Economic rebound picks up

[Velociryx]

Depends on where you pull the data from, but yes, the average savings rate in the US has been pegged at anywhere from 3 to 7%....abysmally low (and much of that from "automatic" savings such as 401k contributions).

The personal debt load in the country, while it has no doubt helped the economy in the short run (as people rush out to spend money they don't have), will, no doubt, be a gordian knot to work through down the line--as people draw near to maxing out their available credit sources, the only option is to pare it down or to seek expanded credit--which only delays the problem.

In the end, there's gonna have to be a sharp correction to account for that, and a second to fix social security. Personally, I'd just as soon not get any and take care of myself, but I suspect I'm in the minority there.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sharpe
The American economy is due to rise again eventually just on its own internal factors - i.e. consumer goods getting old, breaking down or getting completely obsolete. For instance a lot of computers that were bought for the Y2K "crisis" in 1999 are getting old and most will have to be replaced within the next 2 years or so.

Two points. One, I read recently that cars are being made to last longer theses days. Two, why do you think this period of more stuff breaking down going to come soon. Doesn't stuff break down now at about a normal rate? Why do you assume otherwise?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Fez
Sig material and utter bull****.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h03.html

2001 Dollars - Lowest quintile

2000 10,474
1999 10,558
1998 10,003
1997 9,758
1996 9,656
1995 9,631
1994 9,171
1993 8,942
1992 9,011
1991 9,206
1990 9,449
1989 9,679
1988 9,352
1987 9,190
1986 9,159
1985 9,096
1984 9,089
1983 8,833
1982 8,786
1981 8,995

You'll note that basic arithmetic yields the following comparison.

Under Reagan (1981-1988), the average income of the lowest quintile increased $357, adjusting for 2001 dollars.

Under Clinton (1993-2000), the average income of the lowest quintile increased $1532, adjusting for 2001 dollars.

1532 divided by 357 = 4.3. So the Clinton economy outperformed Reagan's for the lowest quintile by a factor of 4.3:1. Your logic has led you here, so it's your medicine to take. By your logic, Clinton was four times the president Reagan was in terms of economic success.

I love when you said "sig material," as you were once again just repeating insults people had said to you back, since you're too uncreative to think of your own. Please, feel free to quote it in your sig. I'd put a link in mine taking people to this thread, where they can see you in all your glory!

Well an idiot like you denies the evidence they gave.

Excuse me? You're the one who posted pretty graphs, sans any numbers, in an attempt to falsely show the poorest 5th of society somehow was doing so well under Reagan, when the real numbers show their situation barely changed. You seem to have a problem with the evidence, since the numbers above are what the Cato Institute used as their source.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Depends on where you pull the data from, but yes, the average savings rate in the US has been pegged at anywhere from 3 to 7%....abysmally low (and much of that from "automatic" savings such as 401k contributions).

The problem is everytime the savings rate goes up we have a recession.

[rev]

Kid -- do you know whether the numbers provided by the US Census Bureau account for the amount of money taken by the government in taxes, or, if so, whether it takes into account local and sales taxes in addition to federal taxes?

It would be interesting to see if the lowest quintile ended up *losing* more money due to rising local and state taxes (including sales taxes), while the upper quintiles saw a higher jump in income as their federal taxes were being cut (and they don't pay nearly as high a percentage of their income in sales and local taxes).

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The problem is everytime the savings rate goes up we have a recession.

That is typical of Kid : take the consequence for the cause. Savings dont provoque recession but people become more cautious when in recession, and save more mainly by delaying expenses not absolutely necessary.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


That is typical of Kid : take the consequence for the cause. Savings dont provoque recession but people become more cautious when in recession, and save more mainly by delaying expenses not absolutely necessary.

I'm interested in your opinion. What is a greater cause for recessions than reduced consumer spending?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by rev
Kid -- do you know whether the numbers provided by the US Census Bureau account for the amount of money taken by the government in taxes, or, if so, whether it takes into account local and sales taxes in addition to federal taxes?

It would be interesting to see if the lowest quintile ended up *losing* more money due to rising local and state taxes (including sales taxes), while the upper quintiles saw a higher jump in income as their federal taxes were being cut (and they don't pay nearly as high a percentage of their income in sales and local taxes).

I believe it's gross income. The Census Bureau just calls it income at the site. You might what to look into it further. I'm not sure.