?

Why because I don't bow to your monetarist/classical gods?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #97)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:15 AM

100. Since when do Keynesians reject price based inflation measures?

You've got it backwards. I'm the one using a price based measure. Monetarists measure inflation by the money supply. But it's certainly strange how you managed to figure out my economic philosophy just from me posting data that contradicts the OP's false claim.

Fundamentalist seems like a good enough description for somebody that rejects the scientific consensus because it violates a personal worldview.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #77)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 04:20 AM

102. Here is some reading material for you. Why CPI has understated inflation.

There are a lot of economists who would argue otherwise. But none of us who are old enough to know better need to be convinced. We KNOW.

This material comes from one. Link at the bottom.
________


Consumer Price Index Has Been Reconfigured Since Early-1980s
So As to Understate Inflation versus Common Experience


•CPI no longer measures the cost of maintaining a constant standard of living.
•CPI no longer measures full inflation for out-of-pocket expenditure.
•With the misused cover of academic theory, politicians forced significant underreporting of official inflation, so as to cut annual cost-of-living adjustments to Social Security, etc.
•Use of the CPI to adjust retirement benefits, private income or to set investment goals impairs the ability of retirees, income earners and investors to stay ahead of inflation.
•Understated inflation used in estimating inflation-adjusted growth has created the illusion of recovery in reported GDP.





From:
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #29)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:54 AM

31. Just to be clear: not being an "economist", I notice various factors are typically excluded from

these numbers (such as the infamously "volatile" food and fuel categories.)

So that piqued my curiosity as to what is included in the figures you cite...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #31)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 03:04 PM

56. I took a look at the CPI links

Lots of jargon I don't understand, but the basics is that there are all kinds of adjustments for every category for things like quality, using different methodologies, and that it's not particularly consistent. There were a few things I noticed that felt 'off' like how much they adjusted for medical costs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #56)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 05:11 PM

65. Agreed. It's based on the author's assessment of what consumers *should* want, not what they do--

for example, the used automobile section I mention above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #31)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 06:41 PM

69. I find it pragmatically useful to regard the CPI as a "Keep Up With The Joneses" Index.

It helps me stay sane. We all know the Joneses have changed a bit over time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TahitiNut (Reply #69)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:31 AM

89. Hard to contextualize "keeping up" when workers are demonstrably *falling behind* though... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 02:08 PM

46. Wow. Way to promote a factoid.

Factoid: Fact divorced from context.

Never mind, I see that other DUers have voiced the same concerns.


Welcome to DU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TalkingDog (Reply #46)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 03:13 PM

57. Context? I gave PLENTY of context.

Context like exact links to the data and inflation index methodology? Context like the OP's false economic analysis stems from a non-economist gold salesman that has a vested interest in convincing everybody that money is becoming more and more worthless?

Precisely what context would make the OP's claim true? Where's your skepticism now?

And you can shove that troll-hunting BS right back where it came from. I'm quoting mainstream data from professional economists working for the federal government. If you're going to call me a troll for that then there's only one thing I can say to you and your "concerns".

As for the GMO cyanide grass, given your sarcastic troll-hunting welcome, I have no particular interest in informing you on that. Feel free to believe it or not. I would prefer that you didn't believe it and thus expose to everybody the level of diligence you apply to claims that agree with your worldview.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #57)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 07:15 PM

73. In the initial post only provided data from census.gov

You did not discuss inflation, (core or not) longer hours without pay or any of the other factors that give context to your assertion other than showing 2 sets of numbers from different years.

Even teenagers know things cost more now than when they were children. So, initially, no, you did not provide context.

You need to tread lightly here. Accusing me of calling you a troll could be grounds for alerting moderators. (Although I don't find that kind of action necessary, other people do not hesitate. I tend to think rational adults should either have tough skin or facts to back their assertions. Either one works for me.)

So, I was actually sincere in my request. I posted that story from CBS onto another site and like any responsible person, don't want to pass along misinformation.

However, when I tried to find the story, all I kept coming up with were the original reports. So, since you made the assertion that the story was false, I would like some verification.

