the eunuchs are getting richer!

So where do you think that $100 billion went?

To Iraq?

THE RICH ARE GETTING RICHER

Which is a good thing. Rich getting richer means more people are in higher income tax brackets who pay higher tax rates rather than people in lower income tax brackets who pay lower tax rates. This means more tax revenue for the government. The increase in tax revenue can be used to pay off the deficit which causes lower interest rates and therefore stronger economic growth due to the low interest rates. With the stronger economy there will be more jobs and lower unemployment for workers. Therefore, the rich getting richer helps both the rich and the poor.

So where do you think that $100 billion went?

To Iraq?

Only for a visit. Then it came home to Halliburton.

"THIS JUST IN!....THE RICH ARE GETTING RICHER!"

Hehehe! What else is news? :D

I'll say it again. 1972-1973, the peak income year, also the year of peak oil in the US. If your not energy independent then it's imposible to have real growth. The distribution of wealth is somewhat independent of this (and is affected by government policy such as free trade agreement, progressive taxation and right to organize laws), however the incentive for corporations to offshore becomes much greater when the US no longer produces more energy than it uses. Offshoring breaks unions and lowers wages leading to wealth concentration in the corporate class.

It looks like the median income of men has remained constant since about 1972, whereas the median income of women has gradually risen since then. Purchasing power is considerably increased, however: $500 buys much better home entertainment, computing, and camera equipment than it did back then, as well as better phone service and better access to news.

Al -

Taking into account all the taxes that people pay, the rich don't pay a higher tax rate than the poor. They pay roughly the same percentage of their income in taxes. It's the middle third who pay more. Income tax brackets are relatively meaningless when one takes into account tax write-offs and loopholes along with other types of taxes.

This topic was well-covered in David Cay Johnston's book Perfectly Legal.

Look at poverty levels (page 20 of the report). My goodness, doesn't the drop in poverty correspond to Clinton's 8 year term?

And what a coincidence, it's been rising ever since Bush's coup. Damn those facts and their liberal bias!

What we have here is a failure of the common man to fully grasp the new economy.

There is a lot of money out there in the hands of the wealthy just begging to be taken away. You just have to market your services and products to them. Your lack of ingenuity in doing so is not a good excuse to go crying to the government.

But, the Boskins commission says that CPI overstates inflation, so even though you all THINK you're making less, you're actually making more.

keptsimple: Taking into account all the taxes that people pay, the rich don't pay a higher tax rate than the poor. They pay roughly the same percentage of their income in taxes. It's the middle third who pay more. Income tax brackets are relatively meaningless when one takes into account tax write-offs and loopholes along with other types of taxes.

That's true in a "static" sort of way, but incomplete in a "dynamic" way. When someone gets an increase in income from last year to this, his or her effective tax rate increases. Anybody can do this: got to your last tax returns and refigure what your taxes would have been had you received a $1000 more right at the start of the year. In CA, in a certain tax bracket, you'd have had to pay $280 more in federal tax and $75 more in CA income tax. As people's incomes rise, the federal tax take rises at a higher percentage rate; that's what caused the federal deficit to shrink under Clinton, and over the last 3 years under Bush. And it's why people in the upper income brackets supported the tax cuts passed by Congress in 1999, 2000, and 2001.

We're all far better off than those stupid Germans that tried to Unionize Wal Mart (and so Wal Mart won't open stores in Communist Germany)

If you haven't read the McKinsey report that shows how great Wal Mart has been, and has made us all rich, then you're an idiot, and you have no right to take part in this discussion. In fact, you'd best go shoot yourself now.

But, the Boskins commission says that CPI overstates inflation, so even though you all THINK you're making less, you're actually making more.

Whoo hoo! I'm rich! RICH, I tells ya!

You just have to market your services and products to them.

I'm going to start a business selling diamond-studded backpacks for dogs.

Look at those trend lines. Another 100 years and lesbian couples will be tromping all over Long Island's Gold Coast.

the fact that median incomes remaind practically constant (or fell somewhat) while mean incomes rose is compatible with two characteristics of a healthy economy: everybody already employed at the beginning of the year received a pay increase during the year; many people joined the workforce in entry level positions at low wages.

It takes more than the disparity in the rates of growth of median and mean incomes to show that there is something wrong with the economy.

Well, the highlight of the report (per its authors) is that real median income went up, not down. Since real median earnings were down, I guess the extra money went out as pensions, plus maybe some dividends and interest.

Rich getting richer means more people are in higher income tax brackets who pay higher tax rates rather than people in lower income tax brackets who pay lower tax rates.

Actually, rich getting richer means the same people already in the higher bracket just get more money.

This means more tax revenue for the government.

No it doesn't. A lot of the increase revenue for the rich is in capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate. And let's not forget the effect of tax shelters, shall we?

The increase in tax revenue can be used to pay off the deficit

HA HA HA HA HA

which causes lower interest rates

And interest rates have been falling how long, now?

and therefore stronger economic growth due to the low interest rates. With the stronger economy there will be more jobs and lower unemployment for workers.

Which explains why we're making less money, right?

Therefore, the rich getting richer helps both the rich and the poor.

Sure it does, since the rich can now afford to hire more servants.

It takes more than the disparity in the rates of growth of median and mean incomes to show that there is something wrong with the economy.
Posted by: republicrat on August 29, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Like the disparity between the amount the Government takes in, and the amount it spends?

Like the disparity between the amount our Economy exports, and the amount it Imports?

"American Buzzard" as a nom de nonsense is the funniest thing I've read here in weeks.

"That's true in a "static" sort of way, but incomplete in a "dynamic" way. "

What? The reason what keptsimple said is true is that income taxes aren't the only taxes in the US. Richer people pay more taxes on investements which are lower than taxes on wages, don't pay social security on all of thier wages, and spend less of thier income so pay less of thier income in sales and property taxes than less-rich people.

The overall US tax system including all taxes federal, state, and local, is pretty much flat.

The deficit shrank under clinton because the economy was growing quickly for a long time, federal spending was growing more slowly, and tax rates were pretty stable.

What;s most noticeable to me is that the median wage for men, about $41,000, has remained constant for approximately 30+ years, since the mid-70's. Given that acutal income has increased tremendously during that time period, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the rich are getting much much richer, while the average guy has seen no change at all.

Kevin: Take a look at Table A-2 of the Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance report. (Click on the link, then go to p.45 of the PDF.) Under "Males" and "Females", see the leftmost column? Its heading is, "number with earnings." That means if men, or women, joined the bottom rungs of the labor force faster than the wages of those already in the labor force increased, then the median wage went down, even though the group as a whole was earning more money.

Household income is a better benchmark, because households don't enter and leave the labor force; they just are, and the number of households increases at a fairly modest rate. Household went up in real terms for the first time since 1998-99. Not by very much: a median $509 gain, multiplied by 114,000,000 households, accounts for only $58 billion. And the median household in 2005 is making about what the median household made in 1998, despite all the productivity gains since.

The conclusion is still correct - the rich got richer - but the median earnings by sex neither support nor detract from that conclusion.

gallons of poop: But, the Boskins commission says that CPI overstates inflation, so even though you all THINK you're making less, you're actually making more.

In 1998 I bought a Canon EOS camera with two lenses for about $800. the digital EOS with compatible lenses now costs about $1000, but saves me the hundreds of $$$ per year I pay for developing film. Hence, my purchasing power has increased. Everybody has stories like this. The CPI is a good try, but it definitely underestimates the increasing purchase power of money in the consumer products markets.

For a little under $200 I bought an external LaCie hard drive with @%)GB capacity.

And for what you pay now, you couldn't even get access to the Web 10 years ago, or high speed connections 5 years ago.

"We're all far better off than those stupid Germans that tried to Unionize Wal Mart (and so Wal Mart won't open stores in Communist Germany)"

Hehehe, great joke, Birkel! In fact, our own retail giants are reponsible for preventing WalMart from bewing successful on the german market. And, sadly, that not much better than the smiley folks in embracing unions, they just do what they are legally forced to do. Rumour says the WM managers never got accustomed to our laws, they thought the whole world must run according to US rules. Oh, and btw, WalMart had lots of stores here but did sell them recently because of their constant failure to make any profits. :)

It takes more than the disparity in the rates of growth of median and mean incomes to show that there is something wrong with the economy.

Right. Like historic numbers of bankruptcy filings or record amounts of personal debt or negative savings rates not seen since the Great Depression or a weak dollar or --

Well, let's hope none of those ever rear their ugly heads 'round here 'cause I'm rich, RICH I tells ya!

This topic was well-covered in David Cay Johnston's book Perfectly Legal

another one of those books i wasn't sure i was glad i had read, or regretted after i'd finished banging my head in frustration.

Republicrat: got to your last tax returns and refigure what your taxes would have been had you received a $1000 more right at the start of the year

well, since that's never happened to me, and since all of my "raises" have been less than inflation, i'm no so much worried about an "effective tax rate increase"

Noodle: Like the disparity between the amount our Economy exports, and the amount it Imports?

