114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2007 10:33 pm
Thomas wrote:
okie wrote:
Honestly, I don't know how the Census Bureau gets its information, especially in off years between major census taking. If anyone has more info, I am interested.

The Census Bureau maintains a list of the sources for its Statistical Abstract here. With a bit of work, you can research your question by Googling the sources, reading them, and finding out how they acquired their data.

I've done a little of that, Thomas, and that is how I came up with what I posted above, which was this link:

http://www.census.gov/cps/

In that link, it says:
"The CPS is the primary source of information on the labor force characteristics of the U.S. population."

The CPS stands for "Current Population Survey." As imposter has pointed out, the Census does actual counts every 10 years, but fills in between with estimates, probably from surveys like the above.

As often happens when I begin to investigate the details of statistics, and how they are derived, I end up with more additional questions than answers. In the above survey, 50,000 is a pretty good sized sample, so if the respondents tell the truth, it probably does not have a large margin of error, however, I still think if the incomes are not corrected for after tax, instead of before tax, it is rendered meaningless. I will be on the lookout for a firm answer on that question.

In the first place, judging poverty is not easily derived, and what an adequate income is to avoid poverty would obviously vary by location. Also, how people manage their incomes obviously makes a huge difference in how well they live. There are so many factors that cloud the issue. A poverty line, or level of income, can be derived, but while the statistics may portray the picture of that percentage of people suffering terribly, in my opinion those people still live better than the vast majority of people in some other countries.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2007 02:02 am
okie wrote:
so if the respondents tell the truth, it probably does

Do you know any reason why they wouldn't tell the truth? It's not as if they had anything to gain from lying.

okie wrote:
In the first place, judging poverty is not easily derived, and what an adequate income is to avoid poverty would obviously vary by location. Also, how people manage their incomes obviously makes a huge difference in how well they live. There are so many factors that cloud the issue.

I agree it's a problem. But uncertainty cuts both ways. The way the Census Bureau meausres poverty, its statistics could over- or underestimate how much of a problem poverty is in reality.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2007 07:10 am
okie wrote:
I still think if the incomes are not corrected for after tax, instead of before tax, it is rendered meaningless.
Why do you think it is meaningless? I think it doesn't matter which the census bureau uses since the IRS cites numbers every year of before and after tax figures.

But you obviously are bitching without delving into the poverty numbers. They include all incomes including government aid.

Effect of governmant taxes and transfers on Poverty

No matter how well they manage their income, someone isn't going to be able to afford health coverage, food and a place to live with an income at the poverty level.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2007 08:12 am
http://jcnot4me.com/images/Stooges-%20Eye%20Poke.jpg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2007 10:13 am
The one point okie made, I agree with. Establishing a fixed income level as a basis to identify poverty is not accurate, simply because the cost of living is not the same from region to region and state to state. One number doesn't fit all, since the cost of living are different. However, that's also true of people making more than the poverty level income; many do not know how to manage their own finances even at higher income levels, and they are one paycheck away from losing their home because they have no savings.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2007 09:59 pm
Cicerone, that reminds me of what I heard that the guy making 200 or 300K might be just barely making it, just like the guy making 20K, because by the time he takes his wife on a cruise 3 or 4 times a year, pays the gardener, nanny, and cleaning people, sends his kids to private school, keeps up with payments for his boat, BMWs, half a million dollar house, and goes out to eat several times a week to dine on steak and lobster, the guy is probably in alot worse debt than the 20K guy. Maybe its a blessing to be poverty stricken?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 May, 2007 02:39 am
okie wrote:
Cicerone, that reminds me of what I heard that the guy making 200 or 300K might be just barely making it, just like the guy making 20K, because by the time he takes his wife on a cruise 3 or 4 times a year, pays the gardener, nanny, and cleaning people, sends his kids to private school, keeps up with payments for his boat, BMWs, half a million dollar house, and goes out to eat several times a week to dine on steak and lobster, the guy is probably in alot worse debt than the 20K guy. Maybe its a blessing to be poverty stricken?

