GOP losing grip on married moms

[Ramo]

They've also gone down (slightly) from 2001.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


The elitism of people like Odin (gah everyone who disagrees with me is stupid!!!) and the "elitism" of Drake's argument (it's worrisome that the electorate, by and large, seems to believe something that's simply not supported by evidence) are entirely different beasts.

First, not really. If we take Odin and Drake as paradigms for their respective movements (which we really shouldn't), in both cases they claim positions of privilege. In both cases, the argument is that the electorate can't see the larger issues involved, but that I can. Both cases are, essentially, that the voters are ignoring their best interests.

Second, and more importantly, what the statistics say doesn't matter. What matters is what is happening in a person's community. In my Congressional District, every other week it seems like another factory is closing down or announcing layoffs. Tobacco, the primary agricultural product in the region, has become remarkably less profitable, and certain communities have widespread and visable unemployment. Now, it doesn't matter what the numbers say; this is what people see. This is the narrative. This is the problem with saying, "the electorate believes something that's not supported by evidence."

[Dinner]

Originally posted by flash9286

And there we have it. Everyone but the super rich are seeing their average hourly earnings going down. The rich are just doing so well that they are spiking the average.

[Ramo]

Anyways, real median incomes have been basically static (but slightly down) since the end of 2001, despite having gone consistently up during the previous eight years (netting about a 13% difference).

[Odin]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
So now you're the only one who's not in touch with reality? Thanks, kid...

Beter then being stuck with you.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo
Median incomes have definitely gone down between 2000 and 2005 (from $47,599 to $46,326 in 2005 USD). So the idea that Middle America is prospering but the liburl media is brainwashing them is absurd. If you factor in increasing health insurance costs, rising tuition, and the imminent popping of the housing bubble, the picture ain't particularly good.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h08.html

The top half of the page are nominal incomes and the bottom half inflation adjusted incomes.

Thats kind of the whole problem with a recession. 2000-2001 was a recesssion in case you were wondering. Course it wouldn't be prudent to say that the trend already started in 1999 wherein the median was at its all time high @ $47,761 and then came down by March 2000 to $47,599 under Clinton's watch.

The factoring in of all the other crap (boohoo things get expensive such as insurance, tuition, gasoline, housing etc.) is the reason why dollars are adjusted to 2005 dollars as it presumes inflation accordingly.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo
Anyways, real median incomes have been basically static (but slightly down) since the end of 2001, despite having gone consistently up during the previous eight years (netting about a 13% difference).

Gee wow. Incomes suck during recessions. Like in 1989 - 1993 or 1999-2001. Thats brilliant. Just Brilliant I tells ya.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

OMFG it took teh Clinton 6 years to recover from his recession in 1990. By 1996 he was finally able to achieve same net incomes as people were achieving in 1990. Teh horror.

[Ramo]

OMFG it took teh Clinton 6 years to recover from his recession in 1990. By 1996 he was finally able to achieve same net incomes as people were achieving in 1990. Teh horror.

His recession? Confused, are we?

Thats kind of the whole problem with a recession. 2000-2001 was a recesssion in case you were wondering.

Did you read the quote? That's why I pointed out 2001 (i.e. March of 2002). After the recession. I'll make the point again: median incomes have gone down from 2001 to 2005. Despite going up 13% over the previous 8 years.

Course it wouldn't be prudent to say that the trend already started in 1999 wherein the median was at its all time high @ $47,761 and then came down by March 2000 to $47,599 under Clinton's watch.

You realize that's like a quarter of a percent, right?

The factoring in of all the other crap (boohoo things get expensive such as insurance, tuition, gasoline, housing etc.) is the reason why dollars are adjusted to 2005 dollars as it presumes inflation accordingly.

As I indicated, I think that the calculation of inflation isn't really accurate.

[Kuciwalker]

Did you read the quote? That's why I pointed out 2001 (i.e. March of 2002). After the recession. I'll make the point again: median incomes have gone down from 2001 to 2005. Despite going up 13% over the previous 8 years.

Do those figured include all of 2001? The big crash occured in the middle of 2001, so better numbers would measure from very late 2001 or 2002 to 2005.

[Ramo]

Yes. As the page says, the figure is for March of the following year (2002).

[Kuciwalker]

I can't read continue.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo


His recession? Confused, are we?

Not really. While the mild recession officially ended and all signs were pointing positive by the time Clinton took office in '92 (thus allowing him the opportunity to claim credit for recovery and great economic performance) his first few years (92 and 93) saw decreases in real median income.

More proof that says income growth lags recessions. In this case gains weren't observable until almost 6 years after the recession ended.

Did you read the quote? That's why I pointed out 2001 (i.e. March of 2002). After the recession. I'll make the point again: median incomes have gone down from 2001 to 2005. Despite going up 13% over the previous 8 years.

Yawn. And this differs in pattern from any other recession and recovery pattern in what regard? Truth of the matter is Clinton handed Bush a recession and then to make matters worse 9/11 compounded the injury to the economy. The recovery is quite amazing considering these two facts.

(Now realistically I am of course one of those people that think Presidents are nothing more than cheerleader for the economy. With claims of credit and claims of blame being by and large unfair to lay at the presidents feet as their ability to influence the economy is rather limitted)

Course it wouldn't be prudent to say that the trend already started in 1999 wherein the median was at its all time high @ $47,761 and then came down by March 2000 to $47,599 under Clinton's watch.

You realize that's like a quarter of a percent, right?

Point being is that the recession had already started under Clinton's watch and was more profound in effect and duration than the preceeding 1989-90/91 recession (and again for the record real wages were still falling even after that recession ended under Clintons watch) due in part to Dotcom unrealism as well as the profound hit to the economy via 9/11.


But it is interesting albeit unsurprising that you were disingenuous to say that Clinton had 8 years of real median income growth.

As I indicated, I think that the calculation of inflation isn't really accurate.

Why? Simply because you can point to outlyers that show out of control increases? Thats called cherry picking. For every tuition increase Joe American sees there is a computer at half the price and 4 times the features.

[MRT144]

yet that computer is still a couple hundred plus becomes neccesary for school. not an option. it becomes a forced cost of college along with tuition, not something that balances the scales

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

You miss the point MRT. You have a narrowly defined set of wants and needs that most Americans don't. Your particular bugaboo is college and college expenses.

Most Americans who live to ripe old ages of 70 have 50 years of working life of which they have 4ish years of personal experience with college expenses and perhaps another 8 for their kids. Most Americans don't necessarily exprience the college tuition increases phenomena at present but do however get to take advantage of the low cost of consumer goods inclusive of food (in tems of real dollars), electronics, etc.

Just because you and Ramo feel a current pinch due to your current situation, doesn't mean that inflationary adjustments aren't valid across the larger demographics.