Yay, verily (whatever that means). But don't expect folks here to get too excited about the current account (trade) deficit. It's more than twice the budget deficit, almost twice as high (as % GDP) as its peak in the '80's, and close to where Thailand's was when their economy blew up and started the Asian crisis of the late '90's.

Around here though (and in many other forums, including the MSM) it barely merits a yawn.

"Hence, my purchasing power has increased."

The costs for houses and subsequently the rents have skyrocket in the last years. Hence, your purchasing power has decreased. :p

And for what you pay now, you couldn't even get access to the Web 10 years ago, or high speed connections 5 years ago.

Too fucking right! And another thing, the first house I bought, in 1982, cost about $80,000, but it only had 2 bedrooms. Whereas now, I have, lemme see, 5 bedrooms, but it only cost me, uh...

hmmm, bad example. Nevermind.

Ok, what about gas then? Back then, adjusted for inflation, about $3/gallon. Whereas now, why it's only... huh. Ok, fuck that.

Well, at least I can get a hamburger for 99 cents. Top that, whining lefties!

The costs for houses and subsequently the rents have skyrocket in the last years. Hence, your purchasing power has decreased. :p

Not to mention healthcare and energy costs, isn't that right boss?

In 1998 I bought a Canon EOS camera with two lenses for about $800. the digital EOS with compatible lenses now costs about $1000, but saves me the hundreds of $$$ per year I pay for developing film.

Digital image resolution is not equivalent to film resolution.

Apples and Oranges.

but saves me the hundreds of $$$ per year I pay for developing film.

It actually costs money to print digital photos -- unless you just let them sit on your computer, which would again be an apples to oranges comparison to using developed film to populate picture frames.

In other words, the total money income of the United States increased last year by more than $100 billion, and yet the incomes of the average worker went down.

Just to be pedantic, you meant the income of the median worker. It's impossible for the average worker's salary to decrease but the total to increase, since the average is just the total divided by the number of workers.

Its interesting to note that while the median income for both men and women declined, the median household income went up for the first time since Bush became President.

The real median income of households in the United States rose by 1.1 percent between 2004 and 2005, from $45,817 to $46,326 (Figure 1 and Table 1).

I am not sure what the explanation is, perhaps, more young adults are moving back home increasing household income?

I went back to look at the chart and saw that household income among "family households" had no statisticallly significant change, while income among male householders in "nonfamily households" was the only group with a statistically significant increase of 2.9%.

In otherwords median family household income was stagnant, and nonfamily household income increased for males.

oops, that's 250GB capacity.

two more examples: in 1998 I bought a Jeep Cherokee Sport with a 200HP I-6 engine and 4WD. Now, for the same price, I can get a similarly sized SUV with 4WD, other details the same, but a slightly more powerful and more fuel-efficient engine.

Housing is a two-edged sword. For people looking to buy, increases in housing costs represent a decrease in purchasing power; for the majority of American who already own homes, increases in housing prices do not represent a decrease in purchasing power. Even here the computed inflation rate overstates actual inflation: in San Diego county, not only has the median new home price increased, but the size of a median new home has increased, and the interior details have improved in quality. much of the increase (not all of it) was from people moving to what they perceived as better homes.

republicrat:
"however: $500 buys much better home entertainment, computing, and camera equipment than it did back then, as well as better phone service and better access to news"

I hate this kind of argument. In 1500 no one, not even the richest kings, had a dishwasher in their home (or castle). Now, most people have dishwashers. By the logic above, you could say that even poor Americans are better off than the richest kings of Europe 500 years ago. Is this really how we measure wealth honestly?

In 1998 I bought a Canon EOS camera with two lenses for about $800. the digital EOS with compatible lenses now costs about $1000, but saves me the hundreds of $$$ per year I pay for developing film.

Another point:
What is your cost for the equivalent Canon EOS camera today. What? You can't BUY an equivalent Film Camera at ANY price? What? You're forced into a specialty market that would price a film camera with the same features for thousands of dollars? What? the market basically forces you to accept the new paradigm without giving you a choice of the competing older paradigm?

What? The Boskins Comission made their conclusion based on a flawed premise?

Apples and Oranges.

That's the point. Inflation can not be accurately computed or meaningfully interpreted because the products in the economy are changing constantly.

I save by printing fewer of the pix that I take, and by skipping the film development costs completely. Resolution isn't always better with film than digital: the EOS has high resolution, and paper always has grain. For two years's worth of prints that are indistinguishable, and sent with Christmas letters and copies sent to friends cheaply by email, the benefit/cost ratio is greater with the nominally higher priced camera.

billions of people everyday make apples to oranges comparisons: they're shoppers. The digital cameras are driving the film cameras out of the market. Don't you think the buyers know they are getting better deals with the digital cameras?

two more examples: in 1998 I bought a Jeep Cherokee Sport with a 200HP I-6 engine and 4WD. Now, for the same price, I can get a similarly sized SUV with 4WD, other details the same, but a slightly more powerful and more fuel-efficient engine.

According to Cars.com, in 1998 the Jeep Cherokee you described cost about $19,800.

Today's Cherokees cost $28,000.

Please point me to an SUV that you can buy for today for $19,000 that has a more powerful engine and 4 Wheel Drive than the one you purchased in 1998, besides a KIA. Even the Explorer Sport starts at around $25,000.

You. Liar.

keptsimple,

Yes, that is how you measure wealth increases honestly. Over and over, we read on this blog how Americans are poorer today than they were 30 years ago. However, it is simply not true, and the evidence is all around you, from the televisions everyone, rich and poor, have, and, yes, the dishwashers.

Paying attention to monetary compensation, at the exclusion of all else, as Kevin Drum repeatedly does, is misleading. We can debate whether inequality is increasing, decreasing, or is even meaningful, but arguments that the poor or even the median worker in the United States are worse off now than they were in 1973 in absolute terms is just simply wrong.

keptsimple: By the logic above, you could say that even poor Americans are better off than the richest kings of Europe 500 years ago. Is this really how we measure wealth honestly?

Yes. It is especially applicable to medical care. Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt and Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt (mother and wife of the future pres.) died within a few days of each other due to typhoid and infectious nephritis, respectively. At the time, both were quite common, and the rich were not automatically protected. Now even poor Americans do not die in large numbers from those diseases. FDR, who was quite rich, was paralyzed by polio; in the US there have been no paralytic polio cases for about a decade.

Poor people in the US today, as long as they stay away from addictive drugs and promiscuous sex, have better music, better health, lower incidence of perinatal death, better shoes and better access to information and great drama than the very rich of just 200 years ago.

"Rich getting richer means more people are in higher income tax brackets who pay higher tax rates rather than people in lower income tax brackets who pay lower tax rates."

Would you pls stop spinning and cling to the facts? All statistics show that in reality the rich today pay about the same percentage of income tax as the middle class. The reason behind that seems to be that the rich can make use of many more tax loopholes. And don't forget that Bush reduced the tax on capital investments.

So, the governmentz makes about the same money, regardless if it comes from the upper or the middle class.

"The increase in tax revenue can be used to pay off the deficit which causes lower interest rates and therefore stronger economic growth due to the low interest rates."

I think it didn't escape your attention that Bush is responsivle for the rising deficit and as a side effect of this also for the hifher intwerest rates, which puts many middle class households into trouble. So the only expalantion for your total misrepresentation of the true circumstances is that you try to deliberately mislead us. Well, sry, but you chose the wrong blog for that trick.

That's the point. Inflation can not be accurately computed or meaningfully interpreted because the products in the economy are changing constantly.

No - the point is - if you play fast-and-loose enough with your definitions, and comparisons, you can make the inflation "data" say anything you want.

By the logic above, you could say that even poor Americans are better off than the richest kings of Europe 500 years ago. Is this really how we measure wealth honestly?
Posted by: keptsimple on August 29, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

It's; "let them eat cake. And the bread today is better quality than the cake was 500 years ago."

Growing up our TV only got 4 channels. Now it can get, what, 400? Is that an improvement?

Cherry picking items proves nothing. Currently I am facing the dreaded 'sandwich generation' problem. Between higher college costs for my kids and higher medical bills for my parents I hardly have anything left for a sandwich.

Another example: In 1982, I paid $20.00 for a lap dance and also got....

Poor people in the US today, as long as they stay away from addictive drugs and promiscuous sex,
Posted by: republicrat on August 29, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

. . . and industrial waste, and energy monopolies, and mosques, and bad employers, and republican politicians. . . .

I think it didn't escape your attention that Bush is responsivle for the rising deficit and as a side effect of this also for the hifher intwerest rates, which puts many middle class households into trouble. . .
Posted by: Gray on August 29, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Funny thing, I noticed that too.

Reminds me of 1989. . .

"All statistics show that in reality the rich today pay about the same percentage of income tax as the middle class. The reason behind that seems to be that the rich can make use of many more tax loopholes."

No, it isn't (primarily) loopholes. Our overall tax system is simply pretty much flat. Social security, lower taxes on investment income than wages, sales taxes, property taxes, etc etc wipe out most of the progressivity of the federal income tax.

