Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In case anyone is interested in where Michigan's growth is occurring. The above is the link for my 2015 county by county breakdown.
By raw numbers the Grand Rapids CSA has estimated to have gained over 50k people. It's the largest increase by both raw numbers and percentage. It's actually a larger increase than the state has seen as a whole. The Detroit area has estimated to have gained about 17k since 2010. Which is actually quite remarkable given that it posted losses through 2012.
I think that's the narrative that's being parroted about but it's not really the reality. Yes automation has drastically increased productivity, but our economy still needs a lot of humans. More now than ever in the history of the United States.
Average incomes are on the rise again (and never really went down), employment is near full employment, the participation rate in the workforce is right around the historical average. If automation were truly replacing workers at a net rate, incomes would be way down and employment would be way down. Neither of those things is true.
News outlets throw out graphs like this but participate rate is still in the mid 60% range. I think one of the largest contributors to decreasing participation rates is baby boomers retiring early, or starting their own businesses at retirement age instead of working typical "payroll jobs."
We still need a lot of humans because of economic stimulus and debt. Interest rates are low to stimulate borrowing....and hence spending. Government debt and consumer debt artificially inflates GDP. If GDP was not artificially inflated via debt, consumption would tank and massive numbers of people would be laid off.
Incumbents do not want mass layoffs during their incumbency, as such is political suicide to allow such when you can stave it off via increasing debt.
Also, you noted "Average Earnings" as a metric. However, we all know that averages can be skewed by the extremes. The 1% earn such a large percent of total income that an increase in their earnings increases "average earnings" for the entire population. This is why "Median Earnings" is a better metric.
Its kind of like this. You used to earn 50K a year on your job, but now you earn 40k. That is your only source of income. However, you have been granted a credit card with a million dollar limit. That credit extension will mask your actual decline in earnings, allowing you to actually live much larger than your income......that is......until you have to pay the cost of your borrowing. We, as a nation, is in the interim period of getting the benefits of massive borrowing, without having to pay the cost and that creates the false impression of "Growth".
Keep in mind too that estimates tend to lag economic trends. 2000-2010 was a period of economic decline in Michigan. The census bureau underestimated losses. 1990-2000 the Michigan economy was red hot, and the numbers looked even better than the CB projected. This is another decade that has shown a 180 reversal in Michigan's economy. The CB could very well be being overly conservative because they over estimated in 2010.
We still need a lot of humans because of economic stimulus and debt. Interest rates are low to stimulate borrowing....and hence spending. Government debt and consumer debt artificially inflates GDP. If GDP was not artificially inflated via debt, consumption would tank and massive numbers of people would be laid off.
Incumbents do not want mass layoffs during their incumbency, as such is political suicide to allow such when you can stave it off via increasing debt.
Also, you noted "Average Earnings" as a metric. However, we all know that averages can be skewed by the extremes. The 1% earn such a large percent of total income that an increase in their earnings increases "average earnings" for the entire population. This is why "Median Earnings" is a better metric.
Its kind of like this. You used to earn 50K a year on your job, but now you earn 40k. That is your only source of income. However, you have been granted a credit card with a million dollar limit. That credit extension will mask your actual decline in earnings, allowing you to actually live much larger than your income......that is......until you have to pay the cost of your borrowing. We, as a nation, is in the interim period of getting the benefits of massive borrowing, without having to pay the cost and that creates the false impression of "Growth".
Who says that people who were making $50K a year are now making $40K? Do you have any data to back that up? Other than automotive/UAW workers?
Lower incomes, for the middle quintile, have not "declined" in the simple way that some media outlets express they have, but they've slowed their growth in a significant way and when adjusted to represent 2015 dollars, incomes actually did stagnate from about 1998-2007, and then declined slightly from 2008 through 2014. Last year would be the first time incomes in the middle quintile had shown a significant increase since 1997 to 1998.
The 20th percentile incomes are now 97.3% of their inflation adjusted 1998 levels.
40th %ile@98.5%
60th %ile@102.5%
80th %ile@107.3%
95th %ile@111.6%
The BLS statistics have shown a decline of labor participation from ~67% to ~63% since 1998. 4% is significant, when we're talking a nation of 320 million people with an increasing (..maybe stabilized at this point) number of dual-earner households. We have to go back to 1980 to see labor participation at 63% and of those jobs an ever increasing number of them are service related jobs, rather than good production.
The point is we work (labor) less to produce the same, or more, and stay occupied doing other things to earn a living, because the economic culture still demands a 40 hour occupation, but we have not seen wages in service industries match what wages were in manufacturing and small-scale commercial farming during those years some claim America was "great". Our economy is shifting to accommodate that, but it's a slow shift. I believe that even as it does change, rural communities won't ever fully rebound. An isolated small city simply doesn't have the demand or economic capital for some of the service-related tasks that a large metro area does. It's not wrong, in fact if I could I'd prefer to live in a beautiful place like Tawas over a Detroit suburb, but the economy demands otherwise. People don't move to West Branch or Alma because to open an ethnic restaurant/pub, launch a tech startup, or perform research. They move to Detroit, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Lansing, etc.
It's an interesting demographic shift and I believe it'll work out in the end as those micro economies will continue to adjust to their new ways, but it will continue to involve larger urban concentrations and more rural flight.
Flint is an interesting situation. With good leadership and planning I could see the town really rallying around its educational capital and cultural attractions, but if it tries to stick to manufacturing, as it has for years, it'll continue to decline. It needs to remake itself as Kalamazoo has.
