Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
30. Problem is the GDP does not reflect median income.
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 04:27 PM
Dec 2014

The bigger and more trade deals, the lower the median income compared to GDP in the US. That is how it has worked so far.

U.S. real (inflation adjusted) median household income was $51,939 in 2013 versus $51,759 in 2012, essentially unchanged. However, it has trended down since 2007, falling 8% from the pre-recession peak of $56,436.

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

We are comparing GDP which measures dollars per individual human being (per capita) of $53,000 per person with per household income of $51,939.

Having lived in Europe, I can say that comparing GDPs is like comparing grapefruits to tangerines. In some countries, small children and babies are commonly cared for by their grandparents or other relatives, for example. There is no monetary transaction to contribute to the GDP of that nation. Same with work on farms. If family farms are the rule, the work of many of the family members does not contribute to the calculation of the GDP. GDP is not just products sold and their value but also services sold and their values. In many countries, services are provided for free and do not count toward the GDP although those same services would be bought and sold and contribute to the high GDP in our country.

Thus, GDP can be a very misleading number and what is more, our GDP compared to the household income in the US reflects the terrible disparity in wealth in our country, a disparity that grows with each trade agreement and our trade deficit. Why is the trade deficit related to our declining wages, living standard and household income? Because the trade deficit represents jobs and wages lost to other countries.

The US trade deficit is much too large.

The reason is that the oligarchs who profit from "free" trade, that is from being able to import products into the US without exporting an equal value in products from the US, take their profits outside the US mostly in small countries in which tax rates are, thanks to their small populations and therefore relatively small infrastructures, governments, etc. and do not pay taxes commensurate with their role in the US economy. They do not pay for the roads that transport the foreign-made goods to markets. They do not pay for the social structure, the schools, hospitals, the lifestyle, etc. that make the US a good place to sell their products.

The rest of us buy the cheapest item offered unable to control where it comes from because almost nothing we need to buy is made in the US.

The GDP of the US does not reflect the loss in living standard that Americans have experienced and are experiencing at an accelerating rate due to free trade that profits the wealthy and leaves other Americans behind.


WASHINGTON - The U.S. trade deficit fell slightly in October as exports rebounded while oil imports dipped to the lowest level in five years.

The deficit edged down 0.4 per cent to $43.4 billion, a drop from a revised $43.6 billion in September, the Commerce Department reported Friday.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-trade-deficit-drops-43-4-billion-october-133714108.html

While China, Russia and Germany have trade surpluses -- pretty large ones, we have the largest trade deficit in the world.

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

The last thing we need is yet another trade deficit.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Did it work? Did it work? Anyone?... Recursion Dec 2014 #1
Thanks for that astute assessment, Rush. RiverLover Dec 2014 #4
Here's an actual liberal view(which is of course correct). Maybe you can post something from Fox RiverLover Dec 2014 #7
+1 an entire shit load. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #18
Another fail, Recursion. Scuba Dec 2014 #9
+1 You nailed it. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #19
Let's see... in FDR's first term... MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #10
FDR was right on. Tariffs should protect the living standards of the American worker. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #2
Thank you. JDPriestly Dec 2014 #12
"In FDR's view high tariffs shifted the burden of financing the government from the rich to the poor pampango Dec 2014 #16
Very little of the TPP has anything to do with what tariffs are still existing. djean111 Dec 2014 #3
Good info. Thanks~nt RiverLover Dec 2014 #5
I certainly hope you did not think that with my post I was suggesting that the TPP is just about JDPriestly Dec 2014 #13
K & R Faryn Balyncd Dec 2014 #6
K&R Scuba Dec 2014 #8
as djean notes up above, TPP is much worse than just tariffs Doctor_J Dec 2014 #11
Dr. Dean talked about the need for tariffs when he was running for president Mosby Dec 2014 #14
Of course, he campaigned against and negotiated away most of the high tariffs he inherited pampango Dec 2014 #15
Unfortunately, as our high trade deficit and declining wages prove, even multilateral trade JDPriestly Dec 2014 #17
But the wealth is safely in the hands of the wealthy elite and multinational corporations where Enthusiast Dec 2014 #20
Indeed I believe FDR knew that the elite have prospered under high tariffs and low. The key pampango Dec 2014 #22
You are entitled to your opinion. I'll side with FDR. pampango Dec 2014 #21
The TPP creates international Corporate Supremacy®. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #23
I've posted many times that the TPP is only good if it has strong labor and environmental standards pampango Dec 2014 #24
Yeah, we heard about those mythical strong labor and environmental standards Enthusiast Dec 2014 #25
We are both skeptical about their inclusion in the TPP. pampango Dec 2014 #27
We do not want another trade deal. Period. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #28
That was pretty quick going from "completely abandon any and all trade deals with nations that do pampango Dec 2014 #29
Problem is the GDP does not reflect median income. JDPriestly Dec 2014 #30
Wages declined from the early 1970's to the mid-1990's then increased. A NAFTA tragedy? pampango Dec 2014 #31
Fantastic quote! Thanks! MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #26
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Thinking about the TPP. ...»Reply #30