The Graph "Gains Only at the Top" shows the Top 5% earning just 1.1% more in 2014 than they did in 2006. It's hard to see such a miniscule gain over six years as a basis for class envy. If the point is that income gains have been generally lousy for everyone for six or seven years, then say so.
Showing the work force participation graph from its inception in 1948 gives a much clearer picture.
Very few people, if any, call the 1950s a bad era for the US economy, yet the rate was significantly lower then than it is today.
Chopping of the graph in 1975 is very misleading.
Very few people, if any, call the 1950s a bad era for the US economy, yet the rate was significantly lower then than it is today.
Chopping of the graph in 1975 is very misleading.
The chart on gun violence (more guns equals more death) looks persuasive and comes with the comment that the evidence is overwhelming. But take the US out of the statistics, and the evidence shows no correlation (R2 value 0.2; the two graphs should order the countries in the same way, not by highest value in each category). Now both the Swiss and Americans are obsessed with guns (I am a dual citizen of these two countries and have regularly attended shooting competitions as a teenage boy in Switzerland with semi automatic (military style) rifles). America's problem with guns is not the number of guns, but the obsessive believe that a good guy with a gun can solve our societal problems. Just today, a Florida mother killed her daughter mistaking her for an intruder. Starting tomorrow, Texans can display their guns openly in public. I assume that most of those will be self-anointed good guys who happen to be white.
Gee, when compensation was tied to productivity, productivity rose and rose and rose. Now that the plutocrats have severed that connection, and compensation growth has become weakened, productivity gains have been iffy at best. Gosh, do you think there is a connection?
5
What happened in 2015 on the employment and career front? See it at http://worksnewage.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-year-in-jobs-good-bad-and-ju....
Between 2006 and 2010, alcohol abuse killed more people in the United States than domestic gun violence, AIDS, illegal drug overdoses, wars, and terrorism combined. About 28.5 deaths per 100,000.
In other words, alcohol related deaths are almost 9 times greater than gun murders in the US each year.
Yet there is no specific Constitutional right to alcohol.
And gun related violence, unlike alcohol related violence, is at a mult- generational low in the US.
They tried to ban alcohol once, the cure was worse than the disease.
But you won't find that sad historical fact in any so-called research tarring legal gun ownership with the socialist-government-knows-best brush.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-alcohol-related-deat...
In other words, alcohol related deaths are almost 9 times greater than gun murders in the US each year.
Yet there is no specific Constitutional right to alcohol.
And gun related violence, unlike alcohol related violence, is at a mult- generational low in the US.
They tried to ban alcohol once, the cure was worse than the disease.
But you won't find that sad historical fact in any so-called research tarring legal gun ownership with the socialist-government-knows-best brush.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-alcohol-related-deat...
1
Actually here are the figures for 2013:
Alcohol-Induced Deaths 29,001
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death#sthash.7v502mRT.dpbs
All firearm deaths - Number of deaths: 33,636
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
Counting some auto accident deaths as alcohol is risky and must be done carefully because the bodies are rarely tested for alcohol. A cop will see a beer bottle on the side of the road and conclude the driver must have been drunk.
There was a Harvard study a few years that investigated a number of accident deaths as if they were homicides. None of the police reports got the cause of the accidents correct.
Alcohol-Induced Deaths 29,001
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death#sthash.7v502mRT.dpbs
All firearm deaths - Number of deaths: 33,636
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
Counting some auto accident deaths as alcohol is risky and must be done carefully because the bodies are rarely tested for alcohol. A cop will see a beer bottle on the side of the road and conclude the driver must have been drunk.
There was a Harvard study a few years that investigated a number of accident deaths as if they were homicides. None of the police reports got the cause of the accidents correct.
Big news for 2016....the NY Times changes it's name to Pravda !!!
Making an accusation in no manner makes the accusation a fact. Without providing any context for your attempted denunciation, your accusation is without merit.
7
@ Steve, or a pretty bad joke since Mr. Rattner cannot in any way be associated with socialism. He is the epitome of a rational capitalist, who is using very well documented figures.
1
The charts and the underlying data pose the question ''why bother?'' for working people (middle class, former middle class, or those still aspiring.) Once the majority, the middle class has been declining for decades, with more dropping down than rising up.
As reported elsewhere in The Times, a few thousand very wealthy people have tilted policy in their favor, mostly through manipulation of the tax system. Accordingly, they pay taxes at a far lower average rate (17%) than even the historically low rates in the tax code.
This wealthy group is shielded from the struggles of most Americans, investing instead in influencing the Congress and regulators to advance their own interests. For them, a do-nothing Congress, maintaining the status quo, is just fine.
Most of the charts illustrate the effects of this--as the economy has expanded, most of the gains go to the top, middle class wages are flat despite a doubling of productivity, and labor force participation is in decline. Young graduates, the best educated generation in our history, have fewer prospects than earlier generations.
Predictably, the presidential campaign ''debate'' so far avoids the fairly obvious facts, instead diverting attention to exaggerated threats from outside. But the real threat to American is that our system is no longer working to advance the interests of most Americans.
As reported elsewhere in The Times, a few thousand very wealthy people have tilted policy in their favor, mostly through manipulation of the tax system. Accordingly, they pay taxes at a far lower average rate (17%) than even the historically low rates in the tax code.
This wealthy group is shielded from the struggles of most Americans, investing instead in influencing the Congress and regulators to advance their own interests. For them, a do-nothing Congress, maintaining the status quo, is just fine.
Most of the charts illustrate the effects of this--as the economy has expanded, most of the gains go to the top, middle class wages are flat despite a doubling of productivity, and labor force participation is in decline. Young graduates, the best educated generation in our history, have fewer prospects than earlier generations.
Predictably, the presidential campaign ''debate'' so far avoids the fairly obvious facts, instead diverting attention to exaggerated threats from outside. But the real threat to American is that our system is no longer working to advance the interests of most Americans.
2
ClearEye: Thanks, I now have a idea why so many people from around the world are clamoring to get into the USA. They aren't familiar with Mr. Rattner's Year in Charts.
1
Tim, there will always be places worse off than the US. That doesn't mean conditions here are what they should be.
The charts show the global economy is fulfilling its function, to move production to areas with lowest wages. The global experiment has driven the growth we see in other charts in low wage jobs, reduced work force participation, and increased income inequality. Yet neither party acknowledges the failures of globalism or offers even tentative steps to pull us back from the precipice. As a conservative I disagree with Bernie Sanders on most issues, but I give him credit for having the moral and intellectual courage to swim upstream against a tide of indifference on these issues from the political establishment.
4
This is an excellent point. Low wage workers come to America as well. If globalism is here to stay the issues it presents need to be discussed, charted and studied.
1
I find the concern about the recent lag productivity perplexing. When wage growth lags productivity growth by a factor of 2, isn't stagnating productivity the only rational outcome? We are assured by economists that unless the wealthy entrepreneurs are handed ever bigger tax cuts, they would lose the incentive to work hard and create more jobs. Don't incentives work the same way for workers?
7
"While Hillary Clinton appears to be cruising to the Democratic presidential nomination..."
According to what source? Most recent polls show Sanders barely behind Clinton.
