Economy UP

“No, that is the state of a deadbeat who would rather commit a crime than do honest work. So now WE get to support his deadbeat ass.”

“LOL...at 63 he has no job opportunities....want a list of people who became millionaires late in life?”

“Whats this all about??????

http://www.forbes.com/2006/10/16/demographics-income-population-biz_cx_tvr_1017median.html?partner=yahootix


Demographics
The Average American: 1967 And Today
Tom Van Riper, 10.17.06, 6:00 AM ET


As the U.S. population crossed the 300 million mark sometime around 7:46 a.m. Tuesday (according to the U.S. Census Bureau), the typical family is doing a whole lot better than their grandparents were in 1967, the year the population first surpassed 200 million.

Mr. and Mrs. Median's $46,326 in annual income is 32% more than their mid-'60s counterparts, even when adjusted for inflation, and 13% more than those at the median in the economic boom year of 1985. And thanks to ballooning real estate values, average household net worth has increased even faster. The typical American household has a net worth of $465,970, up 83% from 1965, 60% from 1985 and 35% from 1995.

In Pictures: Mr. And Mrs. Median Over The Decades

Throw in the low inflation of the past 20 years, a deregulated airline industry that's made travel much cheaper, plus technological progress that's provided the middle class with not only better cars and televisions, but every gadget from DVD players to iPods, all at lower and lower prices, and it's obvious that Mr. and Mrs. Median are living the life of Riley compared to their parents and grandparents.

So why are they so unhappy?

Yes, despite their material prosperity, the Medians are a grumpy lot. A Parade Magazine survey (a good source for all things median) performed by Mark Clements Research in April showed that 48% of Americans believe they're worse off than their parents were. A June 2006 study by GFK-Roper group showed that 66% of Americans said that their personal situations in the "Good Old Days"--defined by the bulk of respondents as anywhere between the 1950s and the 1980s--were better than they are today. And in May, a Pew Research Center poll showed that half of U.S. adults believe the current trends point toward their children's future being worse than their own present.

Attribute some of the dissatisfaction to what economist Milton Friedman dubbed "Permanent Income Theory," which assumes that people measure where they are relative to where they expected to be a few years ago. They don't care a bit what the average income was four decades ago.

"If you expect a 3% rise in income and you get 2.5%, you're disappointed," says Ken Goldstein, an economist at the Conference Board, a private research group in New York.

And because people generally judge their fortunes not in absolute terms, but by comparing themselves to others, the super-success of the top 1% can make Mr. and Mrs. Median feel relatively poorer. Take CEOs--the $19 million that Wal-Mart Chief Lee Scott raked in last year was 410 times what Mr. and Mrs. Median made, as opposed to the $469,000 a year earned by Exxon's Ken Jamieson in 1975, which was a mere 40 times more.

It's the same with celebrity athletes. Those who worshipped Joe Namath in the 1960s could at least identify with the $142,000 a year he made ($848,000 in today's dollars). But how many can identify with the $87 million Tiger Woods took in last year? And not only are the elite making much more today, relatively, than the Medians, the rise of cable television and the Internet assures that they know all about it.

"It's now easy for us to see how other people around the world live, not just how our neighbors live," says Barry Schwartz, a professor of psychology at Swarthmore College. Schwartz also argues that the plethora of consumer choices today, while generally a good thing, can be a catalyst for bringing people down. Not everyone can have a new flat screen television with both a 60 inch screen and premium sound.

"The more options you look at, the more you have to give up," he says.

It's true that the wealthy have grabbed up a larger share of the growing economic pie over the past 40 years. Census Bureau stats show that the percentage of pay collected by the middle 60% of wage earners dipped to 46% in 2005 from 52% in both 1965 and 1975. That figure doesn't include income from investments, which would make the gap even larger.

But the overall pie is much larger too. A near quadrupling of the Gross Domestic Product since 1967 means that today's Americans share $12.5 trillion in wealth, or $41,579 per capita, compared to the $3.8 trillion, or $18,951 per capita, enjoyed by 200 million people back then.

Of course, the super-rich have done even better. When the first edition of the Forbes 400 hit newsstands in 1982, the top-ranked person was shipping magnate Daniel Ludwig, with an estimated net worth of $2 billion. That was about 20,000 times the net worth of Mr. and Mrs. Median at the time. There were only 12 billionaires on the list that year.

The top person on the 2006 edition of the Forbes 400, Microsoft Co-Founder Bill Gates, had a net worth of $53 billion, or 133,741 times the Medians. That means that while Mr. and Mrs. Median have seen their net worth rise 130% percent since the first Forbes 400, the richest man in the country is worth 1,225% more. Oh, and every member of the list is now a billionaire.