The federal tax system is somewhat progressive, but most state tax systems are highly regressive. Overall they pretty much cancel out (it varies state to state, my state of washington is one of the worst with the bottom 20% paying 20% of income to state and local taxes and the top 5% paying 4% mainly because we have no state income tax, and yes the percentage just drops as income increases fairly steadily).

Now even poor Americans do not die in large numbers from those diseases.

now people get to die from fancy new diseases like AIDS.

shorter republicrat:

Let's see. My biggest necessary expenditures have all skyrocketed over the years -- housing costs, education, transportation, healthcare, energy, and food -- but since my camera has a few more bells and whistles my purchasing power has definitely gone up!

but arguments that the poor or even the median worker in the United States are worse off now than they were in 1973 in absolute terms is just simply wrong.

1973 was after the birth control pill and before AIDS

From the report:

The Gini index, one of the most
widely used inequality measures, did
not measure a statistically significant
change in household income inequality
between 2004 and 2005.

The facts seem to contract the leftie mantra, don't they.

Snicker, republicrat forgot the 25 buck DVD player and free ringtones from my CokeRewards points! I am in hog heaven.

Funny thread, but you guys are all going to be sorry when Donny P finally wakes up from sleeping off another afternoon-to-dawn posting frenzy. I predict his head is going to be thumping like a bass drum.

republicrat: that's what caused the federal deficit to shrink under Clinton, and over the last 3 years under Bush.

the federal debt when bush came into office was 5.6-trillion...

this week it passed....8.5-trillion

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

.

if you are talking about the -budget- deficit...

THE TOP-4 U-S BUDGET DEFICITS:

1. 2004 (George W. Bush) $413 billion

2. 2003 (George W. Bush) $378 billion

3. 2005 (George W. Bush) $318 billion

4. 2006 (George W. Bush) $296 billion (projected)

http://origin.www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/sheets/hist01z1.xls

I am not sure what the explanation is, perhaps, more young adults are moving back home increasing household income?

Could be that. Could be less young adults moving out (same basic thing). Could be more people getting married.

Rich getting richer means more people are in higher income tax brackets who pay higher tax rates rather than people in lower income tax brackets who pay lower tax rates.

My God, we're all so lucky that the rich pay more in taxes with their much, much larger incomes!

I just wish that for a single year I could share the suffering of Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, having to pay those tremendous taxes!

I suppose there's some minor consolation in the income that remains after taxes, of course, but it hardly compensates for the pain, you know?

You could knock me over with a diamond encrusted platinum feather! Really you could, since I lost my job I haven't been eating or sleeping that well...

"I just wish that for a single year I could share the suffering of Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, having to pay those tremendous taxes!"

At least Warren Buffet COMPLAINED that he can't understand why he has to pay only the same percentage of taxes as a middle class worker. And the problem with Gates isn't that he doesn't pay higher taxes in the first place, he compüensates with doing welfare, but that he got his billions from the Micro$oft monopoly, which is hurting entrepeneurship and competition in the software market...

Gray,

There is nothing stopping Warren from paying more. The IRS doesn't object if you overpay.

Its interesting to note that while the median income for both men and women declined, the median household income went up for the first time since Bush became President.

No, that's not quite accurate. The real meadian earnings of men and women who worked full-time, year-round went down. Real median household income went up. You can explain that without an increase in household size if there are a relatively large number of households had people that did not work full-time, year-round but nonetheless contributed to household income.

Note, also, as I did above, that the Gini index was flat. That means that income inequality did NOT increase. So poor households must have shared in the growth to the same extent as rich. Could that be explained by a relative increase in the number of part-time jobs?

100 billon dollars? Uhhh.....Oil, drug, and hmo company ceo's and upper level management, halliburtons brain trust, Jack Abramhoff"s friends, and lawyers handling airline bankruptcys. oh forget it...lets blame Clinton!

"There is nothing stopping Warren from paying more. The IRS doesn't object if you overpay."
Hehe! But it looks as though Vuffet doesn't trust the governement to use his billions wisely. I guess he suspects they would only waste them for Iraq and other ill advised adventures. So he donated a cool 31 billions to the Gates foundation...
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=39120

"You can explain that without an increase in household size if there are a relatively large number of households had people that did not work full-time, year-round but nonetheless contributed to household income."

Or that there were lots of single income households who recognized that there wasn't enough money to make ends meet and so one partner, in most cases the wife, had to get a part time job, with all the negative consequences on the kids and the marriages.

Purchasing power has not increased even if our technology has. The coolest and most innovative stuff still costs a lot. How much did the best TV cost in 1970? How much does it cost today?

Just because I can buy an Apple II computer for $25 on ebay when it was $1300 in 1978 doesn't represent a 100 fold increase in my purchasing power, does it? An Apple II is pretty much worthless today because someone has convinced me that I need a dual core Pentium to shoot aliens in my dorm room. My quality of life has not really improved however. Quality of Life is mostly a relative thing especially in regards to the crap we buy to play with.

>In 1998 I bought (blah, blah, blah).

There are few things more annoying than hearing some yuppie go on and on about how cheap all his little toys are nowadays.

It pisses me off, and I *am* a yuppie with pretty much every toy you can think of and a few you can't. I can't imagine what people who are sweating rent, car insurance, and food think when they hear that shit.

Look, dude, today I can buy a DVD player for the same cost as 10 gallons of milk. My mums couldn't buy a DVD player in 1970-whatever 'cause they didn't exist, but we kids went thru that much milk easy every month.

Does this information, in any way, help see how stupid it is to use a toy as some sort of example of how we are richer?

Man where does the right get these people? The most amazing thing I discovered in my journey from clueless "libertarian" to the left of (gasp) Howard Dean is how fucking little people on the Republican side, the "party of business", understand anything economic.

Let's see. My biggest necessary expenditures have all skyrocketed over the years -- housing costs, education, transportation, healthcare, energy, and food -- but since my camera has a few more bells and whistles my purchasing power has definitely gone up!

For exactly the same procedure, health care costs have gone down. What has gone up has been the increasing complexity of each procedure, and the introduction of new procedures. Health care costs went up when doctors started ordering MRIs for knee injuries; over the past 10 years, MRIs for knee injuries have declined in cost.

As I mentioned, if you own your own home already, as a majority of Americans do, the increase in housing costs is an increase in your wealth, not a decrease; over the last 20 years, mortgage rates have generally declined, so you can buy a more expensive home with a given amount of money than before.

Transportation costs are generally down, except for the recent increases caused by the increase in fuel costs. The cost of transporting goods to the US is lower than ever before.

Some food prices have increased, some have decreased.

It is a good idea to look at all the items you purchase through the years, what it is you buy when you buy something (a digital camera has advantages over the film cameras that compensate for the lower pixel resolution), and how much the functionality/utility of what you buy has actually changed.

You scoff perhaps that a $200 250GB hard drive is a negligible item, but it does show that simple measures of inflation miss what actually happens in the economy. It definitely costs more than before to get a horse shod, but who cares? That mostly applies to rich people, and for penny-pinchers there are Easyboots.

The good news is that women are now making 77% as much as men, slightly higher than last year.

Whoo, hoo that's 2% more than it was in 1978!

No, I'm not bitter.

Republicrat,

You are missing the relative nature of Quality of Life. Even though somebody living at the poverty level today may have more technologically advanced stuff and access to better medical treatment than a nobleman of the 15th century does not mean that the noble suffered from a lower quality of life. It would be ridiculous to argue as such.

Take health care. If in 1950 the best medical treatment for knee ligament surgery cost $1000 (in today's dollars) but today the best treatment costs $25,000 the quality of life has greatly decreased for the person who can't afford the treatment today. "Ice it" may have been a legitimate answer in 1950 but it is not today, especially when you know another person with money will walk normal again while you will limp and suffer from arthritis. When you are sick and especially when you are dying, you want the best care available. Anything less reflects a decrease in quality of life.

And toys are still toys, whether it is a fancy digital camera or a newly smelted hunting musket. Only tastes have changed.

Transportation costs are generally down, except for the recent increases caused by the increase in fuel costs. The cost of transporting goods to the US is lower than ever before.

First things first. You lied about the Jeep Cherokee thing so you have zero credibility.

Secondly, your camera example has been shown to be bogus on many fronts.

Transportation costs are generally down

??? The Jeep Cherokee example shows just how much more expensive transportion has become. Vehicle costs are way up over the past decade, on the order of twenty to thirty percent, and fuel costs have roughly doubled.

So you're wrong again.

For exactly the same procedure, health care costs have gone down

Healthcare costs are higher than ever, and so much more expensive that 44 million Americans can't even afford it. A recent Harvard study showed that health care costs represent almost half of bankrupty claims, even for those people with coverage.

What are you smoking?

"Transportation costs are generally down, except for the recent increases caused by the increase in fuel costs."

Lincoln's doctor: "The president's head is generally bullet-free, except for the recent increase in bullets in it caused by the increase in actors shooting bullets in it."

