The "American dream" isn't coming back (unemployment, statistics, Obama)
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.
No. It's politicians meddling in the economy that slows growth...then they blame capitalism for it. It's never their fault, it's that they didn't have enough of our money and resources to carry out their plan correctly.
The government will never blame themselves for anything.
"Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett made a forceful argument that Americans should look to the future with optimism, despite the dour messages broadcast from the presidential campaign trail.
“For 240 years it’s been a terrible mistake to bet against America, and now is no time to start,” he said in the letter. “America’s golden goose of commerce and innovation will continue to lay more and larger eggs.”
“Even members of the ‘losing’ sides will almost certainly enjoy – as they should – far more goods and services in the future than they have in the past,” he said.
The market excels at producing things people don’t know they want, he said. For example, Buffett noted that he never thought as a child that he would someday need a personal computer.
“I now spend ten hours a week playing bridge online,” he said. “And, as I write this letter, ‘search’ is invaluable to me. (I’m not ready for Tinder, however.)”
It’s an election year, and candidates can’t stop speaking about our country’s problems (which, of course, only they can solve). As a result of this negative drumbeat, many Americans now believe that their children will not live as well as they themselves do.
That view is dead wrong: The babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history."
Buffett noted that American economic output, per person, has grown tremendously over his lifetime.
“American GDP per capita is now about $56,000,” he said. “As I mentioned last year that – in real terms – is a staggering six times the amount in 1930, the year I was born, a leap far beyond the wildest dreams of my parents or their contemporaries.”
If that were true than how would he explain this?
Goodbye Middle Class: 51 Percent Of All American Workers Make Less Than 30,000 Dollars A Year
Prison Planet.com » Goodbye Middle Class: 51 Percent Of All American Workers Make Less Than 30,000 Dollars A Year
"You can find the report that the Social Security Administration just released right here. The following are some of the numbers that really stood out for me…
-38 percent of all American workers made less than $20,000 last year. -51 percent of all American workers made less than $30,000 last year.
-62 percent of all American workers made less than $40,000 last year.
-71 percent of all American workers made less than $50,000 last year.
That first number is truly staggering. The federal poverty level for a family of five is $28,410, and yet almost 40 percent of all American workers do not even bring in $20,000 a year.
If you worked a full-time job at $10 an hour all year long with two weeks off, you would make approximately $20,000. This should tell you something about the quality of the jobs that our economy is producing at this point."
They Own It ALL(Including YOU!)By Means of Toxic Currency
by Ronald MacDonald, Robert Rowen
"I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire,... The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply"
Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild, of the Rothschild international banking cartel
"From reading the posts, perhaps, the first thing to do, in order to come up with a solution, is identify exactly what "income inequity" is.
In 1960, the average income for semi-professional and non-professional jobs was $7060 a year. In 2010, the average income for those same jobs was $45,406. (source of information is athttp://msn.careerbuilder.com/Article...=JS_2146_home1) And, from another source,. the 2010 figure is about 25% too high. Unfortunately, I do not have the link to the other source.
According to another source, http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Article...=JS_2146_home1 executive income has gone up six times in just the last twenty years. Another words, an exec that is making $360,000 today, was only making $60,000 twenty years ago.
It says that executive pay went up an average of 30% each year for the last twenty years while middle-class America has only gotten an average of 12% each year for the last fifty years. And, we're not including bonuses or "Golden Parachutes".
One more area to look at, and this is from my own experience. In 1965 and 1966, I was making $8,000 a year. I was also paying 17 cents a gallon for gasoline. Just today, the current price of gasoline at the corner gas station at the corner is $3.599. To maintain the ratio between income and the cost of gasoline, today's average income should be about $170,000 a year.
In 1973, I was making $14,000 a year, and paying $51 every six months for car insurance. (And, supporting a wife and two kids, while buying a house for $10,000) The last premium I paid on car insurance came out to $147 a month. Back in 1973, the monthly cost was just $8.50. To maintain the ratio of income to car insurance premiums, today's average income should be about $240,000 a year. Want to check with IRS and see just how many "Average Americans" are actually making that much? And, the story is the same no matter what area of expense you look at, groceries, utilities, housing, etc.
That is what is "INCOME INEQUITY". What to do about it is the "$64,000 question". Solutions are sure to be as varied as the people that offer them, but now, you should be able to come up with a better informed opinion.