But what does the pay of celebrities and CEOs have to do with the average American, other than provide fodder for jealousy? It would be one thing if growing incomes at the top stretched prices of goods and services so much as to dramatically push inflation ahead for everyone else. But inflation has been tame for over two decades.

The fact is that in real terms, the Medians are doing great. Mr. Median makes 25% more than his father did 30 years ago, even after holding for inflation. Mrs. Median is a lot more likely to work in the professional ranks than her mom was, and to be paid about three times as much doing so. And though she still makes only 77% of what her male counterparts earn, this is up from 33% in 1965. They dote on the same number of children (two), but waited longer to have them, until both careers are well under way. They also pay less tax to the federal government and have 8% more purchasing power than they did 20 years ago, including 5.7% more than they had just ten years ago.

But, if despite their prosperity, the Medians need some cheering up, there is one powerful person whose wage growth they have outpaced nicely over the last two generations.

When Lyndon Johnson occupied the White House in 1965, he earned $100,000 a year, or 14 times what the Medians earned. This year, George W. Bush will earn $400,000, or just eight times the Medians.”

“Slowly we are seeing the backlash against the media...LOL when I get a call from a pollster I lie like heck. LOL...skew the numbers.

Does anyone remember the Defeatocrat Party Candidate in the Niguraguan Election ..DANIEL ORTEGA!? No, well when the media and AK-47 wielding soldiers polled citizens they were all voting for the LiberalSocialist party hero Daniel ORT(AY)GA!...then when the election curtain closes....HE LOST!!!!”

“








”

“

"No it's not! The economy sucks! Bush sucks! All the new jobs are burger flipping jobs! SHUT UP! SHUT THE PHUCK UP!"”

“The economy is so bad ...

... last night for Trick or Treat we opted for the trick.”

“Gross domestic product grew at only a 1.6% rate in third quarter, down from 2.6% in the second.
By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
October 27 2006: 9:27 AM EDT


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Economic growth slowed to the weakest pace in more than three years in the third quarter, as the government's main gauge of the strength of the U.S. economy came in much lower than analysts had forecast.

Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the nation's economy, grew at a annual 1.6 percent rate in the quarter, the Commerce Department said, down from the 2.6 percent rate in the second quarter.


The housing and auto sectors have been weighing on the broader economy.

Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast a slowdown to 2.1 percent.

A rising trade gap, which subtracts from U.S. economic activity, and a slump in the nation's housing market, have been a drag on growth in recent months. Consumer spending also came in a bit weaker than expected.

Still, stock futures and bond prices both rose on the news, as investors were pleased by a price reading in the report that showed less inflation pressures than expected. The so-called core PCE deflator, a measure of prices paid by consumers for goods other than food and energy, climbed at a 2.3 percent rate in the quarter, down from 2.7 percent in the second quarter.

The drop in the inflation gauge and the slowdown in economic growth cheered those investors who are hoping the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates early in 2007. The Fed has cited the slowing economy as it's held rates steady at its last three meetings, following 17 straight rate hikes over the previous two years.

"This is a market-friendly number," said Anthony Chan, chief economist for JPMorgan Private Client Services. "It certainly extinguishes much of the chatter going on from some Fed officials about a rate hike or an indefinite pause."

The bubble-proof economy
The housing market in particular has cut into economic growth. Home builders have cut back on construction due to a glut of homes on the market. Two of the biggest builders, Pulte Home (Charts) and Centex (Charts), both reported sharply lower earnings and cut their forecasts this week, and Pulte announced it would cut 10 percent of its staff.

Automakers have also seen slumping sales and rising inventories, causing Ford Motor (Charts) and the Chrysler Group of DaimlerChrysler (Charts) to post losses and announce production cuts. Even with improved results at General Motors (Charts) the company cut output at U.S. factories in the quarter.

But there had been expectations of stronger consumer spending, helped by falling energy prices. The report showed consumer spending rose at a 3.1 percent rate in the quarter. While that's up from the 2.6 percent rate in the second quarter, it was less than the 3.5 percent forecast by some economists.

Bush to meet auto chiefs in November
Wal-Mart Stores (Charts), the No. 1 retailer, reported a 7.3 percent rise in total U.S. sales compared to a year earlier, although that was helped by its continued increase in the number of stores. Major retail chains as a group reported even stronger sales gains over the period.”

“I LOVE it when the leftist media claims the economy is bad because the measures come in "less that expected".

LMAO!!!”

“GROWTH is weakest, not the economy as a whole. I do agree the trade deficit is horrible but it has been for decades now.

The housing and auto sectors have been weighing on the broader economy.