You lied about the Jeep Cherokee thing so you have zero credibility.

I did not lie.

As to healthcare costs, the largest increase in healthcare costs is the increased number of tests and treatments (especially new drugs) that people receive.

More people than ever before are prescribed drugs that are called SSRIs. They are the most cost-effective treatments for depression. Over the last 30 years, the costs have come down as the first-invented drugs come off-patent. Fluoxetine hydrochloride ("Prozac") is much cheaper than 20 years ago. Effective treatment for depression has never been cheaper, but the aggregate costs of treating depression have gone up because more people are treated.

In like fashion, effective treatment for knee sprains, MI, and benign tumor on the brainstem have never been cheaper. Aggregate costs of all these treatments are higher because they have become cheap enough that more people can get them. Getting a doctor to pat your hand is more expensive than ever before, but actual effective treatments for actual problems are cheaper.

What ever youse may be " It takes one to know one ".

Whoo, hoo that's 2% more than it was in 1978!

By my calculation, this means women will achieve parity in 322 years, i.e. 2338 AD.

So you're in some big stinking rush, or something?

Republicrat

Those are some of the dumbest things I've ever read. keep this in mind

The poor people in Russia in 1917 were far better of and led a much better life than the Roman galley slaves in 17 BCE. The aristocrats in Russia in 1917 were also better off than those galley slaves. So just what the heck was that revolution all about anyway?

non-rube,

Republicrat is largely correct about the vehicles. You appear to be comparing today's Grand Cherokee with 1998's Cherokee Sport. It appears, based on specifications, that the closest comparison in today's Jeep family to the 1998 vehicle is the Jeep Liberty which has a starting MSRP price of $21-22K.

Jeep Liberty

When you apply a price deflator of 1.13, then the $19,800 you quoted is comparable to today's price, and there is not much doubt that the vehicle today is of higher quality than the new vehicle produced in 1998.

The one caveat is that we don't know the exact specifications of the vehicle Republicrat actually bought in 1998.

Tomeck

The Russian revolution was about the real disparity in the standard of living of a growing middle class and the really rich. (The same for the French revolution.) If educated middle class people don't think they have a chance to move up, the guys on top need to look out. The really poor don't often start revolutions. They are too busy trying to stay alive The trick Republicans want pull off during the next twenty years is to drop nearly everybody into deep poverty. Then they and their Yalie MBA friends can have the America they want, an America composed of extremely rich (them) and extremely poor (the rest of us.) Their problem is a lot of us are pretty well educated, and we want a chance to either move up or to at least continuing enjoying a middle class life style.

Poor people in the US today, as long as they stay away from addictive drugs and promiscuous sex, have better music, better health, lower incidence of perinatal death, better shoes and better access to information and great drama than the very rich of just 200 years ago.

Well sure, but if you stay away from drugs and sex, what's the point of being poor?

Plus, everyone I know would trade good shoes for a mudbath with the Hot Lesbian Cheerleaders(r) any day.

Yancey Ward: The one caveat is that we don't know the exact specifications of the vehicle Republicrat actually bought in 1998.

I was just about to report, because I just finished reviewing online what is available now. It was a 1999 Jeep Cherokee Sport that I bought in Oct of 1998. It had a manual transmission, A/C, electronic windows, two doors, and a very modest sound system (no CD). It is hard to get exactly the same thing now. Autotrans and 4 doors would have cost about $2000 extra back then. It did not have ABS or side impact airbags. It looks like, if I were in the market now, I would have to pay $23,500 and get the autotrans, full-time AWD, ABS, 4 doors, side impact air bags, and a better sound system. The engine would have slightly more power and slightly better fuel economy -- but I can't judge fuel economy from published ratings which are always off.

I spent months looking among all brands, and I would do the same now, online and on the lot.

Kevin Drum and most commentators at Political Animal exhibit a relentless drive to show that things are awful and getting worse. I think that if you look at all wage and price data, things are getting slowly better, and are not nearly as bad as portrayed. In 1966 I bought the Wagner operas Das Rheingold and Die Gotterdammerung for about $25 and $35 each (I even have the same productions, the Solti). that's about what they cost now, but the CDs have much better sound quality (especially dynamic range), and can be played lots more frequently without damage. For less than it cost to get the puny AR record player and cartridge, you can now get a jolt-resistant CD-player so you can listen to the music (this will sound silly) while four-wheeling in the desert.

All of us have computers. It isn't the computers that we buy, its the facility that they deliver. That facility is cheaper by the year.

Some things have increased in price, but I was surprized to find that I can still buy pork steak for the same price per pound as a couple decades back. The store is much bigger, and it has computerized checkout and inventory control, and the labor cost of bringing me the pork is way down.

In 1966 I bought the Wagner operas Das Rheingold and Die Gotterdammerung for about $25 and $35 each (I even have the same productions, the Solti).

Ok, that proves that you are some kind of commie foreign intellectual type, and are completely out of touch with Real Americans (tm).

"Well sure, but if you stay away from drugs and sex, what's the point of being poor?" Craigie

ROTFLMAO. That is the best line I have read in the last week.

republicrat:
I can't wait until Bush's insane war pushes gasoline prices to $20/gal.

I'll drive past you as you're pushing your gas-guzzler Jeep to the nearest gas-rationing center in my biodiesel-powered car that gets 46 mpg, and fling boogers at you out my window.

I wouldn't fling boogers at him, OBF. Don't forget his standard of living has been going up, up, up. His electronic toys are just so powerful. I am sure he will just text message the highway patrol that you have assaulted him.

Something about median incomes. As I recall, as my father grew older he continued to receive raises. By the end of his career he was making a lot more than the newby just getting started. Now I am told the population is aging. We are all getting older. Shouldn't we all be experiencing the same kind of raises my Dad enjoyed as he approached retirement? Shouldn't that be reflected in an increasing median imcome figures?

OBF: I'll drive past you as you're pushing your gas-guzzler Jeep to the nearest gas-rationing center in my biodiesel-powered car that gets 46 mpg, and fling boogers at you out my window.

Fair enough, but I use it mostly for hauling stuff, picnicking, and very short trips. My other car gets 38mpg in mixed driving.

In other threads I have expressed my optimism about American alternative energy production. Biofuels production is roughly tripling this year, partly because of the energy bill pased last year, and I expect that rate of increase to continue or accelerate.

"income figures" not "imcome figures." Damn I wish I could edit.

I'll drive past you as you're pushing your gas-guzzler Jeep to the nearest gas-rationing center in my biodiesel-powered car that gets 46 mpg,

VW TDIs do rock!

republicrat, (GOP)

Riddle me this, I grew up in the 1950s. I have three brothers. During our childhood my father was able to earn enough money to support our entire family. A lot of the other dads in our neighborhood were able to do the same thing. None of them were rich. Some where office workers, others worked in plants. My mother didn't return to nursing until after my brothers and I were gone, and then only because she was bored.

Are you able to say that very many Americans are able to do the same thing?

You want a family values definition of an improving American lifestyle, what about a return to the 1950s when mothers didn't have to work outside the home.

Kevin Drum and most commentators at Political Animal exhibit a relentless drive to show that things are awful and getting worse.

That's a sloppy and inaccurate generalization worthy of a half-serious person like yourself.

What--most--here have a real problem with is the disgustingly anti-democratic habits of Bush and his cronies.

When George Bush opens his half-wit mouth and utters, as he is wont to do, the word "freedom" he is talking about the "freedom" of the powerful to take advantage of the weak.

He just doesn't come out and say so.

Biofuels production is roughly tripling this year, partly because of the energy bill pased last year,

But but but... Mr Market knows everything! The government is just a bunch of stupidheads that fuck everything up. So how is it that the government is now responsible for this apparently desirable outcome?

Or put another way - yes, giving more free money to oil companies is definitely what caused increased demand for alternative fuels, not high pump prices.

It appears, based on specifications, that the closest comparison in today's Jeep family to the 1998 vehicle is the Jeep Liberty which has a starting MSRP price of $21-22K.

The comparable vehicle, the 4x4 Jeep Liberty, has a MSRP of $23,685.00 for the base package. Add an option or two and we're up over $25,000.00

By his own admission republicrat has an agenda, to "balance out" Kevin's "depressing" take on things. He frequently gets caught fudging numbers and making wild, unsupported assertions because the facts are biased against him.

In other words, he's a troll. Wearing a cardigan, maybe, but a troll nonetheless.

VW TDIs do rock!
Posted by: Edo on August 29, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

meh.
If Honda ever manufactured that Accord diesel they tested at 70mpg, I would trade-up in a second. (even if, assuming that after manufacturing, REAL milage was more like the TDI Jetta's 46).

The VW's interior sucks.
Seats are uncomfy, and the paint is peeling off the stereo console after only 3 years.
Shifting is typical VW-sloppy. And the basic-maintenance parts are nigh impossible to source (ie. local Pep-boys, etc, don't stock the air/oil/fuel filters, or the proper grade of engine oil, or light bulbs).
I'm dreading the day I have to swap-out a clutch or brake pads.

