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.
The numbers helped drive an overall decline in income for the typical American family. Median household income after inflation fell to $50,054, a level that was 8 percent lower than in 2007, the year before the recession took hold.
That drop poses a political challenge for President Obama as he presents himself as a champion of the middle class and defends his economic stewardship in a tightly fought presidential race.
First of all, you DO KNOW don't you that the article you linked to was published Sept 12, 2012 - and was referring to 2011 (nearly 3 years ago no) right?
Secondly median family income and net worth are 2 completely different things. It's not usual for one to go down while the other goes up. Income can easily drop while the VALUE of one's holdings (either stocks/bonds and/or their real estate) can rise. Median family income has continued to be under pressure the the simple reason that - while the UE has fallen, it continues to remain "elevated" above what is needed in order for wages to rise at a significant rate. THAT is likely to change in the next year as the UE rate gets below 6.5% or so. As the labor market begins to tighten, wages will begin to rise at faster pace (which will have both good and bad sides).
As it is, while median family income is still below pre-recession levels, it's gained since your article. It's still 6% below the pre-recession peak, but it's made up 25% of the loss it was showing in 2011 - which is definitely a step in the right direction - and (as I said) as the labor market tightens that gap should begin to shrink faster.
"Median household income has begun to recover over the last two years, but households still have not come close to regaining the purchasing power they had before the financial crisis began, a new study says.
The study, issued on Wednesday by two former Census Bureau officials, suggests why many people remain glum even though the economy is growing and unemployment has declined... "
US government spending is what, $3.5 trillion a year or so? More than the entire combined net worth of every single person in the country...spent every year. Does anyone think this just might be a problem?
US government spending is what, $3.5 trillion a year or so? More than the entire combined net worth of every single person in the country...spent every year. Does anyone think this just might be a problem?
Your reading comprehension has failed. operative word is quarter
The numbers helped drive an overall decline in income for the typical American family. Median household income after inflation fell to $50,054, a level that was 8 percent lower than in 2007, the year before the recession took hold.
That drop poses a political challenge for President Obama as he presents himself as a champion of the middle class and defends his economic stewardship in a tightly fought presidential race.
Flies in the face? More like a 16 ton weight falling and crushing people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
If you want the in the actual answer to "why non-profits are grouped with household data", you would read my post 26 above?
And you would see the reason has NOTHING to do with what you posted!
Like I said, it skews the data, and the whole thing is meaningless anyway.
Quote:
Households and nonprofit organizations sector (tables F.100 and L.100)
Estimates for this sector are largely residuals and are derived from data for other sectors. Availability of data depends on schedules for other sectors. Data for consumer credit, which are estimated directly, are available through 2013.
Estimates are residuals derived from other data for which the availability depends on still yet more data from elsewhere?
Please, you sound like the Enron CFO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
You are deflecting. Do you understand that?
I understand you cannot differentiate between theoretical value and real value.
The theoretical value of stocks and houses is worthless, since it isn't real.
It would appear you also don't understand that this is not cash, rather it's the theoretical value of equity in stocks and housing as estimated from residuals derived from data from other sectors, dependent on the availability of other data.
In order convert it to cash to be used, the stocks or houses have to be sold, or the owners have to borrow against the equity.
So it's meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
rising home values make homes less affordable for renters.
True, but not every renter wants to own a home. There are Millions of households who rent, because they cannot physically maintain a home for any number of reasons, or because they cannot afford a home.
I guess this is supposed to distract people from the dismal employment report tomorrow.
How does wealth grow if incomes go down and welfare goes up?
Very easily, and welfare has nothing to do with it.
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.
