GOP losing grip on married moms

[MRT144]

Originally posted by 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.

of course in the long run its not that bad, but we arent creatures of long term future thinking.

although if we look at the past the tuition increases were met by grants and loans from the government. thats in fact a bigger gripe that i have, the private personal debt associated with college now, that didnt exsist at the level it did when my parents went to school. why is my generation not granted the same benefits that my parents were and is it fair?

also rising tuition costs are accompanied by the need to have more expensive tools to do the college work.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MRT144


of course in the long run its not that bad, but we arent creatures of long term future thinking.

although if we look at the past the tuition increases were met by grants and loans from the government. thats in fact a bigger gripe that i have, the private personal debt associated with college now, that didnt exsist at the level it did when my parents went to school.

And those types of cost increases to tuition need to be looked at critically. It is unfathomable how academia has become so freakin top heavy in administration with little finding its way to the professors and quality of eduction especially at the undergrad level.

I'm all for university accountability and reform. But that is not necessarily a failing of the federal governement save if you want the federal governement out of the educational game all together.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Lotm,

re: Positional goods that really wasn't even what I was going for. Not the envy that accompanies owning certain luxury goods/services(or implied status within soceity as a consequence) but merely the visceral feeling that someone makes a lot of income and that in of itself is an inherent unfairness (regardless of how that income is put to use).

As for your other points. Agreed some costs are essentials. Transportation and communication costs as an example. But as I alluded to earlier those types of costs are among the most affordable ever (notable exception being cost increases in gasoline) to the larger public.

I didnt want to address the visceral unfairness issue, as that gets into larger questions of Rawlsian justice - I dont think a purely utilitarian analysis is quite complete on that either - think, for example of how some folks here like to minimize the meaning of 9/11 by comparing it to say, accidental deaths. A death imposed by others is an injustice, while one imposed by nature, or chance, is not. Similarly a lack due to distribution questions MAY be a question of justice in a way that a lack forced on all by circumstance is not. But thats a sound bite on a huge issue, and not one I intend to delve far into now. Suffice it to say that the issue goes back at least to biblical times, and is not a whim.

But I tend to think you miss the implications of the positional goods arguement. It may not matter that say, communication goods and services have gotten cheaper. Yup, long distance calls are cheaper than when i grew up ("shhhh! its LONG DISTANCE") and conventional phones are practically disposable. But when I was growing up there were pay phones, and you werent looked down on if you didnt have a cell phone for each family member, plus a high speed internet connection. The point is that with respect to a range of goods, including but not limited to transport and comm, a middle class family faces a constantly moving target. Given the social realities of middle class life, it is NOT surprising that an adult with a higher real income than her parents had, but a lower relative income, should feel stressed, a stress which, IMO, is dictated by actual social realities, NOT feelings of envy.

[Ramo]

My skepticism of the inflation calculation isn't really borne out of an alternative calculation. I just see a lot of major costs - education, health care, housing going up, bankruptcies and debts at extremely high levels, etc. But I'll assume Adam's opinion for the time being since it's not central to my point.

Anyways, my point was NOT, as Ogie went ahead and assumed, that the numbers clearly show that Clinton's policies were better for the middle class than Bush's, but that the middle class has not been doing particularly well recently - essentially static (up 1% by AS's calculation or down a similar amount by the standard calculation). So the reason why the middle class isn't enthusiastic about Republican fiscal policies is that they haven't been particularly prosperous while they have been in power.

[Ramo]

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

I clearly didn't mean that things were getting better every moment for all eight years, just that there was a clear, consistent trend upwards. Disingenuous? You are pathetic.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin


No you just have to have a basic understanding of math. Let's make it simple. Low income person X sees his wages go down 2%, middle income guy Y sees his income stagnate, while rich guy Z sees his go up 14%. Wow, we just had 4% increases in wages for the YEAR!!!! I have of course weighted all groups equally which isn't true but is unnecisary to illistrate my point.

Statistics lie and liars use statistics. People's realities are very different which was the whole point of John Kerry's Two America's speech. We have a wealthy few who are getting everything and a vast majority who are getting **** on. That's just not a good way to run a country.

You're excoriating statistics in favor of populist rhetoric? The rich may be getting richer, but they don't make their money from paychecks by and large, they make it from dividend checks. So an increase in wages of 4% certainly does benefit more non-wealthy than wealthy citizens.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo
My skepticism of the inflation calculation isn't really borne out of an alternative calculation. I just see a lot of major costs - education, health care, housing going up, bankruptcies and debts at extremely high levels, etc. But I'll assume Adam's opinion for the time being since it's not central to my point.

In other words as I stated earlier you are cherry picking.

