Who is wearing blinders??? It is not I who is deluded by nonsense articles about apparent reductions in the salaries of some males under conditions in which the explanation (and the deceprion impolicit in the report) is entirely obvious.
Of course our economy is tied to the world economy. Of course the short and long term performance of either cannot be predicted with certainty. That does not mean we are headed for disaster.I doesn't mean we are necessarily headed for continued increasing prosperity either. By all the usual measures we are in very good shape, particularly compared to the economies of other developed nations.
goergeob, Your use of words such as "disaster" is pathetic. Your challenges without support for your position only makes you look ignorant. Generalities really don't say much - and you should be aware of this simple truism.
BTW, the Chinese stock market is way out of control. When it collapses, not if it collapses but when it collapses, there will be big effects elsewhere.
Center for Economic Prosperity
Report: Income gains eroding
Anna Sowa
The Bulletin
September 10, 2006
For Larry Browning, health insurance is the most consistent and most frustrating cost of his business.
In the last 12 years, the president of Discover Sunriver Vacation Rentals said he's had to pay 15 percent more per year for employee health insurance premiums.
He now pays $75,000 per year on benefits for his 25 full-time employees.
"I'm livid," Browning said of the cost. "In the business I'm in, we are extremely competitive and are continually trying to increase our level of service. Yet, because of that competition, we have not been able to increase our pricing (for services) for several years."
Without regular price increases to offset the cost of health care, Browning is forced to make up the difference elsewhere - in some cases increasing work loads for employees.
"It's a vicious circle," he said.
High insurance costs aren't only hurting employers, according to a study released last month.
A report from a Silverton-based research institute found that Oregon health insurance costs are increasing faster than incomes.
In Central Oregon, the median income is increasing, but not keeping up with the region's high cost of living and rising health insurance costs, according to the Oregon Center for Public Policy report on income, poverty and health insurance.
My note: This is true for most of the US companies. That's the reason the burden of health insurance costs is affecting the cost of US auto manufacturers - and losing business.
That means more Central Oregonians are struggling to afford increasing health care costs, while wages crawl up at nearly the same rate as inflation, the study said.
But things can't be all bad in Oregon - after all, people wouldn't move here if no well-paying job opportunities existed, said Noah Clarke, economist for the Goldwater Institute think tank in Phoenix, Ariz.
Income vs. inflation
Between 2000 and 2005, the annual median income declined in Oregon and the United States when adjusted for inflation, according to the OCPP, a public policy think tank, which released the report.
The Oregon median household income was $42,944 in 2005, down 7.6 percent from 2000 when adjusted for inflation, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey and Oregon Employment Department.
The U.S. median household income was $46,242 in 2005, down 6 percent from 2000 after adjusting for inflation.
Part of the problem is the state is not creating enough high-paying jobs, said Mike Leachman, policy analyst with the OCPP.
"Nearly two-thirds of the jobs we've created since the last economic peak in the '90s have paid less than $30,000 per year," Leachman said. "And now that employers are less likely to offer health insurance than a few years ago, it's really stretching people's incomes."
The High Desert, however, bucked state and national trends: the 2005 median household income was $49,163 in 2005, up from $47,520 in 2000, adjusted for inflation.
Why the rise in Central Oregon? The region didn't lose as many high-tech jobs as the rest of the state in the 2000 recession, according to local economists.
"While Oregon, as a whole, fared worse, out here we didn't lose those (high-tech) jobs and at the same time gained more households," said Steve Williams, regional economist for the Oregon Employment Department in Bend. "Part of the assumption is that some of those gains are on the higher-income side, but we don't know that for a fact."
Income gains at the top aren't good for the overall population, Leachman said.
"The (Oregon) economy is doing great, but many people in Oregon's economy aren't," Leachman said. "Income and earnings growth is going to high-income folks, not reaching the middle- and low-income households."
For example, Leachman said, the typical Oregon CEO has seen a 20 percent pay raise since 2002, whereas, the typical worker hasn't.
Raises aren't nearly that hefty for other workers in Deschutes County. The median income in the county is only up 3.5 percent since 2000, barely keeping up with inflation, economist Williams said.
"Inflation is 3 percent a year or so," Williams said. "You at least want your income to stay with inflation so your dollar is worth the same at the grocery store every year."
