Comments on: The Great American Paycheck Squeeze
Add a Comment
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- I agree with the two posters who contradict the economist who believes we are "better off" as a group (middle class). As they already noted, the economist missed two important points in his 'proofs' of well being:
1. We have a lot of stuff - and we have record level, crushing credit card debt. We have become a nation of we need it now, instant gratification craving people. We have forgotten (or never learned) the fulfillment of working hard to save money to get something we desire. These are the extras, better TVs, bigger/fancier cars, every new phone that comes out.
2. We make more per household than in 1970 - and the vast majority of those households are dual earners. And the rebuttal voiced by the 1st economist is an important one too - the executive management levels took obscenely more of the expanded pie than they should have.
Thank you Sunday morning for the stories about Toms shows that let us know there is a way to make money and do good, be fair, let everyone sit at the table of rewards. - Reply to this comment
- There is a typo in the subtitle. It should be .1%, not .01%.
I have no clue who he is, but Stephen Rose seems to have exposed himself as a total idiot. The malls are filled because there are still enough people in the middle class that have a little bit of disposable income left. However, the idiots in DC and in Corporate America are quickly moving any wealth we have over to China and India by offshoring all of our jobs.
I do wish more employers would think like SAS. I work for a company that has absolutely no goal other than paying out more dividends each year than the year before. Employees are just things that can be churned over when they get too costly for the business. - Reply to this comment
- "...Rose uses a different set of numbers. He points out that the median income of American workers has been rising steadily, from about $49,000 dollars in 1970 to $62,000 in 2008..."
The reason that Rose is a lying S.o.S, is that in order to live the lifestyle that 49,000 bought in 1970, you need to be pulling in $286,098.79 today because the cumulative U.S. Price Inflation (CPI-U, Annual Average)
1970-2010 = 483.87%
U.S. Price Inflation (CPI-U, Annual Average) 1970-2010
1970 = 5.7%
1971 = 4.4%
1972 = 3.2%
1973 = 6.2%
1974 = 11.0%
1975 = 9.1%
1976 = 5.8%
1977 = 6.5%
1978 = 7.6%
1979 = 11.3%
1980 = 13.5%
1981 = 10.3%
1982 = 6.2%
1983 = 3.2%
1984 = 4.3%
1985 = 3.60%
1986 = 1.9%
1987 = 3.60%
1988 = 4.1%
1989 = 4.8%
1990 = 5.4%
1991 = 4.2%
1992 = 3.0%
1993 = 3.0%
1994 = 2.6%
1995 = 2.8%
1996 = 3.0%
1997 = 2.3%
1998 = 1.6%
1999 = 2.2%
2000 = 3.40%
2001 = 2.8%
2002 = 1.6%
2003 = 2.3%
2004 = 2.7%
2005 = 3.40%
2006 = 3.2%
2007 = 2.8%
2008 = 3.8%
2009 = -0.4%
[Year 2010 not included in calculations].
So it is clear that Rose is just another ASPD suffering neo-CON, who still believes in the failed "trickle down Reaganomics" and intentionally ignores important facts that show how skewed his data really is. - Reply to this comment
- If the average American wasn't expected to pay for all the illegal immigrants coming into the US, we might be able to struggle thru. But then, the average American worker is also paying for a bunch of lowlifes who don't work, so it is a struggle financially. So much for socialism and marxism, Barry.
- Reply to this comment
- A very clear illustration that for most the American Dream is dead.
- Reply to this comment
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