Now, with regard to the quote, by all means, give your kids every advantage you can. Stress education. Any kind of court record will hurt their chances for a successful career. But, keep in mind...
Let's say that 99% of the next generation gets a master's degree. (No, I don't think that's realistic) It's also not realistic to think that every one of them will get jobs where they will use that degree. There will be a number of them serving at Pizza Hut. A good education and a clean record does not give them a guarantee, but it does improve their chances at a comfortable life." (end quote)
Congratulations the_windwalker, you've earned a spot on my anecdotes collection that's meant to show in a very concrete way the wage stagflation or really deflation experienced for the bottom 80-90 percent of workers the last 30-40 years. I submit only the top 1- 20% percent of wage earners has kept up with cost inflation. That's 2 in 10 workers, certainly NOT middle class, and I think 20% is pushing it. More like the top 10%.
Keep in mind when you read these anecdotes and watch Dr. Warren's lecture think RATIOS. That's exactly my point. For example: "In 1973, I was making $14,000 a year, and paying $51 every six months for car insurance. (And, supporting a wife and two kids, while buying a house for $10,000). How many people now make 40% more IN ONE YEAR than the value of their HOME!!!!: cool: :thi nk: GuyNTexas' anecdote illustrates this point very well also.
Read more: Income Inequality: What To Do About It?
just because SALARIES haven't kept up with INFLATION doesn't mean we should still CLASSIFY based on 1955/1965 numbers.......average salary in 1966..6900...median house price 14k....about 50% right...use those numbers compared to the median house....the median salary SHOULD be 130k...not 50k
sorry but this is not 1955 , when 250k was rich...please get with the times...its 2010"(end quote)
"The "inequity" comes in where the expenses have out-paced the income for the average American. While EVERYTHING ELSE has gone up, income for the "middle-class" has stagnated over the last fifty years. That is the problem with the economy today. The "middle-class", the MAJORITY of Americans do not have enough money to keep the economy flowing. Inequity = DIS-PROPORTIONATE".
Show me just one exec whose decisions are actually worth a million dollars a day. Even just a thousand dollars a day. Think about it. As great as he was, even Steve Jobs is now replaced. And, as great as he was for the company, he was not that great for America. Look where your Apple product is made. American jobs?
Ever hear of "The Law of Diminishing Returns"? Keep raising your prices, and eventually, you'll price yourself out of business. That is what Corporate America has done. They have priced the economy out of business.
Take a look at the cost of a kit to put a motor on a bicycle. A 50 CC kit has gone up nearly $100 because of the demand. They're replacing cars with motorized bicycles and scooters. And, the auto industry isn't doing as well as they were ten years ago.
If a cashier is being paid exactly what they are worth, then we're paying far more for everything than it's worth. Gasoline isn't worth $3.599 a gallon. Why are we paying that much? Car insurance is not worth what we're paying. Why are we paying it?"(end quote)
Without further ado here's the rest of the collection. In my opinion no one who is honest, can think critically and do math can deny what's contained herein:
Pay close attention to the years in the following posts of people who lived in the mid 70's-early 80's:
"Sad. I made $9 an hour during the Summer break in the mid 1980s running telephone lines in office buildings. It was a horrible low paying job then. You know what $9 is worth today adjusted for inflation since 1985. $4.42 cents. That same job today would be need to pay $18.50 per hour. If you have no perspective on how things suck..you'll settle for anything. The USA will look like these ghettos in Brazil before people wake up to this right wing propaganda they've been spoon fed for 30 years."(end quote)
"You know what $9 is worth today adjusted for inflation since 1985. $4.42 cents."
"Just because things were better, doesn't mean they were great. I don't deny that there were folks like yourself. Nevertheless, more opportunity (on average) did exist back then.
During college I worked part time at a warehouse. One of my co workers was a Guyanese who came into the US illegally in '77 or '78 (he later received amnesty under Reagan). He used to tell me how his first job, as an illegal, paid $10.50/hour. In 2006, after he was laid off from a warehouse making 33/hour, we were working for $12/hr. $10.50 in '78 or 12 in 2006. Inflation much?"(end quote)
"Also the wages aren't there and if you compare that with inflation it just doesn't work.