When other costs like health care increase faster than incomes, consumers feel the burden, the OCPP says.
Unhealthy costs
In Oregon, 16.4 percent of residents went without health insurance in 2005, according to the OCPP. That's up from 13.4 percent in 2000.
In Central Oregon, 32,000 people - 18.4 percent of the tri-county population - are uninsured, according to Don Myron, of the state of Oregon Insurance Pool Governing Board. Myron does not have uninsured numbers for Central Oregonians in 2000.
The region's high health care costs compound problems with labor, energy prices and material goods, Leachman said. Unemployment rates have dipped low enough to signal an almost fully employed population in the tri-county area.
In Deschutes County, the July unemployment rate slipped to 4 percent, at least 1 percentage point lower than the state and national rates.
Additionally, the cost-of-living index for Bend is 107 - 100 is considered average - the second-most expensive place to live behind Portland, according to a Virginia research firm that conducted a study of five Oregon markets.
Bend's health care index was 116.5, behind Portland's 126, according to the report released last week.
For businesses that can afford to offer health insurance, benefits have declined and premiums have escalated in recent years, according to Ron Gallinat, principal of Central Oregon Employee Benefits LLC.
"One of my employer clients had a premium in 2002 of just over $130 for a single person," Gallinat said. "The premium today is just over $210, an increase of roughly 60 percent."
He's seen similar cases with other employers, not to mention the premiums workers must pay.
Comparing premiums for a family today and in 2001, Gallinat found that five years ago, one family's premium was $475 per month. Today, the same plan's premium is more than $870 - an 83 percent increase.
"Incomes for families certainly have not increased this much," Gallinat said.
The other side
The OCPP data may not tell the whole story, said Clarke, of the Goldwater Institute.
"Obviously, Oregon is not a bad place to be, otherwise people wouldn't be going there," Clarke said. "Oregon is growing at an incredible rate, has cut unemployment in half (in recent years) and has gained something like 1 million people in the last five years."
Clarke said it is illogical to claim that despite the state's booming economy, residents are losing money.
"The statistics don't reflect changes in goods you are buying," he said. "For example, if someone starts making better cars, they may cost more but (inflation) doesn't take into account it's an improved good - they just see an increase in price."
Besides the different interpretations of inflation, income analyses don't take into account that most workers see pay increases every year.
"Over time, these are not the same people you are measuring because they move out from the lower-paying jobs quickly to higher-paying jobs," Clarke said. "That's why they come to Oregon."
Clarke said the state's growing Hispanic population accounts for many of the lower-income workers who come to the state for jobs and opportunities for financial advancement. That could explain how many new workers make lower wages.
Leachman, supporting the OCPP data, said the information should be used as an education resource for state policymakers. He advocates a more progressive tax structure, which would tax upper-income levels more than mid- and lower-income levels, thus more evenly distributing wealth.
"Public policies in place are not supporting opportunity or ensuring that the benefits of growth are widely enjoyed," Leachman said.
Conversely, Clarke says the state taxes Oregonians too much, decreasing their personal incomes.
"The larger percentage of personal income the government takes, the less for you," Clarke said.
Anna Sowa can be reached at 383-0304 or at asowa@bend bulletin.com.
Hunky-dory, heh, georgeob?
georgeob1 wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:A funny, if not tragic" way for household income to have increased because women are now working more.
True. But that is a comment on social values, not economic ones. We chose to change old social restrictions, and, as a result, created an enormous increase in the work force. We should not be surprised if this, to some degree, suppressed the rise in the economic value of labor. Concurrent declines in the birthrate compensated to some degree. Generally though the economic estimate is that the widespread entry of women into the workforce was a net economic benefit.
My point though was that the articule about the apparent decline of the wages of males in a certain age range was in fact meaningless. it was just another effort to grind a newsworthy story out of something taken entirely out of context in a broader economic analysis.
Our economy is in very good shape.
How can the country's economy be in 'good shape' when we're practically bankrupt?
georgeob, FYI, the above statements repeated below, includes all males and females working:
The Oregon median household income was $42,944 in 2005, down 7.6 percent from 2000 when adjusted for inflation, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey and Oregon Employment Department.
The U.S. median household income was $46,242 in 2005, down 6 percent from 2000 after adjusting for inflation.
cicerone imposter wrote:georgeob, We all know which side of you isle you favor; that's no secret to anybody reading your posts. Your bias shows every time you ignore the most recent media reports on our economy - including the downward trend in housing prices, and increase in defaults.
