Household Income
- Thread starter tech2101
- Start date
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #3
Your point?Great....2007 was 4 years ago...................this is now.....
One year before the Big 'O'.
Yours??? Duh.....
How about some real time figures not for people who are living in the past.
This is 2011..............
Dog Wonder
Veteran
Yeah, how 'bout some numbers for people living in an imaginary future.
Dude posts four year old data and we now in an era of "Fundamental Change" and '07 prices are cool data?
Dog, there is more to life than lying around with a bowl filled twice daily for no other service than licking ones balls.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #7
Fair enough. How about you post some data that reflects the time between then and now.
When you are done, we will talk more. As of now, you have nothing to offer to debate the data posted, and if you agree with the current trend or not.
I remain unconvinced that the data is bad. It most definitely it is thought provoking.
Your info is dead-on. I'd suspect that things were a bit better in 07' than NOW.
As for our current President, he's been in office for 2 years, 9 months and 6 days !
As a man who likes a "wager" now and then, I'd wager that... J C ALMIGHTY could not have reversed the MESS he inherited 2Y/9M/6D ago !!!!!
TB
Dog Wonder
Veteran
Of course there is.
There is also more to life than waiting for the next catastrophe.
Surprising part for me was that real income (inflation-adjusted) actually rose for all groups. Before reading the summary of the study, I assumed that real income would have fallen for the poorest 20% but instead even their income rose by 18%.
The middle 60% of the population (21st thru 80th), who comprise the "middle class" saw their real, after tax income rise by "just under 40%" said the study. That's not too shabby. Of course the rich got much, much richer (what else is new) and the poor didn't fare as well as the middle class (just an 18% increase in real after tax income for the poorest 20%) but to see an almost 40% rise in real income for the middle 60% of Americans is encouraging.
Some will argue that the top 1% (with their 275% increase in income) and the remaining 19% of that top 20% (with their 65% increase) should be "punished" because their income rose faster/higher than the lowest 80% - but that sort of class warfare is also par for the course.
Overall, I think it's relatively good news. Americans were better off, financially, in 2007 than they were in 1979. Debtors are much better off as interest rates on their debt (especially their mortgages) are much, much lower. Savers (who tend to be richer) have been harmed somewhat by those lower rates (as their interest income has crashed). Of course, the debtors aren't getting the benefit from inflation which helps the richer groups as their savings are not inflated away.
The middle 60% of the population (21st thru 80th), who comprise the "middle class" saw their real, after tax income rise by "just under 40%" said the study. That's not too shabby. Of course the rich got much, much richer (what else is new) and the poor didn't fare as well as the middle class (just an 18% increase in real after tax income for the poorest 20%) but to see an almost 40% rise in real income for the middle 60% of Americans is encouraging.
Some will argue that the top 1% (with their 275% increase in income) and the remaining 19% of that top 20% (with their 65% increase) should be "punished" because their income rose faster/higher than the lowest 80% - but that sort of class warfare is also par for the course.
Overall, I think it's relatively good news. Americans were better off, financially, in 2007 than they were in 1979. Debtors are much better off as interest rates on their debt (especially their mortgages) are much, much lower. Savers (who tend to be richer) have been harmed somewhat by those lower rates (as their interest income has crashed). Of course, the debtors aren't getting the benefit from inflation which helps the richer groups as their savings are not inflated away.
southwind
Veteran
- Jan 22, 2008
- 7,709
- 3,928
This , coming from an Obama-bot !
"You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid." -- Rahm Emanuel
Sounds to me like waiting for the next catastrophe is what Liberal-Demorats do best !
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #12
I too noticed that trend. Our policies are clearly causing an upward trend. The problem with the trend is that soon there will be über-rich, not-so rich, then the cake eaters. I know that may be a little dramatic, but you get the point.
xUT
Veteran
Too lazy to do it myself...
Edited by Me...
Also, I would like to see gross income.
Not too many deductions for the middle/bottom %
B) xUT
Edited by Me... (again)
Found the inflation statement.
My Bad...
Dog Wonder
Veteran
There is a difference between dealing with a crisis and hoping for a catastrophe.
Not that some people would know what it is.