In 1980, I had an entry level job as a sound engineer with a local independent TV station earning $5.00 per hour. One paycheck paid my rent and utilities and auto insurance and the other 3 paychecks each month were disposable income. An entry level job today pays $8.50 to $10 per hour and even at $10 per hour it takes 2 paychecks to cover the cost of rent, utilities and auto insurance (and don't forget in 1980 $10 -- or two hours of work -- paid for 2 tickets to the cinema show, a tank full of gasoline and something to eat after the movie -- the cost of two movie tickets now is over $20)."
(end quote)
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger:
Original Post: I have jobs but no one wants them
"The guy is a typical, narrow minded moron who probably has a picture of Reagan on his wall and NOBAMA stickers on his car. He really thinks in this world, with gas being $3.50 per gallon and food twice what it was 5 years ago that $8.50 per hour is "competitive" How friggin stupid can anyone be? I was making more than that in 1981 in a part time job. I started out at $14.00 per hour in 1984 when I bought my first house for $42,000!
He has NO RESPECT for his employees. None.(end quote)
"No. I'm really disagreeing with .. not missing your point. And those numbers don't tell a very accurate story, and the proof is demonstrated by the drop in net worth of middle income earners as their debt has increased significantly, while earnings have declined relative to inflation.
By most measurable data points, the middle income class has been dying a very slow, incremental death for 4 decades because the costs on high ticket items have increased more rapidly than the either the inflation rate or rates of increases in income. To further compound the problem, average income levels have failed to keep pace with the inflation rate itself. Much of this goes unnoticed because of it's slow incremental nature (like growing old). But if you are old enough, and still maintain your mental faculties, you can't be bull $hted into believing what you are trying to say here.
As just one example, in 1977, I bought a brand new Pontiac Trans Am for $5200. And since it was my first car purchase, I suspect I was clubbed like a baby seal (paid full MSRP), as I simply asked how much, and said OK (later I learned the error of this way to purchase automobiles )
Now today, that car is no longer available, but a comparable car "Chevy Camero SS" is. And a similarly configured model is around $35,000 MSRP. Which is almost double the adjusted for inflation number of $18,700 that Camero should cost relative to the $5200 Trans Am of 1977.
My income back then was 14,000 or just shy of 3 times what the car cost ... if you apply that same formula to the $35,000 Camero today, I'd have to earn roughly $100,000 per year to maintain the same standard (drive the same car) as my $14,000 income provided then.I was not wealthy then .. I was a 20 year old working in a warehouse driving a forklift. And I don't think there are many 6 figure forklift drivers around today ... I would say, the 40-50K range would be the upper limit ... or roughly the same as my $14,000 would be, adjusted for inflation.
This is one example, and almost any big item ... car, house, etc. works out to be the same. Some other items like Healthcare have dramatically exceeded those rates exponentially compared to 1977 where mine was absolutely free and first rate, including dental.
Now, add to this the higher taxes, social security withholding, and medicare ... all of which have exceeded the inflation rate (and don't let anyone BS you into believing it hasn't), means that the net spending power of your income has declined dramatically over the past 30+ years. (See video below she documents ALL this IN DETAIL)
Now around about that same time frame, my step father worked for one of the US Government agencies earning roughly in the 50-60K range, and at the time, that was very good money, but not even close to RICH & Wealthy .... but adjusted for inflation, that comes out to around $200+K now. The house he purchased then at $50,000 appraised for $480,000 in 2004-5 even though the adjusted for inflation value would have only dictated a $155,000 figure ... 3 times the inflation rate!! By the time he retired in the late 90's, his income may have doubled, yet his house increased by 6-8 fold. What does that tell you?
Now if you are following me here ... this is where it gets real hairy ... if you take a Quarter ... 25 cents ... from say 1964 (the last 90% silver Quarter) that 25 cents equates to $1.76 in 2010 value. But guess what? Today's melt value of that sliver quarter is about $3.70 which is again more than double the published inflation rate ....
So what does that all mean? It means very simply, that the value of your money is worth about half of what it's claimed to be worth, even after being adjusted for inflation .... and all it takes is to actually look at the historical costs of items like cars, and houses and health care costs from the late 60's to today, and also the median incomes. You see that the purchasing power has indeed declined. And this is a result of the devaluation of the currency(a hidden tax).
So when it comes to buying power, there has been a continuous decline that doubles the the inflation rates admitted .. which is why the middle class really doesn't exist for all practical purposes today.