...
Your bias is also quite evident, imposter.
If you don't think we are living well, go talk to old timers and they will tell you how we live now, as compared to a few decades ago. We in America are overweight, live in bigger houses, and drive more cars, and have more recreational activities than most anywhere in the world, imposter. If you don't believe it, go travel to a few other countries and see for yourself.
This from the following website:
http://realtytimes.com/rtapages/20060619_downsizinghomes.htm
Surprising no one, the U.S. Census department has found that new homes today are "substantially larger and packed with more amenities than their predecessors of 30 years ago."
"Between 1975 and 2005, the portion of new homes built with central air conditioning has risen 43 percent, while the portion of homes built with fewer than two bathrooms has fallen from 41 percent to just 4 percent," noted Jerry Howard, chief executive officer of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). "Meanwhile, the share of newly built homes with four or more bedrooms has risen steadily from 21 percent 30 years ago to just shy of 40 percent last year."
In 2005, the average floor area in a new home reached an all-time high of 2,434 square feet -- up from an average 2,349 square feet in 2004 and just 1,645 square feet in 1975."
Is this a sign of a terrible economy?
I think you just like to whine and complain, but as I said, if a Democrat gains the presidency, you will possibly be singing praises of the economy again.
One last point, you never acknowledged my point that the poverty statistics and income statistics by the Census Bureau are BEFORE TAX, which of course renders the numbers wrong as a means of comparing this year with 10 years ago or 20 years ago, etc. You should know by now, I hope, that the Bush tax cuts gave huge rebates to low wage earner families. I have pointed it out numerous times, and you should already know it without me reminding you.
One thing is evident, imposter, you look for and choose the statistics that support your pre-disposed opinion that things are terrible and getting worse, but you ignore the positive news and positive spin to any story.
Standard of living is NOT the same thing as the economy.
The economy could take a 20% dip and the size of houses we live in wouldn't change for the most part.
okie wrote: imposter. If you don't believe it, go travel to a few other countries and see for yourself.
Yeah, c.i. you really should get out of the house
okie wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:georgeob, We all know which side of you isle you favor; that's no secret to anybody reading your posts. Your bias shows every time you ignore the most recent media reports on our economy - including the downward trend in housing prices, and increase in defaults.
...
Your bias is also quite evident, imposter.
If you don't think we are living well, go talk to old timers and they will tell you how we live now, as compared to a few decades ago. We in America are overweight, live in bigger houses, and drive more cars, and have more recreational activities than most anywhere in the world, imposter. If you don't believe it, go travel to a few other countries and see for yourself.
This from the following website:
http://realtytimes.com/rtapages/20060619_downsizinghomes.htm
Surprising no one, the U.S. Census department has found that new homes today are "substantially larger and packed with more amenities than their predecessors of 30 years ago."
"Between 1975 and 2005, the portion of new homes built with central air conditioning has risen 43 percent, while the portion of homes built with fewer than two bathrooms has fallen from 41 percent to just 4 percent," noted Jerry Howard, chief executive officer of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). "Meanwhile, the share of newly built homes with four or more bedrooms has risen steadily from 21 percent 30 years ago to just shy of 40 percent last year."
In 2005, the average floor area in a new home reached an all-time high of 2,434 square feet -- up from an average 2,349 square feet in 2004 and just 1,645 square feet in 1975."
Is this a sign of a terrible economy?
I think you just like to whine and complain, but as I said, if a Democrat gains the presidency, you will possibly be singing praises of the economy again.
One last point, you never acknowledged my point that the poverty statistics and income statistics by the Census Bureau are BEFORE TAX, which of course renders the numbers wrong as a means of comparing this year with 10 years ago or 20 years ago, etc. You should know by now, I hope, that the Bush tax cuts gave huge rebates to low wage earner families. I have pointed it out numerous times, and you should already know it without me reminding you.
One thing is evident, imposter, you look for and choose the statistics that support your pre-disposed opinion that things are terrible and getting worse, but you ignore the positive news and positive spin to any story.
Standards of living aren't based upon how big your house is, or how many technological doodads you own, but Security.