According to what source? Most recent polls show Sanders barely behind Clinton.
1
The Gun charts resemble the shape of a pistol, with the United States taking aim.
2
First off, I would be more worried about the evils of the proven criminal Hillary than a law abiding citizen like Trump. The first sentence sets the tone for the raw display of enlightened ignorance. The labor participation rate proves the opening graph is misleading so why even have it? There are also more people of working age entering the economy than leaving so retirement is not the answer at all. Obama and CO. had complete control for 2 years and then there has been gridlock since, so to blame republicans is foolish. Repubs have not gotten to do what they want, which is to get things working again. Flooding the labor market with immigrants is the main reason for lower wages. A college education in what? Race or women's studies will not get you a job. We probably have too many worthless degrees now days. More guns does not mean more deaths. It does mean more deaths by guns of course but not more death in general. If that graph was knife deaths Europe would have much worse numbers. People will find a way to kill each other. The flaw is among humans not the tools. Another point is that Europe has 1/8th the number of deaths as America for whatever reason. This was true even before the gun bans in Europe. Different cultures create different outcomes. If you want to be the best country in the world in most respects then a higher rate of violence might come with the package and banning guns will have little effect. This article is writing malpractice.
5
"Donald Trump's business dealings with a white-collar criminal allegedly tied to organized crime are beginning to percolate up into the 2016 presidential campaign."
"Felix Sater, a fraudster with alleged connections to Cosa Nostra, worked closely with Trump on numerous occasions. His ties to the mob have been documented by the New York Times, BBC, and other news organizations, and largely revolve around his involvement in a money-laundering scheme dating to the 1990s."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/will-donald-trumps-ties-to-a-criminal-...
Hm-m-m-m-m-m.
"Felix Sater, a fraudster with alleged connections to Cosa Nostra, worked closely with Trump on numerous occasions. His ties to the mob have been documented by the New York Times, BBC, and other news organizations, and largely revolve around his involvement in a money-laundering scheme dating to the 1990s."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/will-donald-trumps-ties-to-a-criminal-...
Hm-m-m-m-m-m.
I was drawn to the charts showing that terrorism deaths reached over 32,000 this year. And then I was reminded of the combined civilian and military death tolls of WWII, estimated at 80,000,000. Terrorism is a serious threat. But it may be helpful to place the casualty rates in a broader context of human conflict when setting public policy and choosing the appropriate amount of media coverage.
4
The gun charts are terribly misleading. The overall murder rate in the U.S. is at 3.8, which on UNODC's list of 218 countries puts us at 121. If "More Guns = More Death", why aren't we first, or at least significantly higher? Better question is this: Switzerland is second on his chart of guns per 100 people, and yet they are 210 out of 218 on the murder rate chart at 0.6. Why on earth aren't more Swiss dying per year if his simplistic statement were true? We kill each other because there is hatred in our hearts, and no amount of gun control will stop that. Focus on the root of the problem, not the effects.
3
William,
The Swiss have their army gun at home if they leave the armed forces, whereas the US folks can by guns around the corner. The root problem is that the US doesn't talk about the root problem. Between 2001 and 2013, domestic gun violence killed more people in the United States than AIDS, illegal drug overdoses, wars and terrorism combined. So why are wars, terrorism, drugs and AIDS a subject of debate but not guns?
The Swiss have their army gun at home if they leave the armed forces, whereas the US folks can by guns around the corner. The root problem is that the US doesn't talk about the root problem. Between 2001 and 2013, domestic gun violence killed more people in the United States than AIDS, illegal drug overdoses, wars and terrorism combined. So why are wars, terrorism, drugs and AIDS a subject of debate but not guns?
4
Yeah, just look at the number of deaths by sharpened spoons and you can see that guns are not the problem.
And we're so 'low' on homicides because most third world countries have even more guns and less law and order than we do. And yes, Switzerland has fewer murders than would be predicted only by number of guns. But nobody is saying that number of guns is the only variable, just that it's a very significant one that we are insanely out of whack on.
And we're so 'low' on homicides because most third world countries have even more guns and less law and order than we do. And yes, Switzerland has fewer murders than would be predicted only by number of guns. But nobody is saying that number of guns is the only variable, just that it's a very significant one that we are insanely out of whack on.
2
I too read the article, so let's talk about that statistic. Did you know that there are approximately 33,000 firearm related deaths every year, 2/3 of which are suicides? So when removing self-inflicted harm(as sorrowful as that is), actual gun violence is only a third of AIDS, illegal drug overdoses, wars and terrorism combined.
But as long as you are concerned about what is truly killing Americans, are you willing to adopt more severe alcohol control? That kills 88,000 Americans each year, or eight times the number of non self-inflicted gun violence. I assume you are going to ban cigarettes as well, seeing how they kill 480,000 Americans each year. Just to put it in perspective, cigarettes kill in one year what guns kill in 14 years, including ALL gun deaths. On average, 33,000 people die from car accidents, which is 3 times the amount that people die of non self-inflicted gun violence.
So tell me, Daniel: Why are guns the subject of debate, but not alcohol, cigarettes, and cars? If of course we really care about what's killing Americans.
But as long as you are concerned about what is truly killing Americans, are you willing to adopt more severe alcohol control? That kills 88,000 Americans each year, or eight times the number of non self-inflicted gun violence. I assume you are going to ban cigarettes as well, seeing how they kill 480,000 Americans each year. Just to put it in perspective, cigarettes kill in one year what guns kill in 14 years, including ALL gun deaths. On average, 33,000 people die from car accidents, which is 3 times the amount that people die of non self-inflicted gun violence.
So tell me, Daniel: Why are guns the subject of debate, but not alcohol, cigarettes, and cars? If of course we really care about what's killing Americans.
1
At least lefties like Rattner have moved on from the Koch Brothers to Trump as the cause of all evil. Of course, he gives are dear leader a pass.
Um, Rattner's very middle of the road, even slightly on the conservative side. It's a sign of how off the deep end the Republican Party's gotten that you think him a raging liberal.
6
I wonder, why there are no statistics concerning military expenditure. And I mean all the costs for so called 'security', conducting military operations, hidden costs for bribing 'allies', healthcare and military pensions and 'foreign aid' in form of weaponry.
4
I like Rattner's work. But focusing on homicides per 100000 is cherry picking at its worst. Why? The homicide death rate in the US is 3.2, Japan's 0. So what? The UN lists the US death rate from all causes at 8/1000 versus 10/1000 for Japan. Worse, in the US, the fatality rate with automobiles is 10.3/100000. What's left unsaid is that the homcide death rate is the favorite tool used by one political party to bludgeon the other. I don't have a gun, but I do have a car. However, any day of the week I'd prefer to drive in the US than live in Japan.
One of the reasons for the lower labor participation rate is the staggering 20% increase in Social Security Disability approvals.
Interesting ... so has SSD benefits effectively replaced unemployment benefits? I guess if wages are not high enough, people will explore governmental assistence. A little more than messed up when you are better off by not working. Maybe this explains some of the "34% Unknown".
Can we please stop referring to Donald Trump every where and all the time (it pops up in the first dozen or so words in this analysis of the economy). We are only giving oxygen to his campaign. Please, be more mindful of how he is using the media in such a harmful way.
PS...I realize I violated my own counsel....
PS...I realize I violated my own counsel....
Many of the 'explanations' are not necessarily correct:
1. Take recent graduates holding a bachelor's degree. Are they really 'well-educated'? How do they compare with those who graduated 30 years ago? Actually testing has shown that 5% of recent 'college graduates' are functionally illiterate, and another 20% read at the 5th-grade level.
2. Is productivity really declining? In an economy where many workers are salaried, the number of hours worked will differ from the official work week. During the 2009-2012 period, employers could get salaried workers to work any number of hours, because they were afraid of losing their jobs. Now things are not so bad, so the number of hours worked may well be less.
3. Are people at in the 80th percentiles and below really doing so badly? There are many ways to make money, or obtain goods and services, that are not reported to the IRS. Government benefits, unreported income, and trading and dealing may mean that they are not as far behind as the official statistics suggest.
1. Take recent graduates holding a bachelor's degree. Are they really 'well-educated'? How do they compare with those who graduated 30 years ago? Actually testing has shown that 5% of recent 'college graduates' are functionally illiterate, and another 20% read at the 5th-grade level.
2. Is productivity really declining? In an economy where many workers are salaried, the number of hours worked will differ from the official work week. During the 2009-2012 period, employers could get salaried workers to work any number of hours, because they were afraid of losing their jobs. Now things are not so bad, so the number of hours worked may well be less.
3. Are people at in the 80th percentiles and below really doing so badly? There are many ways to make money, or obtain goods and services, that are not reported to the IRS. Government benefits, unreported income, and trading and dealing may mean that they are not as far behind as the official statistics suggest.
3
"34% Unknown" on the causes of the labor participation rate decline ... really? You would think that understanding the underlining causes for lower participation rates would be essential for addressing them. I love these charts but this "unknown" either makes me think that the labor participation rate is not being calculated correctly or that noone really wants to know why it has been dropping.
1
Wage stagnation at the lower end of the income scale does not equate to a "transfer of wealth from the 90% to the 10%". Wages have not stagnated in one area of the economy because they have increased in another. Wages have been depressed by greater competition for fewer jobs a trend that will not be reversing anytime soon. Many businesses will never rebuild their workforces to pre-recession levels.
1
This misses the point. The middle class is the vast driver of purchasing power in your standard national economy. If you have 10 people earning 100,000, they will spend a much larger percentage of their income on goods and services in the local economy than a millionaire earning 1,000,000 would. Therefore, when companies pay their average worker a pittance like $7/hr and pay their CEO 30 million/year, they effectively kill the economy, rather than paying the CEO 3 million/year and spreading the other income among middle class workers -- they effectively kill the U.S. economy.
And then in turn they will need to lay off workers because no one is buying their products. Countries that don't create a strong middle class always have weak economies (unless they have an economy built on a single product, such as oil, and then they have a boom and bust economy based on the value of that one product.)
So the fact that a few top executives are earning more of the share of profit of any large business -- rather than passing it on to the middle workers -- affects us all, negatively.
And then in turn they will need to lay off workers because no one is buying their products. Countries that don't create a strong middle class always have weak economies (unless they have an economy built on a single product, such as oil, and then they have a boom and bust economy based on the value of that one product.)
So the fact that a few top executives are earning more of the share of profit of any large business -- rather than passing it on to the middle workers -- affects us all, negatively.
7
That may be true but only a small percentage of US workers are employed by businesses with such CEOs. About half of US workers are employed by small businesses with <500 employees. Average salary $154K.
http://www.sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=President_and_CEO/Salary
http://www.sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=President_and_CEO/Salary
A couple of conservative myths are debunked by these charts: 1) "More guns means less crime." 2) "The unemployment problem will be solved if people just got a good education."
Unfortunately, conservatives are impervious to data that conflicts with their ideological preconceptions; a point reinforced and/or confirmed by a number of the comments here.
Unfortunately, conservatives are impervious to data that conflicts with their ideological preconceptions; a point reinforced and/or confirmed by a number of the comments here.
2
"Researchers across a wide range of fields, policy makers, and large segments of the public believe that the work-related skills of the labor force do not match the requirements of jobs and that this explains a large part of the growth of wage inequality in the United States in the past 20 years."
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.10003...
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.10003...
I still say that the unemployment problem would be helped if people got a good education. Employers have little use for semi-literate college graduates, as they can get semi-literate high-school graduates at a lower cost.
If the college graduates actually knew something, then employers might hire them.
If the college graduates actually knew something, then employers might hire them.
1) In the last 20 years, the gun homicide rate in the U.S. has dropped by 50%. During that same period, the number of guns per person has increased by 50%. Unfortunately, some people may be impervious to this data as it likely conflicts with their ideological preconceptions.
2) I'm not sure how or why you determined that the unemployment/education relationship is a conservative myth. From the whitehouse.gov website: "Higher education is the single-most important investment that Americans can make in their futures, increasing their future potential earnings and lowering their risk of unemployment."
Of course, as we have seen, the best way to lower unemployment is to discourage people to such a degree that they simply drop out of the workforce and are no longer counted in the statistics. As the charts show, the best way to do that is create mostly low-paying jobs so that every group except the top 10% will see their income levels drop. Mission accomplished.
2) I'm not sure how or why you determined that the unemployment/education relationship is a conservative myth. From the whitehouse.gov website: "Higher education is the single-most important investment that Americans can make in their futures, increasing their future potential earnings and lowering their risk of unemployment."
Of course, as we have seen, the best way to lower unemployment is to discourage people to such a degree that they simply drop out of the workforce and are no longer counted in the statistics. As the charts show, the best way to do that is create mostly low-paying jobs so that every group except the top 10% will see their income levels drop. Mission accomplished.
1
Bruce and Trekkie, I agree. When the government stops fiddling with numbers and really looks at numbers like the labor force participation rate, we may actually start to have an honest discussion about how bad it really is in America. We keep adding more and more spending with fewer and lower paid workers to pay for it. The reality is frightening.
2
My Conservative friends have harped for the past few years about the labor force participation rate as if it proves things are lousy (miserable so and sos that they are). What the chart plainly shows is that the rate, while high, is hardly without precedent and the retiring boomers are causing the majority of the decline. Please move on to something else, my Conservative friends.
1
It's so fashionable to say that stats like these are grim, but... These stats are more grim than they appear. As the author and others have observed, the unemployment rate is skewed low by the low labor participation rate. The job creation numbers are (as usual) mostly in the low-wage service sector. Manufacturing jobs are anemic, and would be far, far worse but for historically cheap energy costs. So what have we to show for our efforts to restore the economy after the 08 nosedive? Well, it is better than it was. I don't think that there is much that can be done about income inequality - that is more a function of globalization than national politics. The labor participation rate is the most disturbing of all because it is big and cannot be explained. It also, I imagine, drives down overall productivity. So it is indeed jobs, as usual, that requires our attention and focus.
3
Add in the fact that many employers are needing employees with skills that young people do not possess because our public education system is locked in the past.
There are clearly more college educated young people today yet they still don't possess the skills needed to land a good job.
There are clearly more college educated young people today yet they still don't possess the skills needed to land a good job.
2
"Add in the fact that many employers are needing employees with skills that young people do not possess because our public education system is locked in the past."
Perhaps, but can you list any such jobs, where employers are seeking employees with skills that available candidates do not possess? One obvious place to look would be those job vacancies where the offered or the reported wages are going up. Can you list any of them?
Otherwise what you say is nothing but pure emptiness.
Perhaps, but can you list any such jobs, where employers are seeking employees with skills that available candidates do not possess? One obvious place to look would be those job vacancies where the offered or the reported wages are going up. Can you list any of them?
Otherwise what you say is nothing but pure emptiness.
1
I agree with Bruce, this is all smoke and mirrors. Straight out propaganda.
1
Conventional economic theory and deep-seated cultural values, as expressed by Mr. Rattner, ignore how the US economy has suffered from a massive oversupply of labor. Specifically, since 1980 the number of people in the USA has increased by approximately 100 million people -- at a time when jobs were being sent abroad or automated out of existence. Too many people and not enough work drive people into unemployment or declining-wage jobs; this is not a concept that conventional economic thinking or the corporate media permit to emerge for discussion.
3
Thank you for stating the obvious! The apostles of supply and demand ignore their basic assumptions, when it suits their masters.
"Too many people and not enough work drive people into unemployment or declining-wage jobs; this is not a concept that conventional economic thinking or the corporate media permit to emerge for discussion."
Perhaps, but if there were too many people, with the same demand per person, wouldn't that first manifest itself in a shortage of energy and materials long before it manifests as a shortage of jobs?
Perhaps it could be a shortage of demand, you know.
Perhaps, but if there were too many people, with the same demand per person, wouldn't that first manifest itself in a shortage of energy and materials long before it manifests as a shortage of jobs?
Perhaps it could be a shortage of demand, you know.
Gee, the Obama years look terrible.
1
Chicago and Houston have almost exactly the same demographics including same household incomes, same percentage of whites, approx the same size (2.1m vs 2.7m), same size police force, etc. Chicago has toughest gun laws in U.S. and absolutely zero gun shops. You literally cannot buy a gun in the city of Chicago. Houston has open gun laws and 182 gun shops. In 2014 Chicago had 439 murders and Houston had 207.
Is gun control the answer?
Is gun control the answer?
1
Re: guns owned per 100k vs murders by from those guns...why is every other country's statistic on murders so disproportionally lower?
Perhaps its not the number of guns but the number of people who think nothing of taking lives.
Perhaps its not the number of guns but the number of people who think nothing of taking lives.
1
Trump phenomenon explained in ten graphs.
2
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only. Charles Dickens.
This is the best I can do, and "it is a far better thing than I have ever written before." Paraphrasing Dickens again.
This is the best I can do, and "it is a far better thing than I have ever written before." Paraphrasing Dickens again.
Seems based on these charts, the GOP candidates policy prescriptions (what little one can make of them beyond wall building propositions), and our unpleasant historical experience with supply-side economics, that we could expect the following should one of the Republicans win the 2016 election:
-- A reversal of the tremendous employment progress since Bush II left us in the ruins of the Great Recession
-- An increased transfer of wealth from the bottom 90% to the top 10%, with the top 1% taking the lion share of the gains
-- Millennials mired in modern-day indentured servitude (massive college debt + perpetual low income)
-- More guns and more gun deaths (perhaps we'll be able to increase to 5 times the gap between us and the number two spot)
-- A reversal of the tremendous employment progress since Bush II left us in the ruins of the Great Recession
-- An increased transfer of wealth from the bottom 90% to the top 10%, with the top 1% taking the lion share of the gains
-- Millennials mired in modern-day indentured servitude (massive college debt + perpetual low income)
-- More guns and more gun deaths (perhaps we'll be able to increase to 5 times the gap between us and the number two spot)
3
More people in their prime are dropping out of the workforce. Only 63% of people in that range (25-54) are working. Is not this growth in the reserve army of the unemployed positively related to the cumulative growth in productivity (by the way it is misleading as presented) and stagnation in the economy? More investors are choosing not to invest in the productive economy. Bernanke said it is related to the deceleration of profitability (like productivity it grows at a slower pace). Not many "economists" are talking about it.
5
This is all smoke and mirrors, there is nothing perplexing here, except to those who never leave the Beltway.
The job growth is in low wage, limited or no benefit jobs.
Unemployment is only counting those who are 'actively seeking employment.'
The important chart here is the Labor Participation Rate. It is not perplexing at all. Millions of people who were put out of work during the Great Recession cannot find work. Their jobs have gone away or a new job would require extensive training or a move from their home to the coasts. In addition a lot of the unemployed are 50+ and suffer from discrimination due to their age. They therefore stop looking. Since they are no longer counted, the employment numbers look great. Politicians rejoice, but the economy sucks.
The productivity numbers also tell a tale. A lot of knowledge has left the workforce. The new people coming in are working for lower wages and do not have the experience needed to be really productive.
Taken all together, in spite of the rosy picture painted in Washington, we have an economy that is stuck in low gear. It is taking a long time to get going and fueling a lot of anger and resentment, hence - Trump.
Time for Washington to take off the rose colored glasses, quit mucking around overseas and pay attention to what is going on at home. If they don't, November of 2016 could be really ugly.
The job growth is in low wage, limited or no benefit jobs.
Unemployment is only counting those who are 'actively seeking employment.'
The important chart here is the Labor Participation Rate. It is not perplexing at all. Millions of people who were put out of work during the Great Recession cannot find work. Their jobs have gone away or a new job would require extensive training or a move from their home to the coasts. In addition a lot of the unemployed are 50+ and suffer from discrimination due to their age. They therefore stop looking. Since they are no longer counted, the employment numbers look great. Politicians rejoice, but the economy sucks.
The productivity numbers also tell a tale. A lot of knowledge has left the workforce. The new people coming in are working for lower wages and do not have the experience needed to be really productive.
Taken all together, in spite of the rosy picture painted in Washington, we have an economy that is stuck in low gear. It is taking a long time to get going and fueling a lot of anger and resentment, hence - Trump.
Time for Washington to take off the rose colored glasses, quit mucking around overseas and pay attention to what is going on at home. If they don't, November of 2016 could be really ugly.
13
Look at the chart "Earning Much Less, Despite More Education".
Furthermore Bruce, the situation is that while the number of private sector jobs has increased much more under Obama than under the comparable period under Bush, the number if government jobs has drastically decreased during the Obama administration.
This is because the deficit under Obama has been cut by 2/3. People must understand that the deficit measures the net flow of money FROM the federal government TO people, businesses, and state & local government. The people who need money and will spend it are not getting enough so there are not enough new customers to make it worthwhile for businesses to expand. Too much money goes to the people who do not need it and use the excess money to speculate.
In addition, crucial government operations like tax collections, drug approval, infrastructure repair, etc. are being starved of funds and people.
It is time people realize that the finances of a huge government that last a long time and can print the currency its debt is in, are very, very different from their own personal finances.
This is because the deficit under Obama has been cut by 2/3. People must understand that the deficit measures the net flow of money FROM the federal government TO people, businesses, and state & local government. The people who need money and will spend it are not getting enough so there are not enough new customers to make it worthwhile for businesses to expand. Too much money goes to the people who do not need it and use the excess money to speculate.
In addition, crucial government operations like tax collections, drug approval, infrastructure repair, etc. are being starved of funds and people.
It is time people realize that the finances of a huge government that last a long time and can print the currency its debt is in, are very, very different from their own personal finances.
Solution to most of the charted ills: Get government out of people's pockets - stop taking and stop giving. Free the people to act in their own self interest and unleash the power human aspiration, un-dampened by government distortion. "Progress" to your own home, and keep your solutions - i.e., roadblocks - out of people's lives.
3
Since we do need a functioning government that has to be financed somehow, there will always taxes to be paid. There is something like good government and bad government, a concept since ancient times. Just look at the many Renaissance paintings, that show consequences of each.
Good government:
Taxing for the common good
Protecting the country from attacks while avoiding wars, that are conducted to revenge perceived insults to the leaders or to enrich the leading class.
Promoting commercial activities and setting rules for the actors involved.
Educating the young and promoting science and technology free from ideological interference.
Taking care of the the poor, old and sick.
Promoting useful public works that are too large and expensive for any private enterprise.
Creating a justice system for rich and poor.
Promoting good relations with foreign countries
Poor government.
Taxing for personal gains of the ruling class or allowing the ruling classes avoiding taxes altogether.
Using an army to fight wars for the exclusive benefit of the above ruling class and paying for wars not through taxes but cuts in public spending.
Creating laws that promote commercial and political oligopolies.
Cutting funds for science and education.
Creating a justice system rigged for the benefits of the rich and powerful.
Letting the sick, poor and old fend for themselves.
Cutting funds for local infrastructure.
And so on......
Guess, what type of governments we had for 35 years?
Good government:
Taxing for the common good
Protecting the country from attacks while avoiding wars, that are conducted to revenge perceived insults to the leaders or to enrich the leading class.
Promoting commercial activities and setting rules for the actors involved.
Educating the young and promoting science and technology free from ideological interference.
Taking care of the the poor, old and sick.
Promoting useful public works that are too large and expensive for any private enterprise.
Creating a justice system for rich and poor.
Promoting good relations with foreign countries
Poor government.
Taxing for personal gains of the ruling class or allowing the ruling classes avoiding taxes altogether.
Using an army to fight wars for the exclusive benefit of the above ruling class and paying for wars not through taxes but cuts in public spending.
Creating laws that promote commercial and political oligopolies.
Cutting funds for science and education.
Creating a justice system rigged for the benefits of the rich and powerful.
Letting the sick, poor and old fend for themselves.
Cutting funds for local infrastructure.
And so on......
Guess, what type of governments we had for 35 years?
1
The chart on guns and gun deaths should be alarming, but it only saddened me, because I know its simple clarity will be challenged, denied, obfuscated, or ignored. Still, I will not give up the struggle to persuade people that reasonable controls on guns are not an infringement of Constitutional rights.
15
Correlation does not equal causation.
Two can play that game: The Pew Research Center reported recently that the murder rate was cut nearly in half from 7 per 100,000 in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2013. Over the same period, overall gun deaths (including accidents and suicides) have fallen by one-third from 15.2 to 10.6 per 100,000.
Meanwhile, the number of privately owned guns (and gun commerce in general) in the United States has increased substantially in recent decades.
Rather, consider the impact of more gun free zones and inner city gang violence.
Two can play that game: The Pew Research Center reported recently that the murder rate was cut nearly in half from 7 per 100,000 in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2013. Over the same period, overall gun deaths (including accidents and suicides) have fallen by one-third from 15.2 to 10.6 per 100,000.
Meanwhile, the number of privately owned guns (and gun commerce in general) in the United States has increased substantially in recent decades.
Rather, consider the impact of more gun free zones and inner city gang violence.
2
More guns equal more deaths. Makes sense, sounds logical. Yet try to find a Republican Diogenes candidate who would dare accept this truth, and if so, would tell their constituents. No profiles in courage here.
To win support of paranoid conspiracy mongers who make up the current Republican rank and file candidates must either knowingly lie to them, or worse, actually believe the gobbledygook they are spewing. If that's the case, then heaven help the GOP. They are teetering on the precipice about to fling themselves over the edge. In doing so, they seem willing, even eager, to take the whole party down with them. Utter lunacy. Thus is the state of the GOP these days.
DD
Manhattan
To win support of paranoid conspiracy mongers who make up the current Republican rank and file candidates must either knowingly lie to them, or worse, actually believe the gobbledygook they are spewing. If that's the case, then heaven help the GOP. They are teetering on the precipice about to fling themselves over the edge. In doing so, they seem willing, even eager, to take the whole party down with them. Utter lunacy. Thus is the state of the GOP these days.
DD
Manhattan
12
Could it be, that all the productivity growth achievable in service sector jobs is jeopardized by the now all consuming 'documentation' -mania that spreads like a virus through businesses, government agencies, educational institutions and especially healthcare providers (see the recent Sunday Review op-ed piece by Dr. Abigail Zuger)? There is only so much that humans can take!
1
What strikes me most about the graphic on guns is not that Americans have significantly more guns or gun murders in itself but that while we have nearly 4x as many guns as the average of the other countries our gun murder rate is 9x. I am definitely on board for some common sense gun regulations but the darker reality here is that we as Americans are violent people and that might be a harder nut to crack.
4
"Among other consequences, the contracting labor force understates our unemployment rate."
Weakly put, but accurate. The REAL unemployment rate if the tens of millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans were counted is in the double digits and is so embarrassingly high and humiliating that the corrupt Wall Street owned government simply doesn't count them.
Weakly put, but accurate. The REAL unemployment rate if the tens of millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans were counted is in the double digits and is so embarrassingly high and humiliating that the corrupt Wall Street owned government simply doesn't count them.
7
This is a difficult issue. How could you tell who really 'should' be in the workforce? Yes, there are many people who would accept a high-paying job that requires little work, but that's not going to happen. They have, for various reasons, decided not to work and not to seek work. They may be in school, they may be at home raising children, they may be retired or disabled, or they may have some unofficial way of making money that doesn't show up in the statistics. Who is to say they should be counted as unemployed? The BLS is doing to best it can, by saying that if someone did anything at all to find a job in the last 4 weeks, then that person is in the workforce.
2
The chart title "Not As Productive" is misleading. The chart clearly shows that productivity continues to rise, albeit at a slower rate of increase. Still, any increase, no matter how small, means we are MORE productive.
1
Right. It's cumulative just like profitability. Its acceleration has decreased, but overall it continues to grow in the historical aggregate.
Mr Rattner, Your charts are a must study.
Trump is the evil twin of ISIS?
Hyperbole taken to silliness and nonsense
Trump is the evil twin of ISIS?
Hyperbole taken to silliness and nonsense
Your first point is spot-on -- these charts are quite revealing and well-done.
On the second point though, while it might bit exaggerated to equate Trump to ISIS, it's not that far off-base as a general analogy; both are extremely negative forces and appealing to people's lowest instincts, yet garnering great enthusiasm and support.
On the second point though, while it might bit exaggerated to equate Trump to ISIS, it's not that far off-base as a general analogy; both are extremely negative forces and appealing to people's lowest instincts, yet garnering great enthusiasm and support.
2
Dear media: with your own quotes showing how dismal the economy is for over 90% of Americans, how can you continue to use the word "recovery" in your writing?
"The overwhelming evidence is that the recovery has not been good for most Americans. Between 2006 and 2014, the only income groups to see their incomes rise at all after adjusting for inflation were those at the 90th and 95th percentiles. Still more dispiriting was that earnings dropped by a larger percentage for every decile one step further down the income scale."
Anyone who looks at the above quote can come up with a sentence that is more honest. How about: "when one analyses where her gains in the economy have gone, one can only say that this is a continuing and worsening recession for 90% of Americans."
"The overwhelming evidence is that the recovery has not been good for most Americans. Between 2006 and 2014, the only income groups to see their incomes rise at all after adjusting for inflation were those at the 90th and 95th percentiles. Still more dispiriting was that earnings dropped by a larger percentage for every decile one step further down the income scale."
Anyone who looks at the above quote can come up with a sentence that is more honest. How about: "when one analyses where her gains in the economy have gone, one can only say that this is a continuing and worsening recession for 90% of Americans."
2
I'm no gun-rights fanatic, but I have to ask: When you discuss "domestic gun violence," are you including suicides? While it might be argued that guns make suicide attempts more deadly, I don't think that suicides belong in the same "domestic gun violence" category as murders. According to the 2013 CDC statistics, suicides account for about 2/3rds of gun-related deaths. Certainly, some number of those who use guns to commit suicide would find alternate means if guns were not available (as they do in Japan, where guns are uncommon, but suicides per capita are 50% more common than in the US). Anyway, true gun violence is bad enough without hyping the statistics, which only feeds the paranoia of the deniers.
1
The fine print at the bottom of the chart says: "United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (murder) 2007 data for guns per 100 people; U.S. murder data is for 2010 and latest available for other countries"
So it is murder and not all gun deaths, and he's not hyping the statistics--they are bad enough without hype--and apparently worse than you thought.
So it is murder and not all gun deaths, and he's not hyping the statistics--they are bad enough without hype--and apparently worse than you thought.
5
There are several issues with this article, but the most pronounced is with the varying timelines for the statistics presented. The start dates for trends are not fixed, they seem chosen to over emphasis a trend. This is one of several ways that people often take data and make it say something that it may not otherwise. There are great points here, but start with a fixed date range to make them so that the reader can better judge the accuracy of the conclusions.
Exactly what I was thinking. Thank you. This is not altogether an honest report. It is designed to persuade. Also, anyone other than me surprised that only 22% of men 18 - 34 have 4 years college and more? I would have thought closer to 60%.
Fascinating presentation. Thanks for pulling together so many basic and interesting numbers. Would that journalism was more focused on what was occurring for the most part, which can be shown quantitatively, rather than just what seems to be novel, or official, or peculiar or colorful.
Also, I'd like to add a question along the lines of previous comment from Brooklyn reader Matthew Carnicelli. My recollection of the post-war period and early 1960's, when I was in college, was that many thought leaders seemed to agree that trends in the population, productivity, and the eocnomy, meant that we were inevitably headed for more shrinking of the work week and a new era of leisure for all. That obviously hasn't happened, based on the rise of different ways to cut the pie, but is it not still the case that--if wages at the top were limited to the 20 times or similar multiple of the lowest worker that they used to be -- that the trends in US or Western population, productivity, and gnp would still suggest that an era of leisure and affluence, rather than an era of inequality and sleeplessness, remains as possible --according to the numbers--as it appeared to be 55 and 60 years ago?
Also, I'd like to add a question along the lines of previous comment from Brooklyn reader Matthew Carnicelli. My recollection of the post-war period and early 1960's, when I was in college, was that many thought leaders seemed to agree that trends in the population, productivity, and the eocnomy, meant that we were inevitably headed for more shrinking of the work week and a new era of leisure for all. That obviously hasn't happened, based on the rise of different ways to cut the pie, but is it not still the case that--if wages at the top were limited to the 20 times or similar multiple of the lowest worker that they used to be -- that the trends in US or Western population, productivity, and gnp would still suggest that an era of leisure and affluence, rather than an era of inequality and sleeplessness, remains as possible --according to the numbers--as it appeared to be 55 and 60 years ago?
2
Finally, a decent article from Mt. Ratner. It would have been even better if his charts went back to, say, 1946. Then we could have seen what policies like very high tax rates on the Rich, strong support of unions, federal spending om projects like the interstate highways, strong regulation of financial speculation, etc. compare with what has been done since 1973 and especially since 1981 when these policies were mostly scrapped due to Republican ideological stupidity.
For example, we would have seen that in this period productivity moved in lockstep with wages, inequality was much lower, real median household income surged 74%, and economic growth was much greater.
For example, we would have seen that in this period productivity moved in lockstep with wages, inequality was much lower, real median household income surged 74%, and economic growth was much greater.
4
The difference, Len, was that in 1946 the US produced almost half of the products consumed by the whole world. In the meanwhile the capitals in Europe and Japan were restarting their cumulative process, not to mention the so called emerging capitals in China, Korea, and Brazil.
Actually Enri, not. Go to page 60 in your well worn copy of Piketty's Book, "Capital". At the top of the page is a chart that shows the output of the world's regions from 1700 to 2012. Look at the post WWII segment. Europe's output was a constant 38%. The output of America during this period started out a little higher, then fell to a little lower.
You can also look at our balance of payments for the period. They fluctuated a bit around zero. We did not get rich off of the rest of the world.
This is a common myth.
You can also look at our balance of payments for the period. They fluctuated a bit around zero. We did not get rich off of the rest of the world.
This is a common myth.
2
What has changed since around 1980 and again since 1990 is the balance of trade - it has been negative over most of this time (it was neutral before that as Len says). To a considerable extent international capitalists and China have been getting rich off US workers.
There is one chart missing that renders each of the ten present almost meaningless: global average temperatures.
3
Whoa 2015 - how depressing!
Get better educated, earn less.
Republican candidates route to the top - insult, criticize, mimic, degrade, and Donald would have you believe he's got the lead - but maybe not. Even so - not much to compare to.
Throw in terrorism to make our New Year's Eve a cheery one. Let's just hope nothing happens as we make our toast.
And of course, when all else fails, buy a gun.
Our deceased parents would never believe it. But then again, at least the charts do show some of us oldies were maybe able to give up our jobs - well, maybe.....
Get better educated, earn less.
Republican candidates route to the top - insult, criticize, mimic, degrade, and Donald would have you believe he's got the lead - but maybe not. Even so - not much to compare to.
Throw in terrorism to make our New Year's Eve a cheery one. Let's just hope nothing happens as we make our toast.
And of course, when all else fails, buy a gun.
Our deceased parents would never believe it. But then again, at least the charts do show some of us oldies were maybe able to give up our jobs - well, maybe.....
1
Interesting charts.
The correlation between the number of guns owned (pre4sumably legally) and the number of gun-caused deaths is a straight left-wing political propaganda.
Is there a correlation with the number of kitchen knives owned? A relationship between the number of cars and car-caused deaths?
I recommend a wonderful book, first published in 1954, but still in press, "How to Lie with Statistics", by Darrell Huff.
The correlation between the number of guns owned (pre4sumably legally) and the number of gun-caused deaths is a straight left-wing political propaganda.
Is there a correlation with the number of kitchen knives owned? A relationship between the number of cars and car-caused deaths?
I recommend a wonderful book, first published in 1954, but still in press, "How to Lie with Statistics", by Darrell Huff.
2
It is always pleasant to read some straight right-wing political propaganda, and as soon as someone mentions guns, it pops up like clockwork...
So, the number of kitchen knives. Presumably, there is no huge difference between the US and other countries. Perhaps nations where cooking is more of a pastime will have more and higher quality kitchen knives (France, Japan?). And yet, there is no major difference in the basic number, and no difference in the number of deaths these knives cost. Same with cars. Where there are cars, there will be car related deaths, but they do not vary greatly between nations.
If anything, your argument strengthens the gist of the article. In the US the number of guns outnumbers all other countries enormously, and the number of violent deaths does so on an even larger scale. The point is not the US number as a stand alone, but in comparison to the other OECD countries.
This is not just correlation, there is also a huge element of causality. The capacity of gun enthusiasts to deny this obvious connection again and again with spurious "arguments" completely out of context is quite breathtaking.
So, the number of kitchen knives. Presumably, there is no huge difference between the US and other countries. Perhaps nations where cooking is more of a pastime will have more and higher quality kitchen knives (France, Japan?). And yet, there is no major difference in the basic number, and no difference in the number of deaths these knives cost. Same with cars. Where there are cars, there will be car related deaths, but they do not vary greatly between nations.
If anything, your argument strengthens the gist of the article. In the US the number of guns outnumbers all other countries enormously, and the number of violent deaths does so on an even larger scale. The point is not the US number as a stand alone, but in comparison to the other OECD countries.
This is not just correlation, there is also a huge element of causality. The capacity of gun enthusiasts to deny this obvious connection again and again with spurious "arguments" completely out of context is quite breathtaking.
3
So are you saying that the statistics are wrong, and that those weren't really gun murders? If it isn't guns causing all of those gun deaths, what is?
Somehow I doubt you'd see this kind of disparity between countries in a comparison of kitchen knives and kitchen knife deaths, or cars and car crash deaths.
Somehow I doubt you'd see this kind of disparity between countries in a comparison of kitchen knives and kitchen knife deaths, or cars and car crash deaths.
1
2/3rds of gun deaths are suicides.
Happy New Year Everyone. The good news is that WE can begin to turn things around with OUR votes on November 8 2016 - and every election before and after. Make America Great Again - send DT and every other republican/libertarian/tea party and other ALEC/Koch brothers operative back where they came from. Sorry, Canada - you get Cruz back.
27
Unbelievable! The most important graphics of all, the trends in increased greenhouse gases and temperature rise, billion dollar disasters and extreme weather, Arctic disappearance, increased floods and droughts and wildfires, and all, entirely absent.
Start here:
http://climate.nasa.gov/
We cannot go on infinitely expanding our exploitation, waste, and dumping on a finite planet, and believe me, travel to less hospitable places at great expense won't fix it either. Nor will magic thinking. It would be a terrific jobs program to deal with the source of the problem.,
Start here:
http://climate.nasa.gov/
We cannot go on infinitely expanding our exploitation, waste, and dumping on a finite planet, and believe me, travel to less hospitable places at great expense won't fix it either. Nor will magic thinking. It would be a terrific jobs program to deal with the source of the problem.,
34
Try these graphs:
http://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/cryosphere/4a.html
http://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/glad-you-asked/ice-ages-wha...
The global temperature 120,000 years ago (after the ice age before the most recent one) was as warm as it is now--without the benefit of industrialization, automobiles, or leaf blowers. That pattern has repeated for hundreds of thousands of years since the beginning of the Pleistocene ice age.
Or google "Milankovitch Cycles."
http://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/cryosphere/4a.html
http://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/glad-you-asked/ice-ages-wha...
The global temperature 120,000 years ago (after the ice age before the most recent one) was as warm as it is now--without the benefit of industrialization, automobiles, or leaf blowers. That pattern has repeated for hundreds of thousands of years since the beginning of the Pleistocene ice age.
Or google "Milankovitch Cycles."
1
Climate scientists know that there have been warming cycles in the far past due to natural phenomenon. The point is that the science now shows that our current warming is not caused predominantly by natural occurrences, but by the huge amounts of human generated greenhouse gasses produced since the beginning of the industrial revolution. True, there were not 7 billion+ people on the planet 120,000 years ago (in fact, modern homo sapiens had barely evolved yet). So the question is, how will our currently very overcrowded human society deal with the disputed climate change that is happening now?
2
Try the whole record, not just the specialized part selected and manipulated by unskeptical "skeptics" to throw smoke in people's eyes. What is unusual now is the pace of increased heat trapping, which means we've baked some really uncomfortable times in our near future already.
One can go on forever, the nearly unlimited wealth of big fossil has helped fund a mirror universe where laypeople can be led to think that magic thinking and politics are more important than the world all around them now.
Here's the full temperature record. There have indeed been times in the past that were warmer, and when CO2 was higher. The recent two millennia of hospitable climate are what has allowed us to proliferate. It shows your spike, too. Your explanation is shallow and argumentative, but that's nothing new.
http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-0...
One can go on forever, the nearly unlimited wealth of big fossil has helped fund a mirror universe where laypeople can be led to think that magic thinking and politics are more important than the world all around them now.
Here's the full temperature record. There have indeed been times in the past that were warmer, and when CO2 was higher. The recent two millennia of hospitable climate are what has allowed us to proliferate. It shows your spike, too. Your explanation is shallow and argumentative, but that's nothing new.
http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-0...
1
Thanks Mr. Rattner; the charts are all informative, easy to read, and without exception, sobering.
Yet, ironically, the gentlemen represented on the 8th chart have yet to show much interest regarding the concerns expressed by the other graphs, let alone offer viable, verifiable and commendable solutions for addressing them.
To the contrary; Congress just passed a $1.8 trillion spending measure that adds over $600 billion to the very debt that Republicans have been screaming about for going on 8 years now, after they accumulated a huge percentage of it up the Obama presidency, and now vastly increased.
"...In all, the tax extenders -- merged with the omnibus in the Senate vote -- will cost $680 billion over 10 years and is not offset with other spending cuts, meaning it will be added to the deficit. ..."
Conservatives are not only NOT addressing employment, income and wealth disparity in the nation, they've purposefully gone out the way to aggravate them while fronting candidates who promise to make matters much, much worse.
.
Yet, ironically, the gentlemen represented on the 8th chart have yet to show much interest regarding the concerns expressed by the other graphs, let alone offer viable, verifiable and commendable solutions for addressing them.
To the contrary; Congress just passed a $1.8 trillion spending measure that adds over $600 billion to the very debt that Republicans have been screaming about for going on 8 years now, after they accumulated a huge percentage of it up the Obama presidency, and now vastly increased.
"...In all, the tax extenders -- merged with the omnibus in the Senate vote -- will cost $680 billion over 10 years and is not offset with other spending cuts, meaning it will be added to the deficit. ..."
Conservatives are not only NOT addressing employment, income and wealth disparity in the nation, they've purposefully gone out the way to aggravate them while fronting candidates who promise to make matters much, much worse.
.
38
Mr McBride, let me ask you a couple of questions I really would like people to answer.
How do the debt and deficits hurt us?
When in all of our history have the debt and deficits hurt us?
I agree that we can imagine scenarios where the debt and deficits could hurt us just like we could imagine an asteroid hitting NYC. But the conditions are not like that today, and since they never have occurred, why should we worry any more about them than the asteroid?
In fact all the historical evidence I have seen point in the opposite direction.
All 6 times we tried to pay down the debt and had a surplus for more than 3 years, we got a major depression. Depending on your definition of depression, this could account for ALL of our depressions.
After WWI we had a lot of debt and followed it with10 years of balanced budgets and and reduced it by 38%. And then what happened?
After WWII we had even more debt and followed it with deficit spending 21 out of the next 27 years and increased the debt by 75%. And what was the economy like during this long period?
People like to point to the debt ratio, the debt as a percentage of GDP, but it was 16% in October 1929 followed by the worst economy we have ever seen, and it was 121% in 1946 followed by 27 years of prosperity.
Why do we worry about the debt at all since we can print our own money and our debt is in our own money? Since we are running way below potential, do we have to worry about inflation?
Please give me a clue.
How do the debt and deficits hurt us?
When in all of our history have the debt and deficits hurt us?
I agree that we can imagine scenarios where the debt and deficits could hurt us just like we could imagine an asteroid hitting NYC. But the conditions are not like that today, and since they never have occurred, why should we worry any more about them than the asteroid?
In fact all the historical evidence I have seen point in the opposite direction.
All 6 times we tried to pay down the debt and had a surplus for more than 3 years, we got a major depression. Depending on your definition of depression, this could account for ALL of our depressions.
After WWI we had a lot of debt and followed it with10 years of balanced budgets and and reduced it by 38%. And then what happened?
After WWII we had even more debt and followed it with deficit spending 21 out of the next 27 years and increased the debt by 75%. And what was the economy like during this long period?
People like to point to the debt ratio, the debt as a percentage of GDP, but it was 16% in October 1929 followed by the worst economy we have ever seen, and it was 121% in 1946 followed by 27 years of prosperity.
Why do we worry about the debt at all since we can print our own money and our debt is in our own money? Since we are running way below potential, do we have to worry about inflation?
Please give me a clue.
10
Len Charlap
I'm not concerned about debt Len.
I'm pointing out the liar psychology of the current crop of Conservatives. They aren't seriously interested in solving the nation's problems. They self interestedly do and say whatever suits the fashion of the moment. If debt and deficits were seriously an issue with them they wouldn't have borrowed trillions to fight two pointless wars and $600 billion more now.
They're interested in turning the U.S. back into the Gilded Age nation it was before FDR. The best way to do that is to run roughshod over their base that is convinced that debt, deficit and taxes are evils, then eliminate the safety net as the great satan causing them, in their arguments.
You and I know it isn't true. Try to tell it to Americans who can actually vote for Trump over Pope Francis as their most Admired leader (see the current polls).
.
I'm not concerned about debt Len.
I'm pointing out the liar psychology of the current crop of Conservatives. They aren't seriously interested in solving the nation's problems. They self interestedly do and say whatever suits the fashion of the moment. If debt and deficits were seriously an issue with them they wouldn't have borrowed trillions to fight two pointless wars and $600 billion more now.
They're interested in turning the U.S. back into the Gilded Age nation it was before FDR. The best way to do that is to run roughshod over their base that is convinced that debt, deficit and taxes are evils, then eliminate the safety net as the great satan causing them, in their arguments.
You and I know it isn't true. Try to tell it to Americans who can actually vote for Trump over Pope Francis as their most Admired leader (see the current polls).
.
6
W worry because Republicans tell us to worry or haven't you been paying attention.
"Without rising output per hour worked, wage increases become even harder to achieve over time, and without higher wages, economic growth will stall."
"Even more worrisome is that for nearly 40 years, workers have not been seeing their pay raises (adjusted for inflation) match either their productivity increases or the rate of economic growth."
Steve, isn't it possible that productivity has topped out because American workers are already being pushed as hard as possible (at least given the constraints placed on management in a democracy, as opposed to a totalitarian state like China).
Meanwhile, as skilled workers become more productive, fewer are actually needed - with more of this excess labor dropping out of the workforce entirely, rather than opting for dead-end employment that will not allow them to pay their bills in even a best-case scenario.
On the other hand, were businesses more inclined to share the wealth with workers, workers would be more inclined to spend a bit more freely, thus organically fueling growth in an economy that remains heavily biased towards consumer goods and services.
"Even more worrisome is that for nearly 40 years, workers have not been seeing their pay raises (adjusted for inflation) match either their productivity increases or the rate of economic growth."
Steve, isn't it possible that productivity has topped out because American workers are already being pushed as hard as possible (at least given the constraints placed on management in a democracy, as opposed to a totalitarian state like China).
Meanwhile, as skilled workers become more productive, fewer are actually needed - with more of this excess labor dropping out of the workforce entirely, rather than opting for dead-end employment that will not allow them to pay their bills in even a best-case scenario.
On the other hand, were businesses more inclined to share the wealth with workers, workers would be more inclined to spend a bit more freely, thus organically fueling growth in an economy that remains heavily biased towards consumer goods and services.
42
Matthew, how about strengthening unions , e.g. outlaw "Right to Work" laws that allow deadbeat workers to enjoy union benefits without paying dues or requiring large companies to have union representative on their boards of directors as they do in Germany? How about higher tax rates on the Rich and higher real tax rates on corporations to encourage them to spend their profits on businesses expenses like paying workers more rather than obscene compensation for executives or leaving billions sitting around in cash like Apple?
20
Let's face it, since free trade agreements seem to be the Holy Grail for our corporations and their toadies (read 'our' elected government representatives), the race towards the lowest common denominator in wages, work conditions and 'flexibility' cannot be stopped anymore!
2
Len, I don't disagree, but I often feel as if you look back to a past that can never return, given our contemporary globalist system and the increasing difficulty that nation states have in collecting corporate taxation.
The reality is that corporations have become expert at tax avoidance - largely due to the large number of smaller nations out there willing to aid them (like Ireland, and the various offshore havens).
My view is that we can learn from the past, but not return to it. The name of the game today is job creation and retention - and in an era when American workers can be collaborating minute-to-minute (as I do in my job) with co-workers half-way across the planet, we need different strategies for tax collection than in the past.
The reality is that corporations have become expert at tax avoidance - largely due to the large number of smaller nations out there willing to aid them (like Ireland, and the various offshore havens).
My view is that we can learn from the past, but not return to it. The name of the game today is job creation and retention - and in an era when American workers can be collaborating minute-to-minute (as I do in my job) with co-workers half-way across the planet, we need different strategies for tax collection than in the past.