Nice to see the unions are dragging us all down with them.”

“SUCK SUCK SUCK SUCK SUCK”

“oh, you know, changes in economic policy take so long to kick in. this is just bush taking credit for clinton's work. just admit it.”

“It did take a while for tax cuts to take affect. Common sense.”

“The Outstanding Public Debt as of 27 Oct 2006 at 02:08:55 PM GMT is:



The estimated population of the United States is 300,080,451
so each citizen's share of this debt is $28,523.34.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.60 billion per day since September 30, 2005!

”

“I don't know about you guys, but I (and everybody I know) is doing better now than they were in 2000, despite what CNN and Katie Couric may say.”

“Month US Trade Deficit ($ millions)
Jan 2003 $41,218
Feb 2003 $40,073
Mar 2003 $43,543
April 2003 $42,176
May 2003 $40,792
Jun 2003 $39,882
Jul 2003 $40,929
Aug 2003 $40,125
Sept 2003 $41,645
Oct 2003 $41,126
Nov 2003 $39,559
Dec 2003 $43,742
Jan 2004 $46,053
Feb 2004 $45,834
March 2004 $46,966
April 2004 $48,406
May 2004 $48,472
June 2004 $54,894
July 2004 $51,331
August 2004 $54,195
September 2004 $51,939
October 2004 $55,574
November 2004 $58,977
December 2004 $54,672
January 2005 $58,267
February 2005 $60,114
March 2005 $53,754
April 2005 $57,681
May 2005 $55,971
June 2005 $59,130
July 2005 $57,355
August 2005 $58,462
September 2005 $65,585
October 2005 $67,836
November 2005 $64,462
December 2005 $65,074
January 2006 $66,301
February 2006 $62,743
March 2006 $62,096
April 2006 $63,590
June 2006 $64,818
July 2006 $67,998
August 2006 $69,857
May 2006 $65,407”

“Hell I won’t argue with ya about Bush’s spending and our debt. That’s self evident. But at the same time I am not so tied to that notion that I refuse to recognize good news.

Face it Buddha, you have blinded yourself to everything good because you can’t admit when things good happen under Bush. You have become so delusional that you think the day a democrat takes office the skies will part, the sun will shine again and all will be right in the world.”

“Poor dumb Bubba Bear lives in the Rust Belt and thinks all of America is the same.
Heavy manufactoring (Union) in America is dead, other than military work.
Change to something else like the rest of America before you drag all others down with you.”

“I'm glad I have the privilege to read you peoples' knowledge of our economy that even the greatest minds don't understand. Why don't some of you read the history of real estate in Japan over the last 25 years, Could make you reevaluate your views.”

“I agree BB...I ahve a trade deficit with my grocery store...so I went to them and explained if they didn't hire me for any fire investigations I was taking my business elsewhere....(GOD you are sophmoric)

The cool think about the trade deficit is that say..China, now sees us at the BIG Buyer. Years ago Sears used to find companies and start buying their whole stock of stuff. After a few years they would go to the company and offer to buy them out..if they refused they stopped using them.”

“largest decline in new house prices in 35 years.... yep the economy is good.”

“coming off the greatest increase - get real people

The huge housing boom cannot possibly continue for very long. Most adults who wanted a house, grabbed one when the getting was good.”

“Man...and my property that I bought at the lake has almost doubled....”

“mine went up like 20% in 2 years

boo-hoo! life sucks! ... i'm so glad i don't think like a liberal anymore ...”

“Yeah, not thinking works out better for you.”

“Given Katic Couric's recent new job, I would this she would think that the economy is terrific. She surely would not have taken that big salary if she thought there were people suffering. Would she? Or is that different?”

“Real Estate will finally kill the legacy of Lyndon Baines Bush.”

“i have never understood the obsession with the trade deficit. so we are importing more than we are exporting. what else is new. we are a nation of consumers now.”

“Ya got that right T-Dawggy. Below is the evolution of "Middle Class Wealth"

In the 60's and 70's, middle class families could survive, comfortably, with one breadwinner working full time and receiving benefits.

In the 80's until now, both parents have to work in middle class families to survive, comfortably.

In the late 80's and 90's, until now, both parents had to work and run up credit card debt to survive, comfortably.

In the 90's, both parents had to work, with credit debt, and gains made on stock sales, to survive, comfortably.

In the 2000's, both parents have to work, with credit debt, and take out second mortages on thier homes, to survive, comfortably.

Now. There is nowhere left to go. Many middle class Americans are taking a "uniquely American" route of working 2 jobs, but that will not sustain the comfort level. With rising costs of education, health insurance and energy, maxed out debt, and maxed out mortages, the middle class has no where left to go in this game, except down.

