US Economy: Cut the crap

[1EZduzit]

When I was a boy growing up I would guess that 1 in 50 women worked outside the home, now I would guess that only 1 in 50 doesn't work outside the home. The economy is just great and getting better all the time. Look at all those jobs created!!

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Oh whoppie doo doo, I'd take a President getting a little lagniappe under the desk over a fake war anytime.

I agree, DMC....what a totally fake war. In fact, in 2001 (just before the 9-11 attacks), Larry Johnson (the CIA Analyst testifying about the CIA agent leaks and damning Bush)even published a few reports showing that the risk of terrorist attacks against us are nonexistent and were manufactured fakes.

"The Declining Terrorist Threat." --Op-ed NYT

..."bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism...little to fear from terrorism....fiction of terrorism..."


Sure, this guy is a hack, partisan analyst, but it just goes to show you that Dubya will manufacture anything to make himself look good, like GDP figures and all these other economic indices...totally fake (like his war and his presidency).

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Therefore over the last 20 years, income has increased in every year with the exception of the year 2004-2005. Median income has increased faster than inflation has in all but four years but two of those are in the most recent years. If one was working since 1986, their income would have gone up 84%, meanwhile your inflation costs would have gone up by 60%.

Meanwhile, how have pension plans been going? How about medical cost? Not too mention the economy is artifically boosted by the Chinese buying up our debt.

 

[BushBasha]

Moreover, if the economy is doing as good as you Bush apologists suggest, why did the AFL-CIO 'big labor' union have to layoff (ironical?) 40% of their workforce? It seems obvious that people can't afford to buy their product any longer.

 

[LunarRay]

Economists as Social Scientists do little to imbue the consumer of their production with a real sense of reality. IMO! This, I believe is do to the attempt to bring all variables and historic data into a today dynamics. One is left to ferret out - and one can if one wishes - how all this impacts them. In short, economics looked at in "gross" terms means little to to individual. What matter does it make if you are and have been unemployed for 2 years reading that the UI rate is this or that. Some refer to hard core unemployed as everything from lazy to unlucky... but they are none-the-less unemployed and see their economic conditions as "suck full"!
Remedies suggested to rectify some economic element gone astray are never going to be seen by all or maybe even many as appropriate. Nor can one economist agree totally with another the degree to which a "fix" ought to be employed. One must be in charge and must take the decisions that manage the issues on a grand scale with out the politics involved... a Greenspan (and his horde) type approach would be great in the fiscal policy arena... again IMO....

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: BushBasha
Moreover, if the economy is doing as good as you Bush apologists suggest, why did the AFL-CIO 'big labor' union have to layoff (ironical?) 40% of their workforce? It seems obvious that people can't afford to buy their product any longer.

What the hell are you babbling about? I wasnt aware that the afl-cio was the leading economic indicator. Maybe their individual success doesnt have much to do with the larger economy?

What "product?" They're a freaking union, they dont make anything. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Helenihi

Originally posted by: BushBasha
Moreover, if the economy is doing as good as you Bush apologists suggest, why did the AFL-CIO 'big labor' union have to layoff (ironical?) 40% of their workforce? It seems obvious that people can't afford to buy their product any longer.

What the hell are you babbling about? I wasnt aware that the afl-cio was the leading economic indicator. Maybe their individual success doesnt have much to do with the larger economy?

What "product?" They're a freaking union, they dont make anything. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

I think he's referring to the fact that the individual "unions" that make up the AFL-CIO do indeed consist of people and companies that manufacture things, a shrinking way of life in the US.

Click me. Many parts of the AFL-CIO indeed do make products.

 

[ScottFern]

By the way you word your question its pretty obvious what you want to hear. You just want to hear how bad we are doing and how horrible the economy is. I don't know why, but if you talk to certain left leaning columnist I am sure you will hear the response you want.

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Helenihi

Originally posted by: BushBasha
Moreover, if the economy is doing as good as you Bush apologists suggest, why did the AFL-CIO 'big labor' union have to layoff (ironical?) 40% of their workforce? It seems obvious that people can't afford to buy their product any longer.

What the hell are you babbling about? I wasnt aware that the afl-cio was the leading economic indicator. Maybe their individual success doesnt have much to do with the larger economy?