Could be. Why don't you donate all your income but 20K to charity for a year and see how it feels like to live on those 20K?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 May, 2007 10:52 pm
No thanks, Thomas. In the first place, I make closer to the 20K than the 200K already, and through the beloved IRS, I already give a healthy chunk of change to charities, better known as the United States Treasury.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 May, 2007 11:02 pm
okie calls the US treasury a "charity." ha ha ha ha .... Exactly how much do you give to this "charity?" BTW, what kind of "benefit" do you recieve from this "charity?"
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 06:50 am
okie wrote:
No thanks, Thomas. In the first place, I make closer to the 20K than the 200K already, and through the beloved IRS, I already give a healthy chunk of change to charities, better known as the United States Treasury.


Now I see what it means to "support the troops." Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 09:22 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
okie calls the US treasury a "charity." ha ha ha ha .... Exactly how much do you give to this "charity?" BTW, what kind of "benefit" do you recieve from this "charity?"


Well, who is in the worst debt that anyone here knows of? And where does any poor sucker go that needs a charitable hand? Uncle Sam of course.

Up to now, I am probably suffering a net loss in this arrangement, but I plan on living long enough to collect all the social security and medicare possible, imposter, but only the Lord willing.

Thanks for the laugh anyway. I liked your ha has.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 09:27 am
Parados made the better point.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/21/news/economy/record_gas_monday/index.htm?cnn=yes

Quote:
Gas prices: Worse than '81 oil shock
Gas now at highest level, even adjusted for inflation; AAA's reading of nearly $3.20 a gallon marks ninth straight record high in current dollars.

May 21 2007: 8:31 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Gasoline prices soared to levels never seen before as even the inflation-adjusted price for a gallon of unleaded topped the 1981 record spike in price that had stood for 26 years.

And higher prices could be on the way as Americans get ready to hit the road for the Memorial Day holiday and the start of the summer driving season.

The Lundberg Survey, a bi-weekly gas price tracking service, put the price of a gallon of unleaded at $3.18 in its latest reading released late Sunday, up more than 11 cents from its reading of two weeks ago.

While gasoline had already been in record territory in current dollars, Trilby Lundberg, publisher of the survey, said this is the first time that her survey topped her 1981 record high when adjusted for inflation. The price of $1.35 in 1981 works out to $3.15 in current dollars, she said. The Iran-Iraq war, which started the year before, choked off oil supplies to the global market, causing that spike in prices.

The motorist group AAA does a daily survey of up to 85,000 gas stations, but that reading does not go back to the 1981 spike. It's survey has been showing a series of record high prices in current dollars since May 13, and Monday the average price for a gallon of self-serve unleaded hit $3.196, the ninth straight record high and up from Sunday's record of $3.178.

The AAA survey now shows prices up 4 percent over the course of the last week, along with an increase of 11.8 percent over the last month.

AAA warned in congressional testimony last week it believes that more record prices could be on the way. It is forecasting prices will approach $3.25 a gallon over the next 60 days.

Still AAA is predicting a record number of Americans will be hitting the road holiday weekend, with 38.3 million expected to be traveling 100 miles or more over the Memorial Day holiday, up 1.7 percent from a year ago. And most of those - 32.1 million - will be driving on their trip, according to the motorist group.

Topping post-Katrina records

Before this recent run of record-high gas prices, the highest price ever recorded in current dollars was $3.057 in the AAA survey, which was set Sept. 4 and Sept. 5, 2005, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. That storm disrupted refinery operations and pipelines and caused a temporary spike, sending prices above the $3 mark for eight days.

The only other time that the AAA national average has topped the $3 mark was in August 2006, after Israel invaded Lebanon and oil futures shot higher. Gas prices then reached as high as $3.036 during that 19-day spike.

The current price increases are due to problems in gasoline supplies and refinery output. The average gas price went above $3 a gallon on May 4, and has been climbing since. Unless prices fall suddenly, Wednesday will mark the longest stretch of $3 gas on the AAA survey's history.

Few states have an average gas price below $3. California had the highest average price, with a gallon of self-serve unleaded costing $3.457, up slightly from the $3.453 reading Sunday after several days of prices slipping slightly there.

New Jersey retained the lead in the race to have the cheapest average gas price, but it is quickly approaching the $3 a gallon threshold itself. The average price there came in at $2.938 a gallon in the Monday reading, up from $2.93 Sunday.

New Jersey is one of only three states with an average price below the $3 mark. The other two - South Carolina and New Hampshire - are both within a penny or less of that mark, after both rose in the latest reading.

Four more states - Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Virginia - became the latest states to cross that $3 a gallon benchmark in the Sunday survey.

