Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1018192021 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 204

Thread: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

  1. #191
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnWOlin View Post
    I think the problem can be better traced to when we began outsourcing to china and other countries so heavily.
    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Well, that IMHO, can be traced back to when we became a "service based" economy, instead of a manufacturing based one.
    Do a little investigation, boys. Manufacturing output has soared in all of the world's twelve significant manufacturing economies over the past 20 years, and in every single one of them, manufacturing jobs have declined. China in fact has LOST more manufacturing jobs since 1995 than the US currently has. Like agriculture a century and more ago, manufacturing has simply lost its abiltiy to provide jobs for the masses. Better get used to it As usual, the "good old days" aren't coming back, depsite whatever energetic longing and pining you might do.

  2. #192
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995


  3. #193
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,898

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Uh, wtf is your post an image???
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  4. #194
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    Do a little investigation, boys. Manufacturing output has soared in all of the world's twelve significant manufacturing economies over the past 20 years, and in every single one of them, manufacturing jobs have declined. China in fact has LOST more manufacturing jobs since 1995 than the US currently has. Like agriculture a century and more ago, manufacturing has simply lost its abiltiy to provide jobs for the masses. Better get used to it As usual, the "good old days" aren't coming back, depsite whatever energetic longing and pining you might do.

    Great, the complacence argument...See, this is where you tell us next that we should get used to 8% or higher unemployment, and every growing dependency on the government as the classes gulf widens....Right? Only in a socialist mindset is that a reality.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #195
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    LOL! The truth of conflicting viewpoints is not decided through "manning up". This is as bad as the poster who tries to settle differences by challenging people to internet wagers of $100,000. Most of us grew out of that sort of stage at a fairly early age. If you wish to refute the various facts introduced in support of the earlier analysis of the Lesser Bush Recession, please feel free to do so. That however is the only valid and legitimate avenue that is open to you. This other rubbish is a complete waste of time.

    If you similarly want to claim that there was some devastating tech bubble that operated at the time, please doument it. Peaks in the volatile NASDAQ put there in large part by such non-tech factors as rigged IPO's and recruited fools trying to play day-trader do not cut the mustard. But please do have another go at pointing out where any evidence of this awful tech-bubble burst could actually be found. Feel free in fact to do the same with suggestions that 9/11 was any sort of significant economic event. You cannot in fact accomplish either of these tasks and are apt to resort instead to additional silliness in response.

    Your claim with respect to Presidents that "One of their only power is to veto bills" was dealt with (obliterated, actually) in Post-188. Remember?

    Really? Not head of state? Not commander in chief of the military? Not the boss of every federal department? Not the guy whose staff drafts much of the legislation that Congress considers? I'm afraid there is an awful lot that has simply gotten past you. Civics is apparently right up there with economics and psychology.

    The federal funds target had meanwhile been between 5% and 6% since 1994. There was an exception to 4.75% in late 98/early 99, and to 6.5% in late 1999. Go find an era comparable to the then-succeeding Bush era in which the rate was cut by more than 4% over two years, then held at unrealistically low levels for nearly three years, then raised again by more than 4% over two years. Let us know when you find a match. These precipitous moves by the way were signficant factors first in creating the potential for credit market issues, and then in triggering the massive conversion of all that potential into actuality. That's kind of the bad monetary policy part of the bad fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy triple play that Republicans pulled off in ending a long inning of prosperity and financial well-being in this country.

  6. #196
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Great, the complacence argument...See, this is where you tell us next that we should get used to 8% or higher unemployment, and every growing dependency on the government as the classes gulf widens....Right? Only in a socialist mindset is that a reality.
    No, this is still where some people need to be reminded of the importance of dealing with facts and reality. US losses of manufacturing jobs have been at about the average rate for those top twelve manufacturing economies. Manufacturing simply no longer provides jobs for low-skilled workers. It doesn't provide them here and it deosn't provide them anywhere else in the world either. Meanwhile, while China may at last be drawing into a neck-and-neck situation with the US, one or the other of us is the largest manufacturing economy in the world and the other is second by an eyelash. If you don't face the facts, you won't understand the problems and won't be able to identify or support any realistic solutions. You'll get things confused instead with silly partisan drivel over the unemployment rate.