What "product?" They're a freaking union, they dont make anything. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

I think he's referring to the fact that the individual "unions" that make up the AFL-CIO do indeed consist of people and companies that manufacture things, a shrinking way of life in the US.

Click me. Many parts of the AFL-CIO indeed do make products.

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the AFL-CIO recently laying off some of their staff, which is not particularly related to any reduction in the size of their members, but apparently due to restructuring. The AFL-CIO itself does not make anything, and hte size of these layoffs was not paritcularly large.

If he was referring to the unions that make up the AFL-CIO, well thats just stupid, because 40% of those workers have not been laid off.

 

[LongTimePCUser]

 

[LongTimePCUser]

Stunt,
I looked at your sources. Income

These income number may not be the median income number for the United States. These seem to be the income level that make people eligible for assistence to meet their heating and cooling needs.

The title of the table is: "This table is used by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program ".
Look at the link they provide: LIHEAP

I also think that you may have matched income with the inflation rate for different years.
The census tables are confusing in the "years" they list.
You quoted an income number for 2006 of $65,093.
They list that as income in calendar year 2003.

They also say that this is fiscal year 2006. I don't know what they mean by fiscal year but they are not forcasting $65,093 as median received income for the year 2006.

Originally posted by: Stunt
I agree glenn1, a lot of economics is dependent on a positive outlook and confidence as a nation. Unfortunately one can get ahead of themselves, for example during the tech bust. I want to take an un-biased look at the economy and lay some of the criticisms/credit to rest; i fail to see how this is a bullsh!t premise...

Here's the median income vs. inflation for the last 20 years.
Income Source
Inflation Source

Year:Median Income:More than Previous:Inflation

2006: $65,093 : 3.76:
2005: $62,732 : -0.86: 2.99
2004: $63,278 : 1.69: 2.68
2003: $62,228 : 3.75: 2.27
2002: $59,981 : 6.99: 1.59
2001: $56,061 : 5.08: 2.83
2000: $53,350 : 3.56: 3.38
1999: $51,518 : 3.69: 2.19
1998: $49,687 : 5.69: 1.55
1997: $47,012 : 4.10: 2.34
1996: $45,161 : 1.22: 2.93
1995: $44,615 : 3.62: 2.81
1994: $43,056 : 3.87: 2.61
1993: $41,451 : 1.69: 2.96
1992: $40,763 : 4.38: 3.03
1991: $39,051 : 6.08: 4.25
1990: $36,812 : 6.04: 5.39
1989: $34,716 : 5.92: 4.83
1988: $32,777 : 5.40: 4.08
1987: $31,097 : 6.55: 3.66
1986: $29,184 : 5.67: 1.91
1985: $27,619 :

Therefore over the last 20 years, income has increased in every year with the exception of the year 2004-2005. Median income has increased faster than inflation has in all but four years but two of those are in the most recent years. If one was working since 1986, their income would have gone up 84%, meanwhile your inflation costs would have gone up by 60%.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: ScottFern
By the way you word your question its pretty obvious what you want to hear. You just want to hear how bad we are doing and how horrible the economy is. I don't know why, but if you talk to certain left leaning columnist I am sure you will hear the response you want.

That must be why he then proceeded to present data that supported the economy was doing well. If you want to present economic indicators then great, otherwise don't waste our time.

 

[Mirko]

Historical Income Tables - Households

Table H-3. Mean Household Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent
All Races: 1967 to 2003

(Households as of March of the following year. Income in current
and 2003 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars28/)

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Mirko
Historical Income Tables - Households

Table H-3. Mean Household Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent
All Races: 1967 to 2003

(Households as of March of the following year. Income in current
and 2003 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars28/)

Interesting.

% gain from 1967-2003
1st 5th 515%
2nd 5th 479%
3rd 5th 516%
4th 5th 597%
5th 5th 720%
Top 5% 785%

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: Helenihi

What the hell are you babbling about? I wasnt aware that the afl-cio was the leading economic indicator. Maybe their individual success doesnt have much to do with the larger economy?

What "product?" They're a freaking union, they dont make anything. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Since you are so one dimensional, I'll spell it out for you in layman's terms.

1.) Their product is propaganda; no one is buying it anymore, which is why the movement has been crushed. Membership has markedly declined year after year, and people are finally seeing that these closed shops that force membership, take union dues out of every paycheck, and offer nothing in return are merely extorting their hard-earned money to fill their political coffers.