While crude oil prices have fallen over the last few weeks and oil supplies are high in the United States, problems at several refineries have crimped gasoline output ahead of the summer driving season.

The refinery problems include fires, power outages, and longer-than-usual maintenance periods.

The run-up in prices is a big concern for store chains, according to the retailers' trade group. Its survey released early Friday found the average consumer believes that the price of gas will reach $3.32 per gallon by Father's Day.

As a result, 40.2 percent of consumers are taking fewer shopping trips, while 37.9 percent told the survey they plan to shop closer to home. In addition, 30.7 percent said they are shopping for sales more often and 23.5 percent are using more coupons.

Perhaps of greatest concern to the retailers, 24.1 percent said they are spending less on clothing, while only one in five have delayed major purchases, such as a car, television or furniture, and 31.1 percent are dining out less.

"Consumers are entering the summer season with a cautious view of increasing gas prices," NRF President and CEO Tracy Mullin said. "To offset the effects of higher prices, more consumers are giving their wallets a little extra cushion by cutting back on discretionary spending or choosing to frequent retailers closer to home."

Interestingly enough, the retailers' survey also found that 32.6 percent have decreased their vacation travel plans this year, despite the AAA survey that projected a record number of Americans on the highways this weekend.

Major retailers were reporting weak April sales even before the recent spike in gasoline prices started earlier this month. Wal-Mart Stores (Charts, Fortune 500), the world's largest retailer, had its worst sales comparison on record in April as it forecast essentially flat sales at stores open at least a year in May, a closely watched measure of retail strength known as same-store sales.

Overall same-store sales in April were among the weakest on record as other major retailers including Target (Charts, Fortune 500), Gap (Charts, Fortune 500), Federated Department Stores (Charts, Fortune 500) and J.C. Penney (Charts, Fortune 500) all reported declines in that key sales measure.

Big Oil went on the defensive Wednesday, getting grilled before a House panel and denying accusations that mismanagement and a lack of competition are the reasons behind this spring's record gasoline prices.


Just great for our economy, this. Sure makes those rich investors happy, though.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 09:32 am
So, pray tell, great economists here, why wouldn't oil be costing more than ever? After all, the oil industry has been telling everybody for the last 50 years that the oil is going to be harder to find, in deeper and more remote and geographically difficult places, and more politically unstable places, and thus increasingly expensive to produce. Duh?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 09:33 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Just great for our economy, this. Sure makes those rich investors happy, though.

Not to mention us smart Europeans. Our investments in well insulated homes, small cars, and relatively sprawl-free cities are finally paying off.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 09:38 am
okie wrote:
So, pray tell, great economists here, why wouldn't oil be costing more than ever? After all, the oil industry has been telling everybody for the last 50 years that the oil is going to be harder to find, in deeper and more remote and geographically difficult places, and more politically unstable places, and thus increasingly expensive to produce. Duh?


Um, and so all those calls to move away from oil dependency on the Global Warming thread? They aren't just environmental nutjobs running their mouths off...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 09:38 am
Thomas wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Just great for our economy, this. Sure makes those rich investors happy, though.

Not to mention us smart Europeans. Our investments in well insulated homes, small cars, and relatively sprawl-free cities are finally paying off.


I agree 100%. I hate sprawl!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 09:42 am
okie, The buildup of the federal debt will not be paid by you, but our children and grandchildren. Thank Bush for his future planning - for all our children.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 09:43 am
okie wrote:
So, pray tell, great economists here, why wouldn't oil be costing more than ever?

Crude oil doesn't. It's at $64, which is high, but not at a record high. It's gasoline whose price is at a record high. This suggests a bottleneck somewhere between the crude oil traders and the gas stations -- I guess the refineries.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 10:19 am
The refineries are showing bigger and bigger profits; and that's in the billions. Yeah, that begins with a "b."
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 10:32 am
Talk to your regulatory, Democratic buddies about making it easier to build a refinery. My guess is they have tried to build more refineries in the past, but the investment, including a boat load of lawyers to fight every study down to which rare spider might live there, and how many environmental groups will sue you for the next 25 years, just isn't hardly worth it anymore, and add to it the possible leveling off or decline of oil production. No ANWR production to process is one consideration.

If you are the only game in town, you do make a profit, imposter, thats the way the market works.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 01/16/2025 at 02:06:45