If you can't stand people picking apart your arguments, you may not want to post on this site. 'Cause, look around... that's gonna happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TalkingDog (Reply #73)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 07:41 PM

74. Nice dodge but I provided all that information hours before your response

Besides you don't need any more context than census.gov. Go there. Look up the data. Read the footnotes. You were free to get as much "context" as you wanted. I'm not making an "argument" I'm presenting data that contradicts the OP's claim. Just as simple as that. You haven't picked apart or rebutted any of that.

As for the so-called GMO grass, I believe you're confused. You're the one that doesn't want to pass on mis-information. I'd highly recommend you make a more concerted effort to fact check. It's not my responsibility to help you maintain your credibility.

And you're going to alert the mods for me pointing out that you used the standard DU sarcastic welcome to people they disagree with. That's rich. But please do let me know when you get in touch with those DU3 moderators.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TalkingDog (Reply #73)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 07:59 PM

75. Ok, I've reconsidered re: GMO grass link

I'm not usually a jerk but you started it and I think you earned it. But I'll return to my usual dispassionate data-driven posting ways.

Here's the link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002848609#post26

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #75)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 05:04 PM

104. What did I start and how, exactly, did I start "it"?

For someone who considers themselves dispassionate, you certainly are quick to take offense where none was offered.

I am quite serious. Other than coming in late to the game, how was questioning your initial post a problem? If you will notice, I edited it to say that my question regarding your post had already been addressed by others.

If you are serious about both using data and being dispassionate, you may want to learn to look a little deeper than a cursory surface glance at the "facts at hand". Critical thinking is required.

Thank you for the link. I will post to my other boards so as not to sow confusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 02:22 PM

48. Link to the GMO cyanide grass is not GMO retraction story please.

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 02:26 PM

49. Do your calculations account for the increase in hours worked sans compensation?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speed-up-american-workers-long-hours

Webster's defines speedup as "an employer's demand for accelerated output without increased pay," and it used to be a household word. Bosses would speed up the line to fill a big order, to goose profits, or to punish a restive workforce. Workers recognized it, unions (remember those?) watched for and negotiated over it—and, if necessary, walked out over it.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 02:33 PM

50. What's the mode? I saw it here (I think) a couple of weeks ago.

 

It shows a dramatic drop over the 30 years, which reflects far more accurately what we are living through. IIRC, the mode dropped from slightly below the mean to right around $25K.

I usually save links to that sort of thing, but...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #50)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 04:08 PM

61. I found the data for households

Households include "nonfamily households", which are basically single people. This changes the demographics a bit. Nevertheless, here's the breakdown by $5k increments:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032011/hhinc/new06_000.htm

The 15k-20k category is the largest (the mode) and the size of the categories gradually decline as the increments increase. The mode is basically at the 20% mark. This is generally the shape of the graph for this type of data. I don't know how this has changed over time but I expect it's gotten worse since low skill workers have fewer higher wage options these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 07:04 PM

71. And one more rebuttal:

If the average American had actually shared in the country’s seeming prosperity the past two decades, his wealth, instead of stagnating, would have increased by some three-fourths.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-policy-has-contributed-to-the-great-economic-divide/2012/06/22/gJQAXTX2vV_story.html


So, while we may not be falling behind, we sure as hell ain't getting ahead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #24)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:29 AM

88. This poster speaks with such confidence, but following the subthreads, it's all backpedaling. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #88)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:48 AM

92. What an embarassing mischaracterization.

I'm embarrassed for you. There's really no other way to put it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #92)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:00 AM

95. There is NOTHING more embarrassing than a *sloppy* know-it-all. Work on your

arguments, then take on the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #92)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:02 AM

96. And everyone else you've insulted tonight? Are you embarrassed for them, too?

Perhaps there's a single common thread in all of this embarrassment, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #24)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 07:34 AM

103. You did not account for inflation nor increased living costs.

The fact is it takes a two income household to live the life of a one income household in 1970.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #103)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 09:22 AM

