mysteryman wrote:Quote:How much more money is the average joe making compared to 6 years ago?
Based on the table I found here...
http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/SQPINewsRelease.htm
Personal income has gone up for the last 6 years,even though the cost of living has also gone up.
So,its a trade off.
Once again, the economy is essentially flat on this issue. This represents more than 80% of the working population, and their real income hasn't gone up one damn dime in the last 6 years. This is not an indicator of a strong economy. Later on when we examine personal savings and debt ratios, you will see just how poor this really is.
It is important to note that those in the richest class have seen
large increases in their wealth over this time period. Doesn't seem too fair, does it?
Quote:Quote:How is the dollar doing, compared to 6 years ago?
I will admit that the dollar is weaker then it was 6 years ago.
No argument with this statement
Quote:Quote:How about inflation rates? How are they doing compared to 6 years ago?
According to this site...
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx
in April of 2000 the inflation rate was 3.07% and in April of 2006 the inflation rate was 3.55%.
So,it really hasnt changed very much.
The link I gave will show you the inflation rates throughout our history.
It is really quite interesting.
Yeah, the inflation rate is pretty much flat over this period. It is important to note that it is higher than during the last president's term, but that's neither here nor there.
Still, it isn't as if the rate has gone down, or even slowed down. This is flat at best.
Quote:Quote:How about personal savings and debt rates compared to 6 years ago?
I am not sure,but I really dont imagine that has changed much,but I do think the debt rate has gone up.
It has changed, quite a bit.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1655517
Quote:Since the last business cycle officially ended in March 2001, the US has experienced an extraordinary boom in private household debt. The ratio of household debt to disposable income rose from approximately 100% in March 2001 to well over 120 percent towards the end of 2005.
Quote:A common but misplaced assumption is that the growth in debt among middle-income families -- those with incomes roughly between $25,000 to $70,000 a year -- is the result of over-consumption through increased credit card debt. Rather, growth in debt is primarily due to heavier borrowing for investments in homes or education, both of which saw dramatic price increases in recent years. The cost of a college education, for example, grew by 24.6% between 2001 and 2004, after adjusting for inflation.
Here is the general result:
Quote:Middle-income families felt squeezed more than most, devoting a median 20% of their income to debt payments in 2004 - even at a time of low interest rates -- up from 18% in 2001. U.S. households overall spent a median 18.3% of income on debt payments in 2004, up from 16.9% in 2001, according to the report, which is based largely on data from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances.
And more families entered the group of seriously indebted: 13.7% of households faced debt payments greater than 40% percent of their income in 2004, up from 12.8% in 2001.
Looking at households' overall debt load, Americans' debt rose to a median 108% of income in 2004, up from 78% of income in 2001, with middle-income people facing the steepest rise, to a median 114% of income from 80% in 2001, according to the report.
I think it is easy to conclude that the debt rates of the average American families have gone up significantly in the last 6 years. This is not a sign of a strong economy, in the slightest!
How about savings?
http://bonddad.mydd.com/story/2006/3/25/125924/886
Quote:The Poor Savings Rate
Savings is deferred consumption. If a person earns $100 per period and spends $70, the person has saved $30. Economically, savings has 2 purposes. The first is to provide a person with a financial cushion in case of financial hardship such as losing a job or having a large, unexpected expense. The second is to transfer capital to financial intermediaries such as banks who in turn pool individual savings into loans to business. Business uses this money to invest in capital plant expansion, increasing the economies overall productive capability.
Economists define savings as all the money that is left over after a person purchases all his stuff for a particular period. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the US savings rate was 1.59% in the first quarter of 2001. It has decreased since then, turning negative in the last three quarters of 2005. This means the US consumer was spending most of his money in the first quarter of 2001 and is now dipping into a paltry pool of personal savings to finance his expenditures.
Personal debt is up, personal savings is way down. Not exactly an indicator of a strong and vibrant economy.
Quote:Quote:How about unemployment? Compared to 6 years ago? (Hint: I bet ya screw this one up)
These numbers are straight from the BLS website,so if its wrong,dont blame me...
BLS data
And here...
http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm
Is the current data for this month.
Now,you are going to say that these numbers are wrong because they dont count people that stopped looking for work or ran out of benefits.
I dont know about that.
How many of those that stopped looking for work started their own business?
My guess is, very few of them started their own business.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch1_c.htm
Quote:Unemployed persons. All persons who: 1) had no employment during the reference week; 2) were available for work, except for temporary illness; and 3) had made specific efforts, such as contacting employers, to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week.
Participation rate. This represents the proportion of the population that is in the labor force
I bolded that last part because it is pretty important.
http://bonddad.mydd.com/story/2006/3/25/125924/886
Quote:The unemployment rate often quoted in the financial press only includes people who have looked for work in the mast 4 weeks. So, if somebody hasn't looked for work, they're not included.