2.) The ultimate irony is that these labor unions always threaten strikes and walkouts, et al whenever a business wants to "restructure" and layoff workers, in an effort to remain competitive, but the labor unions have the right to layoff people (25% at the AFL-CIO alone) when THEY want to restructure. This is both comical and ironical, to put it charitably.

 

[BushBasha]

The economy flashed fresh signals of strength in the last two months

Economic Activity Expands on Retail Sales

By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer
1 hour, 14 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - The economy flashed fresh signals of strength in the last two months, with factories buzzing and cash registers ka-chinging despite high gas prices.


The latest snapshot emerging from the Federal Reserve's survey of the business climate around the country, released Wednesday, suggested the economy has bounced back nicely from a springtime soft patch. The job market showed some improvements and inflation was fairly contained, the survey also found.

The picture was consistent with the assessment Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan offered last week when he delivered the central bank's midyear economic outlook to Congress.

At that time, Greenspan signaled that short-term interest rates will continue to move higher in the months ahead in an effort to keep the economy and inflation on an even keel. Economists widely expect Fed policymakers will boost rates by another quarter-percentage point at their next meeting, Aug. 9. The Fed's survey appears to support such a move.

Over the last year, the Fed has pushed a key interest rate to 3.25 percent in nine modest, quarter-point moves. Before the Fed embarked on its credit tightening, that key rate stood at 1 percent, a 46-year low.

Some analysts believe this key rate could climb as high as 4.25 percent by the end of this year.

In the survey, most of the Fed's 12 regional districts reported "moderate to solid expansions in manufacturing activity and expectations for future factory activity were generally upbeat." The survey also noted that "activity in a wide variety of manufacturing industries was characterized as strong."

Boston and San Francisco, for instance, reported strength in aircraft and high-tech manufacturing; Atlanta and Dallas said refineries were doing quite well. Several districts reported that producers of construction materials, especially cement, and industrial equipment also were busy. But makers of metals and textiles saw some weakness.

The Fed's survey is based on information collected before July 18.

Consumer spending, a key force behind economic activity, also was holding up well despite high energy prices, the survey suggested.

"Most districts reported increases in retail sales and reports on retailers' expectations were generally positive," the survey said.

Boston, however, reported sales were flat or down from a year ago, and New York said sales softened in early July, following solid growth in June.

Meanwhile, car sales in nearly all of the Fed's regions were boosted by a new round of price discounting. And, tourism continued to show strength throughout much of the country, the report said.

The housing market remained hot, but showed a "few signs of cooling" in some districts, the survey said. House activity and home price appreciation in Massachusetts moved from "hot" to "normal." In the Richmond, Atlanta and San Francisco districts housing activity stayed strong but "eased in a few markets that had been especially hot ? Washington, D.C., several Florida markets and parts of southern California."

Oil prices surged to a new closing high of $61.28 a barrel in early July. Gasoline prices earlier this month set a record of $2.33 a gallon nationwide, the Energy Department reported.

Yet, inflation was contained in most Fed districts, the survey suggested.

"Overall price pressures either eased slightly or remained unchanged in most districts despite substantial increases in the cost of energy and some building materials," the report said.

Transportation firms in the Chicago, Cleveland and Dallas areas were able to pass much of their increased fuel costs to customers, the report said. "However, in a number of districts, firms outside the transportation sector were reported as having only limited success passing on cost increases."

On the employment front, demand for workers increased in most Fed districts, but New York said labor markets were a bit softer overall despite a pickup in hiring at financial services. Several districts reported stronger demand for temporary workers. Skilled workers were in shorter supply in some areas, truck drivers were reported as scarce in Cleveland, Richmond and Atlanta.

The nation's unemployment rate dropped to 5 percent in June, the lowest level in nearly four years.

Even with the labor market improvements, wage pressures ? a barometer of inflation ? remained moderate, the Fed said.

 

[LongTimePCUser]

Another thing to take away from these numbers is that household income for all these groups adjusted for inflation using 2003 dollars, peaked in the year 2000 and has dropped every year since then.

I suspect, but don't have the numbers to back this up, that the top 1% of households has increased. Especially if you take net income after taxes into account.