Cycloptichorn
I know many of us have seen those tv adds about the guy who has everything, but adds "I'm in debt up to my eyeballs!"
cicerone imposter wrote:I know many of us have seen those tv adds about the guy who has everything, but adds "I'm in debt up to my eyeballs!"
Great point CI.
What he describes is true, Okie; the average American citizen carries far more debt now then they used to, the most since the depression. People arent' saving money.
Our 'economic boom' is being fueled on credit, and that's... not a sign of a good economy.
Cycloptichorn
Not only is consumer debt at its highest, but the federal debt as an average debt per person is close to $80,000. On top of all that, the savings rate for Americans are now in the negative; they're spending their savings. Our economy is nowhere close to being "great."
Defaults on mortgage loans are increasing at a frightening rate. Not a good sign on our economy.
From MSNBC:
U.S. savings rate hits lowest level since 1933
Consumers depleting savings to buy cars, other big-ticket items
Americans have been buying big-ticket items such as cars instead of saving their money.
Douglas Pizac / AP file
Updated: 9:10 a.m. PT Jan 30, 2006
WASHINGTON - Americans' personal savings rate dipped into negative territory in 2005, something that hasn't happened since the Great Depression. Consumers depleted their savings to finance the purchases of cars and other big-ticket items.
The Commerce Department reported Monday that the savings rate fell into negative territory at minus 0.5 percent, meaning that Americans not only spent all of their after-tax income last year but had to dip into previous savings or increase borrowing.
okie probably doesn't know anything about the great depression to realize the problem the American economy is in. He sees only the big houses and big cars. He also seems oblivious to the growth of consumer debt and the federal debt. Spend, spend, spend, like there's no tomorrow when those debts must be paid.
cicerone imposter wrote:okie probably doesn't know anything about the great depression to realize the problem the American economy is in. He sees only the big houses and big cars. He also seems oblivious to the growth of consumer debt and the federal debt. Spend, spend, spend, like there's no tomorrow when those debts must be paid.
Maybe Ron Paul can explain it to Okie in this video clip
Ron Paul and economy
I believe that Cicerone, Cyclo and the others here should do a better job of putting their somewhat hysterical forecasts of economic doom in some kind of rational context. So far I have seen references to a growing income disparity, low personal savings rates, the negative trade balance and the cost of medical care. None of it, however includes any reference points or comparative data. What, for example, would you guys consider to be a well-performing economy? Can you give me an example of one?
The fact is the United States enjoys one of the world's highest levels of GDP/capita and one of the most flexible, adaptive economies - better able to absorb immigrants and adjust to changing economic conditions than almost all of our major competitors. Compared to other major economies we have relatively low unemployment and high GDP growth rates.
No country is entirely free of economic and social issues. The recent elections in France demonstrate the tensions that can arise as a result in an otherwise rich and prosperous country. Undoubtedly France will deal with these issues to some degree and continue as one of the world's most prosperous countries. The same can be said for the issues we face.
I run an engineering consulting company that employs about 800 people, mostly civil & chemical engineers, Biologists, Chemists, and Geologists. We are in our sixth consecutive year of >10% year over year profit growth. Our principal problem is the difficulty in finding qualified entry level staff and the rising salary levels required to get them. I don't think that these are the signs of a failing economy.
goergeob: "...somewhat hysterical forecasts of economic doom in some kind of rational context." yada yada yada..."Our principal problem is the difficulty in finding qualified entry level staff and the rising salary levels required to get them."
georgeob has personal experience and knowledge with the problems about "finding qualified entry level staff...," but still fails to recognize why our economy is in big trouble. Our country's schools are not producing enough math and science students to continue the competitive advantage for the future of our economy. This isn't "hyserical forecasts," it's what many in our country sees as one of many problems going forward. This problem isn't isolate to your company of 800. You just broke the laughter meter.
I agree with you about the deficiencies in the output of our universities and educational systems. I believe the standards in our school systems, particularly elementary schools and secondary schools, are too low; and also that universities (and their students) are emphasizing the wrong things in some areas. However I see the growing income disparity that so exorcises you as simply the needed economic signal that will inevitably lead to corrective decisions on the part of these people and institutions.
We enjoy a resiliant and adaptive economy that, unlike many in Europe, doesn't protect people from the knowledge of the unwise choices they make. This is, of course, the first step in correcting them.
You are very far from making a convincing case that the U.S. economy is in trouble.