The basic problem with the current economy is the drop in the labor participation rate or the percentage of the U.S. population in the labor force. During the 1990s expansion, the lowest reading for the labor participation rate was 66.3%. Throughout the 1990s, this number increased to roughly 67%. The number crossed the 67% threshold in October of 1996, indicating the high participation rate was not merely the result of the high-tech bubble, but instead the result of a growing economy.
The problem with the current expansion is the labor participation rate has
dropped, not increased. The Bush administration continually uses May 2003 as the starting point for their employment figures (largely because this was the lowest point of total establishment jobs on their watch). Using the same "Bush friendly" starting point for the labor participation rate shows a decrease in the number of people who are in the labor force. In may 2003, the labor participation rate was 66.4%. This number dropped to 66.1% in February 2006, indicating people have left the labor force.
Currently, the U.S. population is about 300 million people. So 1% equals 3,000,000 and .1% equals 300,000.
Using current population figures, this drop from 64.4% to 63.1% indicates 900,000 people have left the labor force. This figure is high because the US population was smaller in 2003, but you get the idea. The bottom line is this: people don't leave a great labor market; they enter it. If the labor market is so great, why are people leaving it?
Starting in May of last year, a series of papers highlighted the above mentioned situation.
This report from the Boston Federal Reserve and
this report from the New York Federal Reserve offer a more complex explanation of the above mentioned trends.
The number of people in the active workforce has been convienently 'decreased' to avoid reporting on the close to 1 million people who don't have jobs. In addition, as you say, those who haven't looked for work through traditional unemployment agencies and those who have run out of benefits aren't counted.
I don't really blame the Bush admin. for fudging the numbers; every president has fudged them to one degree or another. But it doesn't change the fact that unemployment is far higher than is reported, and most definately far higher than it was 6 years ago.
This is not a signal of a strong economy. If the job creation rates were strong, one would expect more people to be joining the economy, not more people leaving the economy.
This is incorrect. From the same link as my above answer:
Quote:Comparing Bush's establishment job growth to all other expansions since 1960 indicates Bush's job creation is the weakest of the last 40 years. The economy has created 2.318 million jobs after 62 months of Bush's presidency. At the same time in Clinton's presidency (62 months) that number was 15,089,000 - not total jobs, but jobs created (that's six times the amount establishment jobs under Clinton compared to Bush). In fact, when you compare Bush's average annual percentage change in the employment numbers to all the other economic expansions in the last 40 years Bush's record of job creation comes up dead last. Bush's average annual percentage change in payroll employment is .6%. The next lowest is Clinton's expansion, where the average annual percentage change in payroll employment was 1.9% -- three times higher.
The fact is, the number of jobs created has barely kept pace with the number needed in order to stay even every month. And the quality of these jobs is much poorer than those that have been lost; on average, jobs created pay something like 9,000 dollars less than those which have been lost over the last 6 years.
Also, many of the jobs created (if not most) are in the housing industry, which has boomed in the last 5 years. Unfortunately, this will be quite negatively affected now that interest rates are going up, and any attempt to enforce Illegal Immigration laws will also negatively affect this industry. Therefore it is easy to predict that many of the jobs created are not permanent ones, but will vanish in the next few years as the housing industry continues to cool.
This is not a sign of a strong economy.
Quote:Quote:How about gasoline prices, food prices, commodity prices, compared to 6 years ago?
This is an unfair question.
EVERYTHING has gone up in price over the last 6 years,just like they did in any other 6 year period.
Even under the previous admin,prices went up on everything in any 6 year period.
This is, in fact, a fair question. Even though prices always will go up due to inflation, the
rate at which they raise is the issue. Under Bush, the rate of commodity prices, food prices, and oil and gas prices has
skyrocketed. This is not good for consumers, though it does make plenty of money for big business and the top 5% of society who are their primary investors.
This is, once again, not a sign of a strong and vibrant economy. It certainly isn't good for the vast majority of those who participate in the economy.
Quote:
The market is going up
Actually, it hasn't gone up significantly in 6 years, as I have shown earlier.
Quote:housing starts are up
This may or may not be true, but I doubt this will continue now that interest rates have risen.
Quote:unemployment is down
No, it isn't, as I have shown.
Quote:the economy is doing pretty good by all the indicators I have seen.
Do you honestly still believe that after looking at the actual numbers?
Quote:Of course,no matter how good the economy is doing,if you dont choose to believe it,then nothing anyone says will convince you otherwise.
That is why I say that I refuse to participate in the talk that the economy is bad.
The numbers don't lie. Your and my opinion is immaterial. I will continue this discussion with an examination of how the richest part of our society and Big Business have both flourished under Bush, while the Middle class and poorest parts of our society have gotten poorer and more laden with debt under Bush.
Cheers
Cycloptichorn
