90% Of Americans Are Poorer Today Than They Were 27 Years Ago

Great post all of you. Thanks. The struggle is real!

originally posted by: ketsuko
It's partially the QE from the Fed. They are printing money with nothing of worth to back it. What a dollar used to represent, it now takes two or three to equal that same value today. So in reality, even the billionaires are less wealthy in a sense. They just have so much in hard wealth and assets that it doesn't matter - an oil field is an oil field no matter how many dollars in worth they say it is.
.

When Europe and the USA manufactured goods, money circulated round the nation and economy in a closed cycle. All exports brought in wealth, and the countries become richer. For those countries where manufacturing industries were offshored, there is no longer any closed loop. The government has to print money to keep it flowing through the economy before it goes offshore. Meanwhile those countries which invested in their manufacturing industries by going high-tech, high-precision, advanced materials, they have the highest standards of living.

originally posted by: tavi45
The only solution is more tax cuts to the rich. Trickle down didn't work because it was soft. It's time to get serious. Increase taxes on the poor and middle class. Anyone who can't keep up gets put into indentured servitude. Let's get back to our roots.

True genius, I lol'd. Thank you sir.

originally posted by: tavi45
The only solution is more tax cuts to the rich. Trickle down didn't work because it was soft. It's time to get serious. Increase taxes on the poor and middle class. Anyone who can't keep up gets put into indentured servitude. Let's get back to our roots.

True genius, I lol'd. Thank you sir.

originally posted by: buster2010
Well if they would just give more tax breaks to the wealthy all of this would change. This is what we have been told since Reagan was in office and we are still waiting for that fairy tale to start to work. Besides everyone knows if you are not wealthy or well off then it's because you are just lazy or too stupid.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Lets overlay the tax rates onto your most excellent graph:



Interesting n'cest pas?

originally posted by: Pitou
The western world needs long term planning and intelligent politicians looking ahead building a constructive future. Sadly, such politicians do not exist.


I just hope for you US citizens that your politicians are wiser than those here in Europe. And that they actually have realistic and thought-out plans to tackle this ''boring'' but complex problem.

I do agree with you that long-term perspective is desperately required but I do think we need to look to career public servants rather then politicians who by nature are short-term and self focused.

One of my big complaints with current and past administrations in the last 30/40 years is that appointments to important departments and positions are being based on ideology and not experience and competancy.

We cannot, any longer, expect any career politian to think in terms that are benefical to the public - only career public service have the education, experience and knowledge in their fields to be of value.

Politicians used to listen to their 'sargents' - now they listen to their 'policial officers' (and we see where rule of political officers took the USSR).

I was watching a documentary on George Marshall last night. This humble careerest gave the US and the world not only the modern Army but rebuilt Europe and Japan (with socialized elements so as to keep them politically stable). He gave us the World Standing Army (very very bad), won WWII (good), was unable to bring the Soviets (Molotov) into the European fold (bad) and rebuild a strong and stable Europe and Japan (good).

We need to listen to these quiet scholarly and meticulous types again.

Yes, and here is what's happening to the middle class:


www.huffingtonpost.com...

Although I don't support unions, it is interesting to see the correlation

a reply to: StoutBroux

Interesting graph thanks.

a reply to: StoutBroux

Yes, and here is what's happening to the middle class:

That's pretty funny. Here's what the source of that chart says.

A report on Wednesday from the left-leaning think tank Center For American Progress notes that as middle-class incomes have steadily fallen, so have union membership rates. The middle 60 percent of households earned 53.2 percent of national income in 1968.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

1) Middle-class incomes have not steadily fallen.
www.advisorperspectives.com...

2) What does "the middle 60 percent of households" mean? Can you explain to me what that means? I'm usually pretty good with statistics but that one just doesn't parse for me.

a reply to: Phage
Your not factoring in buying power of the dollar.

Notice how in 2005 the income starts falling after stagnating?

Well during that inflation has double and tripled the cost of living.

Apparently you don't know how to read the information you've provided and you just don't understand the economy.

Also their should be a seperate metric for the top 0.1% to portray accurately what's happening in the economy.

a reply to: onequestion

Your not factoring in buying power of the dollar.

Nor, apparently, is the source of that chart. It says nothing about "buying power."

Well during that inflation has double and tripled the cost of living.

Double and tripled?

Apparently you don't know how to read the information you've provided and you just don't understand the economy.

Apparently you can't explain what "the middle 60 percent of households" means either.

a reply to: Phage

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Back in the day minimum wage was just that the minimum wage you could afford to have a decent life. Inflation and greed has stopped this cold in it's tracks. You can not have a decent life making under 14 dollars and hour and that amount is climbing fast.


It also used to be 100,000 a year household income equaled a very good life free from financial worry. This is no longer the case as the cost of living spirals out of control I believe that number has doubled. So many people went to college to build a better life only to leave with a huge debt and not being able to use the diploma. This is why the PTB now control all the school loans. They knew this would happen and want to enslave the masses using debt.

a reply to: Lysergic
That does help a bit, but not much. The video is about finding upper and lower values of a given "middle."

Any idea why the middle 60% is more significant than the median itself?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Lysergic
That does help a bit, but not much. The video is about finding upper and lower values of a given "middle."

Any idea why the middle 60% is more significant than the median itself?

Just supposition here, but...I assume it is because this is the metric for measuring the whole.

Some apples are very large others are not, we average them all and use this to value the entire crop across the board.

So it is easily seen as the average.

Come on phage your a smart guy, much smarter than me, yet you can't understand simple math?

No, I believe your being taciturn here.

a reply to: oblvion

I understand simple math. Statistics even.
I also understand how an arbitrary metric can be selected in order to support a (not necessarily accurate) conclusion.
Why not the "middle 80%" or the "middle 40% ?" Why not use the actual median?

IF money is man made and the Governments are printing tens of billions EXTRA every month

Banks are strapped for cash

And everyone is saying money is in SHORT supply

Everyone is in DEBT

where has it all gone !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! riddle me that people of ATS

WHO HAS ALL HE BUCKS $$$$$$$$$$$

originally posted by: Philippines

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Things went downhill fast after the Clinton years. Those were such relatively worry-free times.

It makes me wonder what the Clintons did while in power to make things decline so fast after them

Bill Clinton was decent. He didn't have the power to reverse Nafta or the removal of Glass Steagall. All of the deregulation that happened under his term was essentially a done deal before he became president. He did what he could by balancing the budget but the situations that lead to the tech and housing bubbles weren't under his power to change. HW could have stopped them but congress was quite hostile to him. W could have headed off the housing bubble or atleast kept to a balanced budget but chose to do neither.

I kind of think the same about Perot. Perot foresaw it all, but like Clinton he wouldn't have had the power to actually change what was already happening.

Clinton sure did have the power. He signed off on those bills. Clinton wanted to make housing more affordable to poor people, so glass steagle act went bye bye.a reply to: Aazadan