[Acciblyfluila]

The claims of increasing poverty and lack of progress at the lowest quintile of income is not a sustainable arguement.

Clinton circa 1992 had a poverty rate in excess of 15% and almost 39 million people in a state of poverty this following the 1990 recession. BY the time he left office had an effective poverty rate of 11+% with something like 32 million in a state of poverty. With two years left in Clinton's terms he was at a poverty level of ~12.8%.

Bush has been holding steady at 12.5-12.6% this coming off a more pronounced recession in 2000-2001. An although to early to say, it would appear that the graph indicates the poverty level has peaked and is coming down.

Poverty Level Graphs- Census

[Dilangfh]

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.

[SOgLak]

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

[Uzezqelj]

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.

[EsAllCams]

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.

[gregmcal]

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.

[dgdhgjjgj]

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.

[sitescools]

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

[Frodogzzz]

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.

[zenihan]

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.

[meridiasas]

Depends.

If you truly say we were at a better state pre-9/11. There is no arguing.

If you say for the record things haven't improved since the recovery started in 2002 you are full o' shite.

All depends how you frame the arguement. If you want to be deceptive and claim no recession existed or even started under Clinton and lay all the blame of the recession on Bush have at it. (Realize you are a lying sack o shite but have at it none the less ).

Or you can frame the arguement that the recesssion was prolonged and worsened by actions/inactions Bush took but that has by and large been dispelled as well as it is fairly well cannon (to the extent a President can influence the economy that is) at this time that Bush's tax cuts did moderate and lessen the effect of the recession.

[johobuo]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Add one percent (about $450) per year to the 2005$ data in the bottom of Ramo's table and you get a slight upward trend in median income since 2000.

edits: formatting If you truly say we were at a better state pre-9/11. There is no arguing. I stand corrected.

[tigoCeree]

pchang

Why has America instituionalized keeping up with the Jonses mentality rather than dealing with ones own situation?

Envy is such a petty emotion.

Whats more is the natural state of your wife to almost feel guilty about being one of the lucky ones. Where did that first gut response come from?

[mosypeSom]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Whats more is the natural state of your wife to almost feel guilty about being one of the lucky ones. Where did that first gut response come from? I don't think my wife feels guilty at all. She was just convinced in her gut that the average was doing worse.

[Wheegiabe]

If only people wouldn't just feel guilty about those who are starving and in trouble in the world and do something.

JM

[jeepgrandch]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
pchang

Why has America instituionalized keeping up with the Jonses mentality rather than dealing with ones own situation?

Envy is such a petty emotion.

Whats more is the natural state of your wife to almost feel guilty about being one of the lucky ones. Where did that first gut response come from? Jesus Ogie, can we ever elect anyone that says this?

[Emapymosy]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
pchang

Why has America instituionalized keeping up with the Jonses mentality rather than dealing with ones own situation?

Envy is such a petty emotion. See Fred Hirsch, The Social Limits to Growth, or look elsewhere for discussion of positional goods. Humans are social animals, and for most middle class people, products are less important for their intrinsic uses than for their social uses. Some people (including the wiki entry on positional goods) focus on status type goods - owning a Rolls. Id say (and ISTR Hirsch saying) its more to do with the social and network uses of the goods. If you dont own a phone in a society without phones, youre ok, cause people routinely visit without calling first. In a society where most own phones, youre likely to be socially isolated without one. Today having a phone isnt enough, you need a PC and an internet connection (and i dont mean for forums like this, just for the normal day to day communications). These are of course strongest for communications and personal transportation, but theyre not absent from other categories. Sometime people can overcome this by associating with people in a like economic situation, but thats not always easy or costless.

To sum up, worrying about the Gini coefficient is not ALL about envy.