Something about median incomes. As I recall, as my father grew older he continued to receive raises. By the end of his career he was making a lot more than the newby just getting started.
Posted by: Ron Byers on August 29, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

But now, daddy can go buy cheap plastic crap at Wal Mart for much less because it's made by ChiComm slave labor.

Frankly, my income shot way up in the 1990's (Clinton was president - I assume that was a coincidence). Now it's stalled dead. I'm working at least as hard, if not harder. I'm even doing a lot better work that I was doing before too.

The job market in my field has cooled considerably, even though I've worked myself into a high-demand niche. (Security/Systems Integration). Part of that is offshoring, (though you can't really offshore my niche, unless you're really dumb; like Michael Brown-dumb). When I hammer my boss on lame raises, he says it's just the going market rate for folks in my niche, and I'm actually earning more than others, etc. yada yada.

All I know is - my income shot up like crazy in the 1990's, to where I could actually afford to buy a house in California. But since 2000, it's been near-flat. The only significant increases I got were promotions.

YMMV - as with all anaecdotes.

Personal stories have more power than statistics if they ring true. Even if his statistics were accurate drawing the conclusion from those statistics that average Americans are doing better under Bush than they were before he took office doesen't ring true. That is why republicrat has so much time pushing his points.

"That is why republicrat has so much time pushing his points."

How about "That is why republicrat has so much difficulty pushing his points," or "That is why republicrat has to spend so much time pushing his points."

Man, I am having a bad day.

craigie: Plus, everyone I know would trade good shoes for a mudbath with the Hot Lesbian Cheerleaders(r) any day.

We thank you for your support, but we are keeping flirting in this venue to a medium due to recent events.* Applications are now being taken for new squad members.

Duh. "We are keeping flirting in this venue to a minimum."

Sorry. Rough afternoon.

craigie: But but but... Mr Market knows everything! The government is just a bunch of stupidheads that fuck everything up. So how is it that the government is now responsible for this apparently desirable outcome?

It is a combination of private and government-funded investment. the president's bill was introduced into Congress in 2001 and passed in 2005. It is the result of plenty of commentary and lobbying -- for and against.

Ron Byers: comparing 1950s, 1960s, ..., now isn't all that easy. Sound recording equipment and tv were worse in the early 50s; cars were, on the whole, worse; houses were smaller and had vewer bathrooms; kids played with neighbors and had fewer orchestras and athletic leagues; high schools didn't have such elaborate counselling and sex education.

but if you look at what you could get with $1000 in the way of home entertainment and sound reproduction -- well, the $1000 took longer to earn and bought less.

for those of you still worried about the Jeep Cherokee, mine was stripped down compared to most models advertised now. Comparably equipped, SUVs the same size can be found that cost the same; back then, I could have bought a Toyota whatever its called for about what a new one costs now, if similarly equipped.

Note, also, as I did above, that the Gini index was flat. That means that income inequality did NOT increase.

No, it doesn't. It means a unidimensional measure of a multidimensional quantity (income inequality) did not increase.

So poor households must have shared in the growth to the same extent as rich.

That's not necessarily true at all; the Gini index is simply the area between the actual cumulative income distribution curve and that representing a uniform distribution. A more uniform distribution within, say, the top 5% and a similar distribution within the remainder of the top half, and a bigger gap between the top half and the bottom half could conceivably produce no net change in the Gini coefficient.

The Gini coefficient is a useful indicator of income inequality, but it is not the same thing as income inequality, and certainly not the same thing as how "the poor" are doing compared to "the rich".

What--most--here have a real problem with is the disgustingly anti-democratic habits of Bush and his cronies.

that's similar to what I wrote. Remove the grossly exaggerated criticism of the Bush administration, and remove the ad hominem remarks, and these threads would be much shorter.

I can't help but notice that most of the items Republicrat discusses are toys. Nice to have but not essential. If people making minimum wage or not all that much above buy these toys, they do so on payment plans like $10 or $20 per month. But many of these people are just trying to stay afloat on food and housing. And many of these people don't "own" their homes; they do rent, and rent has gone up. And food. And heating and cooling bills.

Older people also have medical expenses. I don't doubt that with drugs and procedures which did not exist 20 or 30 or 50 years ago, that older people can have a better quality of life than in years of yore, assuming that they can afford those drugs or procedures.

Too glib, Republicrat, Yancey, etc.

The real question is "are you better off than you were 5 years ago?". Hell no, I say.

Republicrat

During the 1950s my father, at that time a simple job shop machinest, was able to earn enough to support a family of six, including 4 young boys who ate like wolves. My parents had the luxury of keeping one parent at home for their kids. We all wore decent clothing. They bought their first house. We all had mom at home when we got off the school bus. She was able to be a room mother, and a den mother. She and my Dad were able to find time to attend all kinds of athletic events. We had a family dinner every night. We went to church every Sunday and my mother was able to put money in our hands to put in the collection plate.

I am not necessarily endorsing the Ozzy and Harriette lifestyle, but if you want an example of when America had a high standard of living, it was when one regular worker could support a family of six comfortably.

We had a television (black and white), every three years we had a new car. My dad was able to buy one of the first air conditioners in our community.

Wouldn't the best goal of all be the goal of allowing a parent to stay home to raise their American kids? Wouldn't that be the American standard of living we should strive to achieve? Shouldn't that be the American dream?

Shouldn't the "family values" president endorse such a goal?

I am waiting. I don't give a fig about your chinese toys, I want real America to reach for real wealth, the wealth our fathers and mothers achieved only a few short years after the great depression.

"Wouldn't the best goal of all be the goal of allowing a parent to stay home to raise their American kids? Wouldn't that be the American standard of living we should strive to achieve? Shouldn't that be the American dream?"

Indeed Rin, indeed. Not that the mothwer should necessarily stay home, but that a single income from a single should be enough to raise a family, and that the working parent still should have time left to spend at home with the kids. Back in the 50s and 60s, that was the american way of live and the US were the envy of the world. What went wrong?

that's similar to what I wrote

Could you indulge me and show me the quote?

Remove the grossly exaggerated criticism of the Bush administration.

Grossly exaggerated? Point to the specific "gross exaggerations" please.

The list of Bush administration abominations is too long. If you had some decent respect for both the opinions of mankind, the Constitution and the notion of three branches of gov't and the balance of power then you wouldn't come off sounding such an unmitigated phony.

"What went wrong?"

That might take 60 years to explain. I think it starts with losing our energy independence. That happened someplace in the 1960s. It's all downhill from there.

You want a goal that will restore America to "envy of the world" status--how about energy independence.

Shouldn't the "family values" president endorse such a goal?

This doesn't get said nearly enough. The Right runs around ranting that money has more rights than people, and then wonders why the lifestyle they themselves say they value - mom at home, kids doing chores and reading, etc - has gone away.

It's gone away because of policies that say that money is more important than anything else. And which party is the "money rights" party? Exactly.

republicat -- The CPI accounts for better-and-cooler (badly I think, but it's there); google "hedonics" at bls.gov.

Ron Byers: You want a goal that will restore America to "envy of the world" status--how about energy independence.

That is a goal that I support. I have written in favor on these threads, usually citing the journals Science and American Scientist for my claims, sometimes citing federal research labs. I recently wrote to my congressfolks and the president advocating a 10-year plan, modeled after the Apollo Program and the Interstate Highway System. The president's energy bill is a step in that direction -- it's flawed, but every step toward the goal will be flawed in some way or another.

The federal government will spend $25 trillion in the upcoming 10 years, and I recommended spending $1 - $2 trillion toward the goal. I recommended building all kinds of things in all or almost all congressional districts, and getting the money by postponing or reducing other expenditures. I recommended investment to reduce energy consumption, and to sequester CO2.

Secular Animist posted a few days ago a link to a document called "Winning the Oil Endgame". It is worth reading in its entirety, along with reports published in the past year in Science.

Windfarms, PV cell factories, biofuels plants, coal liquifaction/gasification. I recommended a factory to make PV cells, built near Barstow, CA, powered entirely by solar power: a nifty demonstration and valuable in the near future. I recommended a factory making wind turbines powered by wind turbines: again a nifty demonstration.

I don't expect anything to happen because of these letters, but I do think that the time is ripe for citizens to push the federal government to expand the program started by the 2005 law.

I believe in the power of markets, but also in some limits. It does not now make sense to buy oil from Russia when Russia uses the money to finance people who fight against us. The money that we spend on the Iraq war could be better spent in the US making fuel. In states that have both coal and water (e.g. Illinois and W. Virginia), synfuels plants can be built on military bases, allowing the military bases to close. Nuclear power might not be commercially feasible on its own, but we might as well generate electricity in the U.S. as power aircraft carriers to take naval aircraft to the Persian gulf.

etc, etc. Even if you disagree with me on specifics, as nearly everyone here does, I think that this is a good time to write to the Congress and the President on this issue and to demand more action.

I think republicat has knocked off for the night. Shift change comming?