If people think the #&%!$ is hitting the fan now, politically, wait until the middle class becomes desperate. It kinda reminds me of the last time republicans were in total power..... the 20's and 30's. It took 80 years for people to forget thier greedy failed policies, but, alas, the time of rememberance is coming.”

“I think that the proper criticism of Bush is that he has completely misused the prosperity and strength of our nation.

We have the best universities in the world. We have the most dynamic economy in the world.

But we can't get an oil infrastructure in Iraq to work. We can't find a way to limit our dependence on resources supplied by our enemies. And we have failed in using our omnipresent business and cultural influence to get the world to buy into our policies.

We are strong and we are rich. Why hasn't that bought us a better place in the world?

Destroy incompetence.
last edited: 10/27/06 9:23:55 PM”

“What made this country great is not great politicians.

What made this country great is people with a can do attitude.

That's a fact. Look it up.”

“uh...okay...

There is no doubt that America is great because of its dynamism. Americans make millions of great decisions every day and have the freedom to do so.

But a good leader builds on success. He or she uses the available talents and resources to achieve some greater goal.

For a U.S. President, that means advancing American interests and prestige around the world.

Bush had tremendous cards to play when he took office. Our economy is still the wonder of the world. Our military is skilled and experienced. Our prestige in the world was never greater.

But we are hated the world over and our foreign policy is a complete failure.

At the very least, a president like Bush should follow the old medical axiom, "First do no harm."”

“For a U.S. President, that means advancing American interests and prestige around the world.

Kissing ass does not make America great.

But we are hated the world over and our foreign policy is a complete failure.

From my real world experience, you are incorrect. I'm certain you can find people that hate America. I'm certain that 20 years ago you could have too. America is not hated as much as Katie and Pew and Kerry would like you to believe. That is reality.

At the very least, a president like Bush should follow the old medical axiom, "First do no harm."

Incorrect. At the very least, a president like Bush should follow the old presidential oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."”

“that curve is inflation adjusted but it's not adjusted to the size of the economy. find me a chart that shows the national dept as a percentage of the GDP adjusted for inflation and then you will have something.”

“You missed a bold face in your quote, moonie. It's the word constitution. It's what I swore to defend. It's not some fool in the white house, it's not a bunch of jackholes in a building, it's a piece of paper that is the essence of this country. I took that oath. So did you. Can you say with any confidence that what's going on now advances that? Wake up, fool. This country is founded on principles that the current C.I.C. craps on every day. With relish. He wants a class based society that will force people like us into a permanent subclass. above the peasants, but below the wealthy. A class based society is a stable society. There are dozens of books that argue this point. Do you agree? Do you want to argue? Or, do you agree that economic opportunism, stability be damned, is the foundation on which this system is founded. Open up man. Are you the troll they say you are? Or are you a fellow vet with an opinion not generated by "W"”

“n/m Jimmy San
last edited: 10/28/06 12:30:50 AM”

“I like the way you think, Jimmy San.

It is absolutely true that our national debt is very manageable when compared to the size of our national economy. The last time I did the calculations, I found our debt to be much more manageable than, say Japan's.

So, we are in good shape.

My problem with our current policies is the poor return that we seem to be getting from current spending.

We are on track to spend somewhere between 1 and 2 trillion dollars in Iraq during the next 10 years. I don't think that we are getting good return on that money.

And, the relative burden of that debt has much to do with maintaining good economic growth. I do believe that we will continue to grow over the long term, but I wouldn't guarantee it.

If we keep spending money on things like the Medicare prescription drug program, Iraq and tax cuts, we leave ourselves much more vulnerable during an unexpected downturn.

This kind of spending limits future policy options.”

“Oh, one other thing. I haven't done much research about our total public/private debt load.

Our national economy must sustain both public and private debt.

So, a country like Japan - with a high savings rate - can probably sustain a larger public debt than a country with a large private debt.

I'll need to crunch those numbers when I get a little bit of time.”

“Budda could it be that people have to pile on debt to "live comfortably" because they can not stop buying:
1. houses they shouldn't be buying
2. Cars they shouldn't be buying
3. Spending money on things they don't need like an Xbox, Ninetendo, and playstation. And then getting the portable version so the kid can play in the car.

Let me put it this way my wife and I just bought a house. The bank would have given us a loan for 250,000. But did we go find a house for 250,000?? No we bought a house for 102,000. We have a comfortable fixed rate payment that gives us plenty of cash to keep money in the saving accounts. She drives a used car and (I'm the bad boy) have the new Explorer. But trust me next time around when it comes time to buy a new car I'll be looking for a used Escape hybrid.

