How can you be fooled about the economy?

Question

• Salaries are still below where they were at the start of the recovery in November 2001. That, while productivity -- the growth of the economic pie -- is up by almost 15 percent. Meaning we're working harder, producing more, for the same money as five years ago.

• Since the recession ended in 2001, 50 percent more of the growth in corporate income was sucked up as profits than after past recessions. That's left less for those of us who work for a living.

• As a result, median household income has now fallen for five years in a row. It was 4 percent, or $2,000, lower in 2004 than it was in 1999


http://www.alternet.org/story/30447/

“The administration muzzles routine economic information that's unfavorable. Last year, for example, the administration stopped issuing a monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics report, known as the Mass Layoff Statistics program, that tracked factory closings throughout the country. The cancellation was made known on Christmas Eve in a footnote to the department's final report—a document that revealed 2,150 mass layoffs in November, cashiering nearly a quarter-million workers. The administration claimed the report was a victim of budget cuts. After the Washington Post happened to catch this bit of data suppression, the BLS report was reinstated. (Interestingly, President George H.W. Bush buried these same statistics in '92, also during a period of job losses. They were revived by President Clinton.) “


http://www.slate.com/id/2085481/

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/opinion/07tues1.html?ex=1180152000&en=284afa6fadb43b58&ei=5070

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03102005.html

Answer 1

Skip the jargon & the numbers. blueridge has hit it right on the nose.

All I can say as an "average" American is that what I bring in as a salary is not enough to make ends meet.

I am deeper in debt now than I was when I was unemployed for 2 years.

Answer 2

All your sources of information are from Liberal media- especially the NYTimes-- didn't the NY times find fraudulent info in some of their stories? I wonder how much goes unnoticed intentionally.

Let em address some of your stats:

1. Wages are sticky, there are lag times between the economy and wages. i.e. if we hit a recession tomorrow, your company will typically not cut your wage. If you lose your job 1 year from now, you may get a job at a lower wage.-- a one year lag time.

2. Being more productive is not a negative, it is a positive. The more productive americans are, the more money circulates, the more we make money off dividends and capital gains.- probably not considered by your liberal sources.

3. Profits for a company and its owners (shareholders) is a good thing. thus, these companies are healthy, expanding providing more jobs, paying higher bonuses etc. Besides, the shareholders determines how a company runs...

4. 1999 to 2001 are not a good comparison years--- it is an anomoly since it was during the IT bubble, where every IT consultant and employee was getting ridiculous compensation. A real comparison is against longer periods of time-- again Liberal spin by your sources.

5. Are you counting the Bonuses and stock options as income? again ridiculous during the bubble. lag times of compensation means that people were being compensated in 01 at prior salaries, and bonuses paid out based on 2000.

6. The Houshold income you cite is based on Median not mean. It could mean that many recent college graduates are skewing the median lower. It could be a result of population traits with age, etc...Also, many immigrants that Clinton let in in his last year were uneducated. Their low wages count against your stats since 01....

Answer 3

Bad economic climate method much less coins for the federal government, for that reason there's loss of budget for presidency-funded schemes. In the longer run it ends up in 2 choices; both they down-measurement the federal government itself or they lift the taxes. Down-sizing the governance mannequin isn't desired at any place because of visible political pursuits, for that reason you and that i face this expand in taxes. Moreover, recall that government asks for taxes on the commencing of the 12 months however you pay on the finish of the 12 months otherwise you pay tax 'after' shopping or promoting something, So if you're towards any tax you continue to have time earlier than you pay it, become a member of efforts and lift your voice. Take Care.

Answer 4

Every time you post a question about economics, it becomes more embarrassingly obvious that you have never had an economics class. All you do is find alot of sources that cry about the falling sky. Just so you know, for every source you find speaking the ills of this economy, I can find you ten that speaks its praise.

Even if we assume that the economy in the late 90's was stronger than the current one, that doesn't mean that this economy is weak.

I guarantee that if everything today was the exact same except that Kerry or Gore was president, you would be praising the current economic expansion to high heaven. That is exactly what makes liberals like you pathetic. Not all liberals, just those of your ilk.

Answer 5

Wages have been stagnating since 1970's, and the poor are getting poorer, the middle treading water while the rich capture all the gains from increasing productivity, . Look at the data on the growing income inequality at http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/category/graph/
It is not just the Bush administration that is the problem, but at least democrats are not in favor of tax cuts on the rich..

Answer 6

Taking typical economics courses are a good way as well. You learn all about aggregate economic indicators. You learn that it doesn't matter who owns what. You learn that there are no profits in the system becuase compeititon elliminates them. Failure is good the economy because it promotes innovation and effort.

And if you are a good student, you become one of them: the wealthy 1%.

Answer 7

dunno bout all dat but i live in a trailer house