112. It's actually much worse: he's arguing that "QUALITY" of life today is higher, so it doesn't matter

if we earn less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 12:03 PM

32. Vulture Capitalism

Last edited Sun Jun 24, 2012, 06:26 PM - Edit history (2)

Republicans believe in trickle-down economics and a predatory form of capitalism known as vulture capitalism. Trickle-down economics rely on deregulation to gush wealth to the top. Vulture capitalism relies on corporate raiders, leveraged buyouts and hostile takeovers. Republican policies enable greed, corruption and increasingly complex ponzi schemes to flourish. The result is a huge disparity in wealth and finally a financial crisis that crashes the economy.

The Republican policy agenda pursues deregulation and privatization. This eventually set the stage for people like Mitt Romney, who pioneered outsourcing, to go to work siphoning millions from the middle class. He made his money through managed bankruptcies. He bought businesses, laid off workers, outsourced their jobs, took their health care and pocketed their pensions. The money he took from them was parked in swiss bank accounts, offshore accounts, and in the bahamas.

NOTE: The financial crash wiped out 40% of Middle Class wealth.

(see http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002826853)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 12:15 PM

33. Mafia Style Wall Street Scam

A Bill Moyers interview describes how the banks achieved a gigantic rip-off by secretly colluding to rig the public bids on municipal bonds, a business worth $3.7 trillion.

By conspiring to lower the interest rates that towns earn on these investments, the banks systematically stole from schools, hospitals, libraries and nursing homes – from "virtually every state, district and territory in the United States," according to one settlement.

(Ref: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101736377)

Bill Moyers & Company

The Follies of Big Banks and Government - (billmoyers.com)
http://tinyurl.com/7hn4xrg

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 12:35 PM

36. Privatization and Deregulation

Some people blame Bush for the state of the union, but Bush was actually a good president in that he sought to bring Republican policies to fruition. The problem was not in the execution of these policies, but the actual policies themselves; Republican policies have produced a Global War AND a Global Recession! Yet, Republicans accuse Democrats of not fixing these global messes "fast" enough!

For the Conservatives, this is not a financial crisis but a long-awaited opportunity

http://tinyurl.com/36v3tzv

Public bodies whose purpose is to hold corporations to account are being swept away. Public bodies whose purpose is to help boost corporate profits, regardless of the consequences for people and the environment, have sailed through unharmed.

The Shock Doctrine

In her book The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein shows how disaster capitalism was conceived by the extreme neoliberals at the University of Chicago. These people believed that the public sphere should be eliminated, that business should be free to do as it wants, and almost all tax and social spending should be stopped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peaceful Protester (Reply #36)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 01:24 PM

39. Deregulation of the trucking indurstry cost the teamster union 300,000 good paying jobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peaceful Protester (Reply #36)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 01:34 PM

41. do they realize that the "public sector" is basically their nation?

do they know this? because if anyone were to think ahead & say, ok, now ALL the government is gone, no dept of labor, education, no epa-wth do think they have left, except a Third World nation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 02:21 PM

47. And the formula for the poverty rate...

has not been changed in over fifty years!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 02:58 PM

55. That's okay. The GOP is now working on making us all one-income families again

only with lower wage and the prices on everything the same or higher. But look on the bright side: you won't have a mortgage payment anymore at the shelter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 03:18 PM

58. wow nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 07:08 PM

72. i wish it were only the repub party that was to blame;

 

if it was, this country probably wouldn't be in as bad of shape as it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarryNight (Reply #72)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 09:53 PM

82. repukes are FAR more responsible for the mess

and still hindering any kind of recovery

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarryNight (Reply #72)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:07 AM

98. No kidding. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 11:32 PM

85. And they tell us, with a shrug, to forget owning homes, or retiring.


Shucks, that's just the way it is. You can't expect society's greatest beneficiaries to contribute to the common good. They're barely squeaking by on 380 times your salary, what with all these crazy communist ideas about collecting taxes and building roads and schools and fire stations sucking them dry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread