+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: No average income gain during Bush years (/showthread.php?tid=84173)
No average income gain during Bush years - Dennis S - 09-11-2009
You're still fscking peasants as far as I can see.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/a-decade-with-no-income-gain/?hp
Re: No average income gain during Bush years - Doc - 09-11-2009
I've known that for a long time.
I'm making less money now than I did under Clinton. And spending more on basics.
Re: No average income gain during Bush years - Dennis S - 09-11-2009
A lot of groceries doubled under Bush, but the "official" inflation rate was low.
Re: No average income gain during Bush years - Doc - 09-11-2009
Dennis S wrote:
A lot of groceries doubled under Bush, but the "official" inflation rate was low.
Drop every meaningful measure and you can prove the earth is flat, too.
Re: No average income gain during Bush years - OWC Jamie - 09-11-2009
If youlooka little further than the end of your stiffy, they've been losing ground since the last recession in 1982.
Re: No average income gain during Bush years - the_poochies - 09-11-2009
Here is a similar article from the WSJ...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125259099642699581.html#mod%3Dtodays_us_page_one%26project%3DCENSUS_INSUREDTOTALS%26articleTabs%3Darticle
and the depressing graphs:
Re: No average income gain during Bush years - Ted King - 09-11-2009
The top 10% income earners in the US stayed relatively flat at having about 30% to 35% of the total income earned in the US since WWII to the 1980's. In the 1980's the top 10% income earners share of the total income rose to about 40%. During Clinton's years (most of the 1990's) their share rose to about 45% (on average - it was kind of erratic). Since the turn of the century the top 10% income earners now have 50% of all the income earned in the US.* IOW, it doesn't seem like it mattered whether it was a Republican or a Democrat as President, since the early 80's the wealthiest people kept getting more and more of all the wealth created by the country. What it means is that all the gains that have come from increases in productivity have all gone to the wealthiest people in the country. What BushII did manage to do, though, was decrease the tax rate on the wealthiest people so that even as they were taking up all that increase in wealth, they paid proportionately less and less taxes. And our national debt went up by trillions of dollars as a result under BushII.
*This comes from an Excel file posted at this site:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/09/our-lost-decade
Re: No average income gain during Bush years - AAA - 09-11-2009
Houses are cheaper now. So, income remains same, people can afford more house.
Re: No average income gain during Bush years - the_poochies - 09-11-2009
AAA wrote:
Houses are cheaper now. So, income remains same, people can afford more house.
I purchased my home in 2000. Nine years later, it's value is still double what I paid for it in 2000 (at least according to the appraisal I had back in May). My annual raise from 2000-2007 was 2.8% annually. In 2008 my employer instituted a wage freeze, and for 2009, I am enjoying 15 days of unpaid furlough.
There is no way I could come up with the 10% down payment for my house if I had to buy it again.
Re: No average income gain during Bush years - OWC Jamie - 09-11-2009
AAA wrote:
Houses are cheaper now. So, income remains same, people can afford more house.
not everywhere.
tough to get loan qualified if on unemployment I'd think, but there may be some creative fannie may government backed loans. :-)