There are the ultra wealthy, and the rest. The $250kers are just at the higher end of that rest of us, and they are the last of the upper middle class, and the next in line to fall ... apparently, much to delight of many who think that they are members of the Wealthy Club, and must fall for the sake of everyone.
I suppose this proves that indeed, misery loves company."(end quote)
"Which is ... I might add .... $17/hr is roughly $6 per hour in 1980 dollars adjusted for inflation, or $12,000 per year. Though that doesn't quite tell the whole story, since there are many costs that have increased way more than 3 fold, which makes me question the inflation calculations today.
For example, a brand new 1980 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 cost about $6,500 in 1980, while a 2013 Camaro SS Coupe runs close to $40,000 ... which is double the calculated inflation rate .... so a person buying a new camaro back then who was making $10/hr in 1980, would have to make $60/hr today, to be in the same financial situation.
That's just one example of many .... my regular bills back then were ... $12 phone, $25 electricity, no cable, no internet, no cell phone .... and rent was $250. My total living expenses (living alone) was less than $300 .. and food costs were about $20 per week, give or take. Gas was about .65 - .75 cents per gal as were cigarettes about .75 .... and you could get a beer in a bar for .50
I never had to juggle bills .... I lived quite well, drove a brand new car, went out on weekends regularly, never had to deny myself anything, and still managed to stash a couple hundred bucks away in a savings account every month ... on $10/hr
Don't try to live that way today ..... people who have no direct experience of what things were like back then, really have no idea how badly they are "taking it" today. No idea!"
When Bill Clinton was in office the "American Dream" was alive and well for most Americans. But then GW Bush did $3+ trillion dollars in supply side tax cuts (tax cuts for the richest 1%.) These tax cuts caused deficits and debt growth that cut federal funding to states and devalued the US dollar. Then GW Bush started the very expensive unneeded Iraq war that further economically crippled America. Bush Tax Cuts After 2002: June 2002 CTJ Analysis
Now Donald Trump has plans to do $6 trillion dollars in tax cuts for the richest 1% and further increase America's military spending. Forbes Welcome
And in regards to oil democrats want to shift to solar/wind power, increase fuel efficiency in cars so we use less oil, and eliminate polluting practices like fracking and oil pipelines. But the republicans oppose alternative energy sources, oppose raising fuel efficiency for cars, and support polluting practices like fracking and pipelines.
But still the general problems you speak of are effecting just about every country on the planet, and perhaps this is a natural result of capitalism, 3rd world countries taking jobs from industrialized countries, robots taking peoples jobs, ex.ex. But when you speak of the "American Dream" being destroyed one should mention republicans (because republican policies are destroying the American dream at a 50x faster rate than democrats.)
I see facts are NOT your strong suit.
"Publication: Business Wire
Date: Friday, January 4 2008
More Than 8.3 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003 In Longest Continuous Run Of Job Growth On Record
WASHINGTON -- Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures - 18,000 jobs created in December. Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.3 million jobs created throughout 2007. Our economy has now added jobs for 52 straight months - the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 5 percent. The U.S. economy benefits from a solid foundation, but we cannot take economic growth for granted and economic indicators have become increasingly mixed. President Bush will continue working with Congress to address the challenges our economy faces and help facilitate long-term economic growth, job growth, and better standards of living for all Americans.
* Real GDP grew at a strong 4.9 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 2007. The economy has now experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year since 2001.
* Real after-tax per capita personal income has risen by 11.7 percent - an average of more than $3,550 per person - since President Bush took office.
* Over the course of this Administration, productivity growth has averaged 2.6 percent per year. This growth is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.
By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”
Poor Americans, and particularly members of the Rent Serf Class, will freeze and starve, because the Rent Serf Class lives in energy-inefficient homes and thus are unable to moderate their consumption of energy to the extent that members of the Property Class can.
So, we should feel sorry with people with a college degree who took a major in a useless curriculum and now can't find a job better then flipping burgers.
Sorry, YOU made a choice and now it is up to YOU to live with the consequences.
And this is the elephant in the room that a lot of people are either too ignorant or too afraid to acknowledge.
Everyone's standard of living will decline if we keep reproducing like rabbits.
Overpopulation problem? We are about AT the MINIMUM required to sustain the country. We are NOT overpopulated. We are actually closer to being UNDER-populated.