Median household income is not necessarily a good metric either....due to the nature of the variation of the components of a households makeup. In other words, more adults living at home can inflate median household incomes...... That having been said, Median household incomes, today, are less than they were in 2000.
The best metric is per capita median income. Households are made up of individuals and hence variations in the size of households can skew stats. The individual is the root component. Thus, what does the data show for individual incomes (Median).
It shows that median income is down significantly from the past.
All that being said......when you increase the supply of money......through low interest rates and lending......DEBT.....that monies gets spent and becomes revenue and income for others. In other words, when you increase debt into the economy.....it increases employment, income, etc. Without the increase in debt.....there would be no increase in median incomes over the last few years. All that is the result of economic stimulus (the Million dollar credit card that I mentioned).
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 12-29-2016 at 10:15 AM..
Median household income is not necessarily a good metric either....due to the nature of the variation of the components of a households makeup. In other words, more adults living at home can inflate median household incomes...... That having been said, Median household incomes, today, are less than they were in 2000.
The best metric is per capita median income. Households are made up of individuals and hence variations in the size of households can skew stats. The individual is the root component. Thus, what does the data show for individual incomes (Median).
It shows that median income is down significantly from the past.
All that being said......when you increase the supply of money......through low interest rates and lending......DEBT.....that monies gets spent and becomes revenue and income for others. In other words, when you increase debt into the economy.....it increases employment, income, etc. Without the increase in debt.....there would be no increase in median incomes over the last few years. All that is the result of economic stimulus (the Million dollar credit card that I mentioned).
Your own link/chart shows that inflation adjusted median household income is only about $1200 off its peak in 2000, and trending upward. What happened to "people making $50K are now making $40K'?
Debt is not a bad word, unless you're that loon Dave Ramsey.
I also have to disagree with your assessment that the very high wages of the top 1% of earners has that much pull on the average wage.
All this talk of robotics and AI taking all of the jobs has been going on since I used to watch sci-fi movies as a kid in the 80's. It never happened. I'm still waiting for my flying car they promised by the year 2000.
Your own link/chart shows that inflation adjusted median household income is only about $1200 off its peak in 2000, and trending upward. What happened to "people making $50K are now making $40K'?
Debt is not a bad word, unless you're that loon Dave Ramsey.
I also have to disagree with your assessment that the very high wages of the top 1% of earners has that much pull on the average wage.
All this talk of robotics and AI taking all of the jobs has been going on since I used to watch sci-fi movies as a kid in the 80's. It never happened. I'm still waiting for my flying car they promised by the year 2000.
I think you are conscientiously missing the point. Here is my point. Debt masks real decline. We have had economic stimulus since 2008....via monetary and fiscal policy (Low interest rates and government borrowing/debt). That is artificial stimulus. Stimulus is like steroids to an athlete. Hence, metaphorically I am arguing that the athlete is in decline and you keep saying "hogwash" by pointing out the athletes stats while ignoring the steroids. Yes, since the athlete started taking steroids, his performance has gone up....but still not to the level he once manifested from NATURAL ABILITY. The thing is that the long term use of steroids has consequences. You get the benefit before you have to pay the cost, however.
For every action there is a reaction. However, the reaction or cost does not always happen immediately. If the cost was fully manifested with the benefit.....we would realize that many choices are actually BAD CHOICES because of the benefit cost ratio. However, when you push the cost to some unseen future....it makes bad choices seem like good choices and makes things seem like they are going great.
I cannot argue with the fact that metrics are improving. I mean....with nearly 10 years on stimulus.....if the economy did not show improvement.....it would mean that it is dead. I am not arguing from the position of the left or right as I am neither and support neither side. I am just following economics and physics. The new normal is steroids. If we go off the steroids....performance will tank. If we stay on the steroids too long we may have an economic crash and or war.
Ask yourself this question. What do we do if in 2017 we go into a recession? Stimulus never really ended from the last recession. Thus, what stimulus do we have to stave off the next recession? It will be harder and harder to end future recession with monetary and fiscal policy....because we are using them up. We are already hooked on them and they will not get us high like they used to....as we need more and more to get high....and you know what that eventually leads to.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 12-29-2016 at 11:37 AM..
So we lost 16% of manufacturing jobs from 2001 to 2014, while good output has increased by about 10%.
But we made new jobs. Educational, healthcare/social services, and leisure industries have risen by about 2% a piece since 2004. This is great, but it will likely not drive rural population growth and our overall economy must adjust to this or we run into the apocalyptic scenario Indentured Servant is talking about. Personally I believe his(her?) analogy is more hyperbole than reality, but it is at least anchored somewhere in reality.
So we lost 16% of manufacturing jobs from 2001 to 2014, while good output has increased by about 10%.
But we made new jobs. Educational, healthcare/social services, and leisure industries have risen by about 2% a piece since 2004. This is great, but it will likely not drive rural population growth and our overall economy must adjust to this or we run into the apocalyptic scenario Indentured Servant is talking about. Personally I believe his(her?) analogy is more hyperbole than reality, but it is at least anchored somewhere in reality.
I do not think I am being hyperbolic at all. The natural progression of science and the impact has to be addressed because there is going to be some radical obsolescence of workers. I do not think government debt of 20 trillion is by any means hyperbole or interest rates being kept at record lows for years. That is economic steroids.
Here the thing. We are not really increasing our standard of living, as a nation, while importing more than we export in dollar value. When you import more than you export.....you are exporting income and wealth (which reduces national standards of living). China is growing its standard of living because it exports more than it imports. This is not rocket science. We consume waaayyyyy more than we produce as a nation.....and borrow the difference.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 12-29-2016 at 12:32 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