__________________________________________________________________________
Lowest Second Third Fourth Highest Top 5
Year fifth fifth fifth fifth fifth percent
__________________________________________________________________________
2003 Dollars

2003 $9,996 $25,678 $43,588 $68,994 $147,078 $253,239
2002 10,219 25,982 43,783 68,868 147,036 256,761
2001 10,533 26,466 44,299 69,458 151,689 270,668
2000 30/ 10,850 27,090 45,113 70,129 151,969 269,609
1999 29/ 10,944 26,873 44,981 70,008 149,293 259,485

Note that "Households as of March of the following year."

Originally posted by: Mirko
Historical Income Tables - Households

Table H-3. Mean Household Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent
All Races: 1967 to 2003

(Households as of March of the following year. Income in current
and 2003 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars28/)

 

[irwincur]

The worst part of this is that people still attempt to attribute the meanderings of the economy to the current administration. Sorry folks, there is little direct control that any administration can exert over macro-economics. The best we can do is allow the Fed to adjust rates and allow the administration to either raise taxes or decrease taxes. In most cases, the tax suggestions come from the Fed and they almost always work. When the economy is hot, there is room to increase taxes and reduce the amount of free money - in all actuality this can be a good thing to prevent overheating. Likewise but opposite tax reductions are powerful tools for firing up a lagging economy.

Other than that however, it has a mind of its own and there are many interceding factors that no one controls - except the masses. The Clinton economy for example really would not have been terribly exceptional if the investment craze had not hit the common man. The current economic cycle is being fueled in part by the housing boom. The last slow recovery may have been half as long had 9/11 never happened - impossible to say for sure.

Every boom requires fuel, and every bust has its reasons.

In the end, they are almost never tied to administration policies or monthly moves by the Fed. Yes these have small effects, but they are in no way powerful enough to totally shape the economy.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: irwincur
The worst part of this is that people still attempt to attribute the meanderings of the economy to the current administration.

Bull

The U.S. is faltering under this Regime's watch, period.

You just cannot get away with blaming Clinton for the duration, history will not let you Repubs get away with that.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: irwincur
The worst part of this is that people still attempt to attribute the meanderings of the economy to the current administration.

Bull

The U.S. is faltering under this Regime's watch, period.

You just cannot get away with blaming Clinton for the duration, history will not let you Repubs get away with that.

Dave, you know as much about this suject as you do about biological engineering. A lot of the country isn't having the problems you are because they aren't convicted criminals.

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I agree glenn1, a lot of economics is dependent on a positive outlook and confidence as a nation. Unfortunately one can get ahead of themselves, for example during the tech bust. I want to take an un-biased look at the economy and lay some of the criticisms/credit to rest; i fail to see how this is a bullsh!t premise...

Here's the median income vs. inflation for the last 20 years.
Income Source
Inflation Source

Year:Median Income:More than Previous:Inflation

2006: $65,093 : 3.76:
2005: $62,732 : -0.86: 2.99
2004: $63,278 : 1.69: 2.68
2003: $62,228 : 3.75: 2.27
2002: $59,981 : 6.99: 1.59
2001: $56,061 : 5.08: 2.83
2000: $53,350 : 3.56: 3.38
1999: $51,518 : 3.69: 2.19
1998: $49,687 : 5.69: 1.55
1997: $47,012 : 4.10: 2.34
1996: $45,161 : 1.22: 2.93
1995: $44,615 : 3.62: 2.81
1994: $43,056 : 3.87: 2.61
1993: $41,451 : 1.69: 2.96
1992: $40,763 : 4.38: 3.03
1991: $39,051 : 6.08: 4.25
1990: $36,812 : 6.04: 5.39
1989: $34,716 : 5.92: 4.83
1988: $32,777 : 5.40: 4.08
1987: $31,097 : 6.55: 3.66
1986: $29,184 : 5.67: 1.91
1985: $27,619 :

Therefore over the last 20 years, income has increased in every year with the exception of the year 2004-2005. Median income has increased faster than inflation has in all but four years but two of those are in the most recent years. If one was working since 1986, their income would have gone up 84%, meanwhile your inflation costs would have gone up by 60%.

I'd be interested to see something on personal debt though (currently coming up empty). Inflation is one thing but overspending your income is another.