You want us to end up like Europe which well below its sustainable population rate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
We did not elect a psychopath. We elected a sociopath, there are very significant differences. If we elected a psychopath I would be straight up terrified. Sociopaths are very common in both business and politics.
Actually, Trump more meets the traits of psychopath than sociopath. And, actually from what I've read, sociopath is more dangerous.
No. It's politicians meddling in the economy that slows growth...then they blame capitalism for it. It's never their fault, it's that they didn't have enough of our money and resources to carry out their plan correctly.
The government will never blame themselves for anything.
The various "panics" of the 19th century, some of which rivalled the great depression in scale, happened in an economy entirely unregulated by the government.
The only reason "household income is up under Obama" is because after non-stop economic misery and constant layoffs/firings suddenly family members are MOVING BACK IN with the parents just to survive/stay afloat
While it may be technically true that "household income is slightly up", the touted reason of "the economy is thriving!" is false. If there was previously just the 2 parents living in the house/"roost", but suddenly 3-4 kids are forced to move back in due to the Obama economy/student loans then that is NOT "thriving" or "prosperity"
The only reason "household income is up under Obama" is because after non-stop economic misery and constant layoffs/firings suddenly family members are MOVING BACK IN with the parents just to survive/stay afloat
While it may be technically true that "household income is slightly up", the touted reason of "the economy is thriving!" is false. If there was previously just the 2 parents living in the house/"roost", but suddenly 3-4 kids are forced to move back in due to the Obama economy then that is NOT "thriving" or "prosperity"
You need to research this a bit more. Lot of factors, including people getting married later, trying to pay off college loans, rents sky high in places...
The various "panics" of the 19th century, some of which rivalled the great depression in scale, happened in an economy entirely unregulated by the government.
The Savings and Loan debacle where they kept passing around property at ever higher prices until they all defaulted on the mortgages -- regulations were put in place to prevent that from happening again.
The economic collapse due to bundling shaky mortgages and passing them around like A+++ bonds -- due to lack of regulations of this type of nonsense.
And no, it wasn't due to Clinton telling banks to make bad mortgages to poor people. They did that all on their own. The legislation that comes up all the time was about outlawing redlining where banks would red line neighborhoods and not fund mortgages or home improvement loans. Home values would, of course, decline and investors would swoop in, tear everything down, and build.
And no, it wasn't due to Clinton telling banks to make bad mortgages to poor people. They did that all on their own.
Blatantly false. Here's Cuomo's public announcement from 1999:
Quote:
"Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo today announced a policy to require the nation's two largest housing finance companies to buy $2.4 trillion in mortgages over the next 10 years to provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low- and moderate-income families...
"This action will transform the lives of millions of families across our country by giving them new opportunities to buy homes or move into apartments with rents they can afford," Cuomo said. "It will strengthen our economy and create jobs by stimulating more home construction, it will help ease the terrible shortage of affordable housing plaguing far too many communities, and it will help reduce the huge homeownership gap dividing whites from minorities and suburbs from cities."
The mortgage purchase requirement for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - known as the Affordable Housing Goals - was last set by HUD in 1995, under a requirement mandated by Congress. The goals came up for renewal this year, and HUD had the choice of leaving them unchanged, lowering them, or raising them. In addition to helping low- and moderate-income families, the new initiative will also increase the affordable housing goals for loans made to underserved areas and will raise the goal for mortgages to benefit families with very low incomes"
And we know the rest of the story... Fannie and Freddie got stuck owning, bundling, and selling (as MBS) too many of those defaulting higher-risk loans so the Federal Reserve had to create $2 trillion in additional national debt to buy $2 trillion worth of GSE MBS to bail them out. There's still $1.75 trillion worth of those MBS on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. They'll roll off as they mature, paid or not, and US taxpayers are on the hook for that $2 trillion plus interest.
I have not seen one single plan that stipulates how the Federal Reserve is going to pay off any of that $2 trillion in public debt with whatever little proceeds they'll get from holding those MBS.
Why are you so eager to blame the banks and Wall Street when the federal government (specifically Clinton, Cisneros, and Cuomo who created and modified the GSEs' $2.4 trillion high risk mortgage purchase program in 1995-1999) was at fault? The banks gave the federal government exactly what they regulated.
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.
I would say, the 40-50K range would be the upper limit ... or roughly the same as my $14,000 would be, adjusted for inflation.