So I ask you to define comfortable. As I say most Americans think that comfortable entitles them the the most expensive and best of everything hence causing them to live well above their means and funds.”

“redeye, you are a smart man/woman/internet entity.

Thanks for buying a Ford, BTW.

You are absolutely right about "need" vs. "desire."

But I don't think that is the entire issue.

There is an ongoing restructuring of our economy.

The risk of necessities like retirement savings and health care are being steadily transferred from the corporate and public spheres to private individuals.

And while it is one's personal responsibility to plan for the future, I'm not optimistic that debt-heavy Americans will ACTUALLY plan ahead.

And, old line institutions built during times of generous corporate/public pensions and health care plans are in a difficult spot right now. Kind of like when public utilities built nuke plans during the days of monopolistic energy policies and found it impossible to support these plants after deregulation.

I think that Washington does have a role to play in easing this transition. But the answer is pretty much "You're on your own."”

““Budda could it be that people have to pile on debt to "live comfortably" because they can not stop buying:"

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Young people starting out today don't know how to go without. They go from their parent's house where they have everything they could ever need and then go out on their own where they expect to have everything they had at home and they will go into debt to have it.

I personally would like to know the percentage of people who are considered 'poor' and living below the poverty line and receiving government assistance who have cable tv. I bet we would all be surprised.”

“Nigal - you'd be very surprised. You'd be surprised how many of them have nice HD-LCD displays hanging on their walls too. You'd be surprised how many are on gov't assistance and making more than you.”

“Part of the problem is that what we term comfortable has changed a lot over the last 50 years. A telephone 50 years ago was not even universal and certainly wasnt a "need". Nowdays try and get a job without a phone! Soon a computer and highspeed access will become needed for anyone to compete in regular society.

Could a person live without all the electronics and survive with only the basics of food and shelter? Sure but would you really want to?”

“Reformed (I'm a man and my normal handle is Flasher) Agreed with what you say but I have some things to add.
Just recently I've started to think deeply on the whole health care problem. I think that the reason corporations are dumping health care back to the employees (at least part of it) is when people had 100% covered health care the would head to the doctors for anything and everything. The health care system knew they could charge the insurance companies almost whatever they wanted and get away with it.

Eventually this started eating into profit margins of companies. While there are plenty of things a company can do to increase profit an easy one would be to shift the burden of health care back on the employees.
I think for the next 5-10 years we will see more of this happening. I also don't think that any government can fix our health care system in fact I think it will fix itself. In time when more and more of our health care becomes OUR responsibility the system will see less un-needed trips. It will also force Americans to start planning ahead for their health care needs and place money aside to cope with a major medical expense. Just like at my company John Deere where the Health care was a major bonus for employees. Well not anymore we just switched to a HSA type system and the out of pocket for everyone has gone up a lot more. But if you put money away tax free into you HSA then you can be prepared for you upcoming health care costs. Also any money you don’t spend can be invested.

Ok I’m off track. So as more Americans have to account for their own health care the cost of health care should decline as the use of the system should decline as well. Then eventually as the cost goes down Companies will eventually start picking up more and more of the tab as ways to bring talent into the organization. Other companies will follow suit. This will be come cyclical until one day Johnny government will decide to tax the hell out of us and make health care a government funded thing. Then the world will go to hell in a hand basket.”

“Lumber. Yes we can all survive on the basics but I'm talking about living with in your means. What I mean by that is a person making $30,000 a year should be on basic cable, dial up internet, have a $10,000 car and a $60,000 house. While a person making 60,000 a year can get premium cable, have high speed, a $25,000 car and $100,000 house. The problem is the 30 grand guy and the 60 grand guy are good friends and the 30 grand guy want's what the 60 grand guy has and will bury himself trying to keep up.

The reason I know this so well as at one time I just bought and bought and bought things until I was in debt over my head. I found a great girl that is smart with her money and showed me the difference between need and want. My example of this I want that new backpack I should save up and then buy it not put it on the credit card as the backpack I have right now still works just fine. So thats what I did and instead of a 200 charge to a credit card that in the past would have been paid on the min payments I have no debt to speak of and I value my backpack that much more.”

“Oddly enough one of the things long distance hiking does teach is the differance between need and want.”

“The need vs. want mentality is so interesting. As people shift from needs to wants, they demand more government interference and take less personal responsibility.






Ya gotta love the union guy’s take on the economy.

Unions have hurt the U.S. auto industry while the non-unionized Japanese companies reap the profits.

Unions have hurt the U.S. airline industry.


But you know, it’s all the fault of greedy businessmen and their Republican lackeys.”