Ron Byers, I think that this answers one of the questions that you posed:

republicrat on August 29, 2006 at 1:37 PM

Clarification: Accounts for better-and-cooler for some components; expect more, since it reduces the CPI.

republicrat

I think you are going to be hard pressed to find anybody here who disagrees with the goal of energy independence. Unfortunately, you will find opposition in your own ranks.

Everybody reserves the right to challenge individual projects for technical reasons, but the sooner we start work on energy independence the sooner we can restore American greatness.

Ron Byers: I am waiting. I don't give a fig about your chinese toys, I want real America to reach for real wealth, the wealth our fathers and mothers achieved only a few short years after the great depression.

I was trying to follow the trajectories of some products through time, comparing prices of similar functions and noting how, in some cases, equal dollar amounts bought more and better stuff now.

Autos of the early 50s had less crash resistance, higher repair rates, lower longevity, higher fuel consumption than cars of the same size now; in addition, they lacked seat belts and airbags, and every driver drove with a spear aimed at the middle of his or her chest. Aggregated over their lifetimes, and taking account of fatality rates, cars are not as much more expensive now as the sticker prices show. Furthermore, my example of the Jeep Cherokee and a contemporary equivalent is in fact accurate within a few percentage points; I found the models on cars.com.

This is not true of all consumer products. My calculus book, good for three semesters, cost only $10 in 1965, maybe $15. the equivalent today would be at least $75. On the other hand, the book Mathematical Statistics by Rose and Smith is not a lot more expensive than my first stat text by Hogg and Craig, and it comes with nifty Mathematica programs. Lots of math texts that are now typeset using TeX/LaTeX had no counterpart 30 years ago, and the internet has dramatically reduced the cost of distributing research results. My last published paper was done in Word and converted to Acrobat: the submission, reviews, and editorial decisions were all made online.

The cost of Leblanc clarinets seems to have come down in the last decade, driven in part by eBay.

Don't like my examples? Pick your own and follow them through time. I already admitted that housing is much more expensive -- but no inflation is occuring now in that market, in most of the US, rather deflation.

In medicine, it isn't the treatment that you intend to by, it is the result. Successful treatment for breast cancer and leukemia are considerably cheaper than ever before. 50 years ago, if you spent $50,000 to treat a case, it had no success. The money buys more than it did then.

"I think that this is a good time to write to the Congress and the President on this issue and to demand more action."

Demand MORE action? To REDUCE oil consumption? From BUSH?

Bwuahahahaha!

Sry, republicrat, really some good points, but you should start stomping for a Gore candidacy instead of writing letters to the Bush gang...

I told you I don't give a fig about Chinese toys. Real wealth existed when one regular job could support a family of 6 in the then appropriate working / middle class style. I don't think you can make that argument now. It is obvious to everybody except trinket lovers that most Americans have suffered a significant decline in our standard of living since the 1960s. That decline continues. I mentioned above my concerns about an almost holding your own median income. America is aging. In the world of my father, median incomes should be marching steadily upward with the aging process. Things should be getting better. As I said last night treading water means you are closer to drowning than you are to reaching the shore.

Kevin studiously ignores the overall compensation figures.

Can anyone guess why that might be??

12 免费铃声下载 手机铃声免费下载 mp3铃声 免费手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 三星手机铃声 三星铃声 诺基亚铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 移动铃声下载 nokia铃声 波导手机铃声 手机游戏免费下载 免费手机游戏 手机小游戏 诺基亚手机游戏 三星手机游戏下载 nokia手机游戏 摩托罗拉手机游戏 手机小电影 mp4手机电影下载 手机看电影 免费手机电影 手机视频下载 nec手机铃声 联想手机铃声 摩托罗拉铃声 amr铃声 手机彩铃下载 移动彩铃 免费彩铃 炫铃 移动炫铃 手机酷铃 手机电影 夏新手机铃声 联通铃声下载 联通手机铃声 联通彩铃下载 联通炫铃下载 特效铃声 midi铃声 和弦铃声 搞笑铃声 原唱铃声 mid铃声 cect手机铃声 和炫和旋铃声 海尔手机铃声 索爱手机铃声 飞利浦手机铃声 康佳手机铃声 真人真唱铃声 mmf铃声下载 lg手机铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 短信铃声 来电铃声 西门子铃声 小灵通铃声下载 tcl手机铃声 手机图片 手机铃音 手机动画 图铃下载 手机游戏 手机炫铃下载 手机彩信 手机铃声图片 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 免费电影下载 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内裤 性爱贴图 情趣内衣图片 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人图片 人体写真 女性手淫电影 美女波霸 美女淫水 阴户阴道阴毛屁股 美女图库 口交肛交图片

Did I mention that productivity is way up since the 1960s. Until about 1982 productivity gains translated directly into real increases in real incomes. In about 1982 the corporate elites were able to disconnect productivity gains from wage increases. (Ever hear of outsourcing, union busting, etc.) That has meant that the monied folks have enjoyed significant increases in their standards of living. The rest have not shared in that blessing.

It is that disconnect that allows you to honestly claim these are the best of times, and the average American Joe to honestly wonder what the hell you are talking about.

here is one of Bush's mistakes come to haunt us. He signed the stupid law.

http://tapscottscopydesk.blogspot.com/2006/08/fec-officially-votes-to-silence.html

The rest have not shared in that blessing.

i disagree. When productivity gains are not accompanied by wage increases, the prices of the products decline, their quality increases, or both. I have been talking all day about how the quality improvements, when they occur, entail a real increase in the purchasing power of money.

One of the fallacies studied by Kahnemann and Tversky is that people perceive pay raises and price decreases asymmetrically.

When productivity increases are accompanied by wage increases, few benefit; when productivity gains are accompanied by stable wages, many benefit.

I told you I don't give a fig about Chinese toys.

Then pick your own examples. The Jeep Cherokee was made in America (at least parts in Canada), and so are some of the contemporary comparables. IIRC the Mercedes SUV is made in S. Carolina.

leblanc clarinets are made in France.

mathematica software is made all over the world, as are technical books and technical journals. The peer-reviewed paper I wrote about was processed in the US, GB, and India.

I get it. We should believe your firmly held beliefs and not our lying pocketbooks.

Running in place is really getting ahead? Do you really believe that?

gray: Demand MORE action? To REDUCE oil consumption? From BUSH?
...
Bwuahahahaha!

A Republican energy bill will require some Democratic support. those Democrats will require that some money be spent on increases in efficiency. It's "log-rolling".

The U.S. army already gets something like 16% - 25% of its diesel fuel in the form of biodiesel.

GOP If you had read the entire thread your comment was discussed above. The median income for both fully employed men and fully employed women declined. Logically only one thing could account for an increase in household income. Households are generating more money from people who are not working full time---part time jobs. It is the McDonald's factor.

Ron Byers: We should believe your firmly held beliefs and not our lying pocketbooks.

Pick a bunch of examples and follow them through time. Your family had a b&w tv in the "early" 50s? How much did it cost? What could you buy today with that much money?

How much did the air conditioner cost? What could you buy for that much money today? Part of the increased cost there is due to the (very commendable) Montreal protocol on chorofluorocarbons, representing an increase in actual value. Plus, contemporary air conditioners are more efficient and longer-lived.

Liquid fuel is undoubtedly more expensive now than it was back then. But electricity off the grid?

I think you are going to be hard pressed to find anybody here who disagrees with the goal of energy independence. Unfortunately, you will find opposition in your own ranks.

Republicans will do it if they can build things in all their congressional districts and reduce agricultural subsidies and reduce federal COLAs at the same time. Most opposition will come from Democrats who want first: CO2 sequestration, increased fuel efficiency, and reduced budget deficits with increases in federal entitlements.

It can all be worked out, I am sure. They only need to get 55% of Congress on board; the president likes production and construction. The 2007 energy bill can build on the experiences provided by the 2005 bill; then another in 2007, etc. Each election year the incumbents can point to all the important energy related projects in their areas, as Tenant of Missouri is doing now.

The fallacy of your argument republicrat is the notion that trinkets equal wealth. They don't. Of course things are better now than in the 1960s but they are better in the same way they were better in the 1960s than in the 1900s. The toys were better, but the toys were better for everybody. Kings didn't have 1960 T-Birds in 1900.

The key thing to look at is the ability of a single normal middle class wage earner to earn a sufficient amount to provide for a family--in my case it was 6, but the real number is probably 4.2 or something like that. No way a single worker could provide the expected basics today. In the 1960s it was not only possible, it was normal. Trinkets have gotten better, but that we haven't kept up with the trinkets is an indication that as a nation we are not nearly as wealthy as we were in 1960 relative to the very basics of life.

… When productivity gains are not accompanied by wage increases, the prices of the products decline...…republicrat at 10:41 PM

has407 on August 29, 2006 at 9:46 PM

It tries. I would claim that you get more benefit by following products through time and seeing how much you can purchase now compared to then.