Anyways, my point was NOT, as Ogie went ahead and assumed, that the numbers clearly show that Clinton's policies were better for the middle class than Bush's,

Actually I beleive I was crystal clear on this point. I believe Presidential policies have square root of F!@@# all to with the economy. Minor effects at best through governmental spendings spurring ineconomy to taxation policies. I don't seem to necessarily be an advocate of either Clinton or Bush policies.

What I am however extremely critical of is the following: Recessions require a certain amount of time to recover from. If one simply looks at the mild recessionof 1989-90 then one easily sees it took 6 years (1996) to recover real wages back to where they were in circa 1990.

2000-2001 recession was a much more profound recession in part worsened by dotcom failing in part worsened by 9/11 uncertainties. Given that, and were I to take Adam Smiths arguement that CPI is artifically inflated the recovery this time around happened in 5 short years as opposed to 6 back in the 90's. I give no credit to Bush or credit to Clinton for either of those situations but merely comment that if this is all true then this latest recovery is all themore immpressive as it made up more ground in a shorter period of time than the recovery of the 90's.

but that the middle class has not been doing particularly well recently - essentially static (up 1% by AS's calculation or down a similar amount by the standard calculation). So the reason why the middle class isn't enthusiastic about Republican fiscal policies is that they haven't been particularly prosperous while they have been in power.

And this is where I truly find you disingenuous. By purposely picking a date of 2000 and focussing solely on that date (yawn I no doubt will hear but that represent the beginnning of Bush's term of office) which represents a high water mark of earnings pre-recession you deliberately attempt to imply a weakness in recovery efforts. As indicated above there is every reason to believe this recovery is actually stronger than the 1990-1996 recovery as wages recovered faster than they did in 1996.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo



I clearly didn't mean that things were getting better every moment for all eight years, just that there was a clear, consistent trend upwards. Disingenuous? You are pathetic.

You didn't ehhh???

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).

Sorry I take the meaning consistently a bit different then.

But the crux of your arguement is that Clinton had put the county on such a good track,


...............cept if one looks at it he left office with the country on the brink of a recession that looks like it actually started in his last year in office. Whoops can't have that meme flying about can we Ramo? Thats what I mean about being disingenuous.

[Ramo]

And this is where I truly find you disingenuous. By purposely picking a date of 2000 and focussing solely on that date (yawn I no doubt will hear but that represent the beginnning of Bush's term of office) which represents a high water mark of earnings pre-recession you deliberately attempt to imply a weakness in recovery efforts.

That's YOUR assumption. You're really making an ass of yourself with this disingenuous bull****. I didn't say anything of the sort. All I said is that the middle class clearly did better during the Clinton era than during the Bush era. I did not attribute this to specific policies anywhere in this thread. This thread is about electoral politics, thus perceptions are everything. This is a really ****ing simple point.



Incidentally, aren't you being disingenuous for including last year, the high water mark for the housing bubble?

Sorry I take the meaning consistently a bit different then.

There wasn't a constant rate of increase during the other 7 years. OMGF liAAR!!!

[MRT144]

youre both intellectually bankrupt for not admitting that cyclical economics has a lot to do with the record of presidents and their economic legacy. clinton was as responsible as teh reagan for the economic situation they inherited and rode upwards.

on the other hand its easy to screw something up, long term, with quick remedies to down strokes in the economy.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MRT144
youre both intellectually bankrupt for not admitting that cyclical economics has a lot to do with the record of presidents and their economic legacy. clinton was as responsible as teh reagan for the economic situation they inherited and rode upwards.

on the other hand its easy to screw something up, long term, with quick remedies to down strokes in the economy.

MRT I believe I alluded (no actually clearly stated) that I think Presidents are nothing more than cheerleaders for the economy and that their ability to impact the economy is minor at best.

I give very little credit to Clinton or Bush for their economic recoveries.

[Ramo]

youre both intellectually bankrupt for not admitting that cyclical economics has a lot to do with the record of presidents and their economic legacy.

Where did I claim otherwise?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Why has America instituionalized keeping up with the Jonses mentality rather than dealing with ones own situation?

Envy is such a petty emotion.

Call it what you will. It is what it is. I think you are just trying to shame people into accepting your morality.

[Kidlicious]

Regarding wages. I find it incredible that numerous conservatives are so delusional about so called wage growth. In 2005 wages for managers and professionals did not even keep up with the growth in the CPI. And we know of course that the unskilled worker had no nominal growth in wages to speak of. The CPI is still the commonly used way to measure inflation. No measure is going to be perfect, but the fact remains the same that most americans are well aware of the fact that there has been no significant increase in their standard of living since the 70s. And they are most certainly correct. You can change the way you measure inflation all you want, but you can't change what people know about their own damn pocket book.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Wage growth over the past year (4%) has been greater than the average for the past 25 years (3.3%). No, I'm afraid it's really ignorance...

Right, because I'm so happy with my prosperous lifestyle at $7.00 an hour working at Super Target.




Anyway, this will all change for me soon after I graduate this December with my MA.