Another point about medical care. Lots of effective treatments exist now that didn't exist 50 years ago. Back then, if you got breast cancer you basically had surgery and waited to die. Now you can prepare by early screening, get the lumpectomy at an ambulatory clinic, and get adjuvant chemotherapy, and have a good chance of living. However, the total therapy is now more expensive. But since it works, lots more people feel pressed to earn it, instead of just preparing to die. Lots more people appreciate that they are likely to want to benefit from effective modern care. I repeat the example of Prozac: it's a very cheap and effective treatment for depression, compared to what came before; but more people want it precisely because it is more effective, so more people buy it; and since SSRIs work somewhat better, more people buy them.

My grandfather was permanently partially crippled by a work-related accident. There was no effective treatment. Nowadays he could get orthopedic surgery, and his lifetime earnings would have been considerably enhanced. But the treatment is very expensive, and thousands of people get such treatments who 85 years ago would simply have lived diminished lives. thus medical care costs rise, people work harder to meet those costs, even as the cost for each effective cure declines monotonically.

Another example is the growth of the trade in coronary bypass surgery.

On the other hand, antibiotics continue to get more and more expensive. The cost to cure a case of MDR TB is much greater than the cost to cure a case of TB 50 years ago.

The same in anti-retroviral drugs for HIV/AIDS; the drugs are cheaper than before, but the cost to treat MDR HIV, especially using the drugs that do not cause stomach pains, is way up.

GOP, I really don't feel like engaging you, because frankly I am enjoying republicrat's discourse. He has actually made some points.

If you will take a look at the productivity gains enjoyed by American businesses during the same period you will see that a lousy 20% increase over the last 24 years is chicken feed. The productivity gains have been many times 20%. Yesterday, I saw a comparison chart on the subject that was published in the New York Times, but I don't subcribe to the online service. Anyway since 1982, there has not been a single year when America's productivity hasn't gotten better and better. Some years it increased as little as one percent. Some years over 4.2%. Mostly the increases have been in excess of 3%. Realizing the power of compound interest it is clear that the productivity increase in 24 years has been dramatic. During the same period there have been 9 years when real wages have actually declined. In one year it increased about 3%. Not incidently nearly all of the real wage increase years occurred when Bill Clinton was President. That is why we could be distracted by his blow job, we had sufficient new silver in our pockets to allow us to worry about such things.

$14829.75 in the year 2005 has the same "purchase power" as $7326 in the year 1982.

It depends entirely on the basket of goods that is being purchased. you could not buy a cure for AIDS for $10,000 per year in 1982, but now you can. (some qualifications here, they may not be total cures.)

Mike: When, as is currently the case, the increased value goes to upper management, no one but they benefit. As noted, electronic toys have been decreasing; essential goods, increasing. good points, but I think that the amount going to upper management, while real, is exaggerated. What essential goods? As I noted, pork steaks seem to cost the same now as 20 years ago. A cure for leukemia is cheaper now than 20 years ago. A cure for lung cancer more reliable and cheaper than 20 years ago. Liver transplants are more expensive, but also more likely to succeed: an increase in quality not accounted for in the CPI.

Sorry I have to leave. Pick particular goods and services and follow them through time, trying to account for changes in quality. There are lots of particular things that are cheaper, but there are also lots of expensive things that work that did not even exist back then.

I'll leave with information as a product: how many of you think that Encyclopedia Britannica, the printed version, is really more valuable than what you can get online with Google, Ask, and Wikipedia? Information is for sure cheaper than it has ever been.

Ron Byers, sorry I have to leave. You have many good points.

GOP, I am going to watch Jay Leno now, but I would suggest that the increase in household income probably can be accounted for by young men and women unable to pay their way returning home. Of course, like you said it could mean that a lot of men and women are taking second and third jobs to pay their mortgage payments. Super employed males and females? That is real progress isn't it?

As I said I believe it is the McDonald's factor.

All of this was explained better by others above.

republicrat -- I wasn't disputing that, at least for some things, we get more for the same expenditure as in the past. I was simply pointing out that there are efforts to capture that in the CPI (which I think is wrong), but assuming it is somewhere within spitting distance of reality (doubtful), then your points are factored into the equation.

Its incredible that progressives can see this stuff and no one else can understand. Can't all those non-progressives understand that income growth is a natural resource - it just occurs out there, like a spring burbling out of the ground - with no relationship to individual action. We progressives understand that people's incomes have absolutely nothing to do with individual behavior or actions. Income distribution comes about only because a few piggy people who are already rich crowd around the spring and take all the water before the rest of us can get any. We understand that income growth comes first, and then individuals fight for their share of it.

I know that past attempts by progressives to keep the rich people away from the income growth spring have been followed by periods when the spring dried up and income growth slowed way down. Heartless capitalists have tried to argue that somehow hamstringing the ability of the rich to make money can affect the health of the economy as a whole, but we know this is BS. That history is just pure coincidence. If those rich people would just get out of the way, all that income growth would then fall to the rest of us.

When I grew up in the 1950s, ... Not even the wealthiest people owned microwave ovens, VCRs or computers.

Worse yet, they didn't own the time machines that would allow them to go get those things!

How we all suffered back then. Not like now, when I do have a time machine, that allows me to go into the future and get all kinds of neat stuff. Plus, it helps enormously with my stock picks.

You know what else they didn't have in the fifties? Reruns of Friends! Man, how did we even get out of bed then?

Well, not me, since I wasn't born, but you guys, without any appliances - how did you do that?

Holbrooke is a guy with a ton of credibility. When he says that diplomacy has to be backed up by a credible threat of force, he obviously means it: he recommended military action twice in the Balkans during the 90s. At the same time, when he says it should be a last resort, he obviously means that too: he devoted uncounted thousands of hours to serious, toughminded diplomacy during the same period. Some of it worked and some of it didn't, but his dedication to the cause is hardly questionable.And despite his continued unwillingness to flatly face the reality that we can't afford to stay in Iraq any longer, he had by far the better of the argument when the subject turned to Iran. Diplomacy is not, he reminded Kristol, in and of itse

As these economists pointed out, if the popular story were true - if the average worker really were producing more and being paid less - then wages must have declined as a share of the total economic pie as a simple matter of arithmetic. GOP citing Paul Krugman from 1997.

In point of fact wages as a percentage of GDP are at a 59 year low.

"The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable, economists say, because productivity — the amount that an average worker produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation’s living standards — has risen steadily over the same period.

"As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the current period as “the golden era of profitability.”

"Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity." Steven Greenhouse and David Leonhardt August 28, 2006. Mew York Times.

You really ought to subscribe, or at least read.

婚纱摄影 婚纱影楼 非油品 中石化 网页制作 网页设计 网站建设\ 网站制作 网站设计 设计 北京网站设计 网站推广 北京网站推广 北京网站制作 北京网页设计 北京网站建设 网站优化 yahoo竞价 google推广 google排名 google优化 双线空间 ＰＨＰ空间 ＡＳＰ空间 网站空间 虚拟主机 域名注册 法语 钟表 塔钟 钟表 家用中央空调 格力中央空调 助听器 助听器 助听器 发电机 发电机组 柴油发电机 发电设备 发电机出租 康明斯 发电机 发电机组 柴油发电机 发电设备 发电机出租 康明斯 法国留学 法语培训 进口轴承 skf轴承 nsk轴承 轴承 进口轴承 skf轴承 fag轴承 轴承\ 轴承 进口轴承 进口轴承 直线轴承 skf轴承 nsk轴承 北京装饰|装修 家装|家庭装饰 办公室装饰|装饰公司 装修公司|工装装潢 装饰装修|北京装饰公司 家居装修|室内装修 房屋装修|家庭装修公司 装修设计|室内装潢 家居装潢|家庭装潢 装潢设计|室内装潢设计 充气床 充气用品 充气游泳池 野营用品 户外用品 充气船 气垫床 钓鱼船 帐篷 户外帐篷 瑞士军刀 intex充气床| 中央吸尘 家用中央吸尘 商业中央吸尘 吸尘器 中央吸尘系统 工业吸尘 风灶清洗 通风清洗 中央空调管道清洗 机器人管道清洗 管道清洗机器人 机器人清洗 检测机器人 吸尘机 别墅吸尘 宾馆吸尘| 网站建设 网站制作 网页设计 网页制作 网络推广 网站优化 网站推广 GOOGLE优化 进口轴承|nsk轴承|skf轴承 充气床|充气用品|充气游泳池|野营用品|户外用品|充气船|气垫床|钓鱼船|帐篷|户外帐篷|瑞士军刀| 北京酒店 上海酒店 广州酒店 长沙酒店 张家界酒店 南京酒店 深圳酒店 天津酒店 重庆酒店 昆明酒店 桂林酒店 井冈山酒店 酒店 西藏酒店 宾馆 宾馆预定 杭州酒店 北京酒店 上海酒店 广州酒店 长沙酒店 张家界酒店 南京酒店 深圳酒店 天津酒店 重庆酒店 昆明酒店 桂林酒店 井冈山酒店 网站制作 网站策划 网页美工设计 网站设计方案 网站建设公司 网站制作公司 网站推广公司 网页设计公司 网站设计公司

Ron Byers:Riddle me this, I grew up in the 1950s. I have three brothers. During our childhood my father was able to earn enough money to support our entire family. A lot of the other dads in our neighborhood were able to do the same thing. None of them were rich. Some where office workers, others worked in plants. My mother didn't return to nursing until after my brothers and I were gone, and then only because she was bored.

Make a list of all that you would have to give up to restore the U.S. to that condition. I'll start with 3: give up polio vaccines; give up taxol; raise the auto accident rate from 35,000 per year to 45,000 per year (or higher, to adjust for the fact that we have now more drivers and more miles driven per driver.) Balance that list with a list of what you would regain. to me, now is better, and an increase in actual per capita wealth.

Now people work more hours in the aggregate so that they can pay for effective cancer treatments for friends, family, and others covered by the same insurance plan; then people worked fewer hours and people who had cancer died right away.

has407 on August 29, 2006 at 11:48 PM Our disagreement was exaggerated by the nature of this medium of communication. It happens. Without disputing the CPI, I would just say that it makes more sense for us to follow the prices and qualities of the things we actually buy throughout the whole course of time that we are buying them.

Ron Byers,

In point of fact wages as a percentage of GDP are at a 59 year low.

But wages PLUS BENEFITS are not. How many times do I have to keep reminding you that employment compensation means more than just "wages" or "wages and salaries."

And again, for the umpteenth time, even total employment compensation does not provide a reliable measure of the share of GDP going to "working Americans" or "average Americans" or "typical Americans" because it does not take into account the effects of non-wage income (social security, pensions, 401k and IRA distributions, workers comp, unemployment benefits, welfare, child support, alimony, rents, interest, dividends, etc.), noncash government benefits (medicare, medicaid, subsidized housing, food stamps, etc.) or taxes.

GOP: But wages PLUS BENEFITS are not. ...even total employment compensation does not provide a reliable measure of the share of GDP...

How about some sources that show that it is not, and that provide, in your opinion, a reliable measure of share of GDP?

csLook this http://oldpantyho.leeup.net/sex-in-pantyhose.html
http://oldpantyho.leeup.net/girls-pantyhose-gallery.html
http://oldpantyho.leeup.net/pantyhose-pic.html
http://oldpantyho.leeup.net/panties-sex.html
free hardcore porn galleries
http://oldpantyho.leeup.net/porn-movie-galleries.html
http://oldpantyho.leeup.net/pantyhose-forum.html
olsen twins in panties
http://oldpantyho.leeup.net/panty-showing.html
schoolgirls panties

csHello. I am new here. It is very interesting. pantyhose free movies clips|http://pantyhosebang.pornoszones.com/pantyhose-free-movies-clips.html
free lesbian porn galleries and movies|http://pantyhosebang.pornoszones.com/free-lesbian-porn-galleries-and-movies.html
schoolgirl stockings and suspenders|http://pantyhosebang.pornoszones.com/schoolgirl-stockings-and-suspenders.html
hold up stockings|http://pantyhosebang.pornoszones.com/hold-up-stockings.html
sexy women in stockings|http://pantyhosebang.pornoszones.com/sexy-women-in-stockings.html
white stocking sex|http://pantyhosebang.pornoszones.com/white-stocking-sex.html
silkies pantyhose|http://pantyhosebang.pornoszones.com/silkies-pantyhose.html
stocking cum|http://pantyhosebang.pornoszones.com/stocking-cum.html
anime porn galleries|http://pantyhosebang.pornoszones.com/anime-p0Rn-galleries.html
xxx porn galleries|http://pantyhosebang.pornoszones.com/xxx-porn-galleries.html

csOhh, this is bad but interesting http://feti.uprio.com/pantyhose-xxx.html
http://feti.uprio.com/pantyhose-mpeg.html
ladies wearing nylons
http://feti.uprio.com/ladies-wearing-nylons.html
http://feti.uprio.com/
pantyhose foot
http://feti.uprio.com/pantyhose-sex-movies.html
http://feti.uprio.com/winnie-cooper-pantyhose.html
http://feti.uprio.com/porn-stockings.html
http://feti.uprio.com/nylons-fetish.html

csIt is there - free pantyhose thumb galleries
http://fet.uppar.org/pantyhose-upskirt.html
young porn galleries
cum fill panties
pooping panties
free panty movies
http://fet.uppar.org/latex-panties.html
upskirt panty shots
used panty auctions
female teacher pantyhose stories

csLook this http://newmgb.upjm.com/original-wife-lovers.html
wife swap sex
milf fucker
http://newmgb.upjm.com/anal-wife.html
http://newmgb.upjm.com/cuckold-wife-interracial.html
mature masturbation
hardcore milf
http://newmgb.upjm.com/mature-erotica.html
milf gallery
mature orgasm

csHi. May be this is BAD, but is something different: wife caught
submissive wife
http://newmgb.upjm.com/older-women-younger-men.html
http://newmgb.upjm.com/busty-wife.html
http://newmgb.upjm.com/submitted-wives-nude-pics.html
old naked women
http://newmgb.upjm.com/mature-facial.html
http://newmgb.upjm.com/wife-exposes-herself.html
http://newmgb.upjm.com/anal-wife.html
old wives tales

csHi. May be this is BAD, but is something different: http://supermom.upmba.org/wetlands-wives-thumbs.html
cuckold wife
wife watch cuckold
wife swingers
http://supermom.upmba.org/milf-facial.html
husbands spank their wives
http://supermom.upmba.org/wife-swingers.html
older men fucking younger women
wetlands wives thumbs
http://supermom.upmba.org/horny-older-mothers-women.html

csHi. May be this is BAD, but is something different: http://supermom.upmba.org/wetlands-wives-thumbs.html
cuckold wife
wife watch cuckold
wife swingers
http://supermom.upmba.org/milf-facial.html
husbands spank their wives
http://supermom.upmba.org/wife-swingers.html
older men fucking younger women
wetlands wives thumbs
http://supermom.upmba.org/horny-older-mothers-women.html

csHello. I am new here. It is very interesting. famous black americans|http://blackplague.chubbyblondes.com/famous-black-americans.html
veronica black|http://blackplague.chubbyblondes.com/veronica-black.html
famous black people|http://blackplague.chubbyblondes.com/famous-black-people.html
black milf|http://blackplague.chubbyblondes.com/black-milf.html
black whores|http://blackplague.chubbyblondes.com/black-whores.html
black hawk down|http://blackplague.chubbyblondes.com/black-hawk-down.html
black on blondes|http://blackplague.chubbyblondes.com/black-on-blondes.html
free ebony|http://blackplague.chubbyblondes.com/free-ebony.html
black eyed peas - my humps|http://blackplague.chubbyblondes.com/black-eyed-peas---my-humps.html
metallica fade to black|http://blackplague.chubbyblondes.com/metallica-fade-to-black.html

csMy URLs is ebony milf|http://blackhoes.theamateur.us/ebony-milf.html
black metal|http://blackhoes.theamateur.us/black-metal.html
black sabbath paranoid|http://blackhoes.theamateur.us/black-sabbath-paranoid.html
black widow spider|http://blackhoes.theamateur.us/black-widow-spider.html
black beauties|http://blackhoes.theamateur.us/black-beauties.html
gay ebony|http://blackhoes.theamateur.us/gay-ebony.html
black breasts|http://blackhoes.theamateur.us/black-breasts.html
huge black cock|http://blackhoes.theamateur.us/huge-black-cock.html
nude black men|http://blackhoes.theamateur.us/nud3-black-men.html
monster black cocks|http://blackhoes.theamateur.us/monster-black-cocks.html

csMy URLs is women getting fucked by big cocks|http://fattits.madloads.com/women-getting-fucked-by-big-cocks.html
big ghetto booty black girls|http://fattits.madloads.com/big-ghetto-booty-black-girls.html
bbw orgasm|http://fattits.madloads.com/bbw-orgasm.html
hardcore sex chubby|http://fattits.madloads.com/hardcore-sex-chubby.html
kirsten chubby teen|http://fattits.madloads.com/kirsten-chubby-teen.html
fat womens sexy lingerie|http://fattits.madloads.com/fat-womens-sexy-lingerie.html
large women models|http://fattits.madloads.com/large-women-models.html
plump naked women|http://fattits.madloads.com/plump-naked-women.html
big black women butts|http://fattits.madloads.com/big-black-women-butts.html
girls with big feet|http://fattits.madloads.com/girls-with-big-feet.html

csMy URLs is violent gangbang
http://russian.uplyn.net/adolescent-female-aggression-violence.html
gang rape story
http://russian.uplyn.net/
http://russian.uplyn.net/roped-and-raped-role-play-dreambook.html
xxx rape videos
http://russian.uplyn.net/domestic-violence-in-san-diego-ca.html
http://russian.uplyn.net/advertisments-about-date-rape.html
http://russian.uplyn.net/securities-violation-bad-boy.html
gay violent sex