  7. #197
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Uh, wtf is your post an image???
    Fang is a terrible quoter, so I would like to force him to actually answer the whole post in context.

  8. #198
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    LOL! The truth of conflicting viewpoints is not decided through "manning up". This is as bad as the poster who tries to settle differences by challenging people to internet wagers of $100,000. Most of us grew out of that sort of stage at a fairly early age. If you wish to refute the various facts introduced in support of the earlier analysis of the Lesser Bush Recession, please feel free to do so. That however is the only valid and legitimate avenue that is open to you. This other rubbish is a complete waste of time.
    Again, if you are not even able to change Wikipedia, then you don't have much of an argument. There is a reason why you use way more time debating why you are not going to change wikipedia, than what it would take to just do it.

    If you similarly want to claim that there was some devastating tech bubble that operated at the time, please doument it. Peaks in the volatile NASDAQ put there in large part by such non-tech factors as rigged IPO's and recruited fools trying to play day-trader do not cut the mustard. But please do have another go at pointing out where any evidence of this awful tech-bubble burst could actually be found. Feel free in fact to do the same with suggestions that 9/11 was any sort of significant economic event. You cannot in fact accomplish either of these tasks and are apt to resort instead to additional silliness in response.
    I never claimed there was a devastating bubble. I said there was a bubble that caused the slowdown, and not the thought of Bush getting elected. Remember that the economy didn't even enter into recession, so it wasn't that serious.

    I am still waiting for you to give sources, here are some more that agrees with me that the dotcom bubble was an important cause. Before 2001 there was an over investment in the tech industry.

    The Dot-com Bubble | Stock Market Crash!
    A Tale Of Two Bubbles - NYTimes.com (thats Paul Krugman btw.)
    Dot-com bubble - MisesWiki (mises)
    Both sides disagree with you.

    I think this graph show well what caused the slowdown. In what way is a drop in 150K tech jobs just in San Jose insignificant. Why would it have such a large effect on tech jobs when you claim it was fear of Bush getting elected that caused this?



    Your claim with respect to Presidents that "One of their only power is to veto bills" was dealt with (obliterated, actually) in Post-188. Remember?
    I never meant that their only power is veto bills, but that is the only one where they can have a large influence. Being head of the departments does not mean much, and neither does commander in chief. At least if you talk about in term of economics under normal circumstances. And you never disputed that.

    Because of presidents limited power, there is no reason to fear them. Only a few radical leftists would stop investing due to fear of Bush getting elected, and generally they would not invest in the first place.

    The federal funds target had meanwhile been between 5% and 6% since 1994. There was an exception to 4.75% in late 98/early 99, and to 6.5% in late 1999. Go find an era comparable to the then-succeeding Bush era in which the rate was cut by more than 4% over two years, then held at unrealistically low levels for nearly three years, then raised again by more than 4% over two years. Let us know when you find a match. These precipitous moves by the way were signficant factors first in creating the potential for credit market issues, and then in triggering the massive conversion of all that potential into actuality. That's kind of the bad monetary policy part of the bad fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy triple play that Republicans pulled off in ending a long inning of prosperity and financial well-being in this country.
    Now you are changing the subject. The reality is that interest rates started increasing way before Bush got elected, and even before he was close to being nominated. You said 2004 was the beginning of the financial crisis, why can't I say the same about 1999 and the dotcom bubble. And why would Federal Reserve increase interest rates in the first place. If it is just fear of Bush getting elected, then they would decrease interest rates. Maybe because the economy was getting too overheated?

    Then the reaction to the NASDAQ bubble was an overreaction. I have said before that cutting 4% over 2 years should never have been done, and it was a significant cause of the 2007 recession. But that doesn't make your point any better that Bush is somehow the cause of the 2001 slowdown, because investors were terrified of the thought of him getting elected.

    And I am still waiting for you to give any source who supports your claim. (and change wikipedia)
    Last edited by Camlon; 10-02-12 at 07:00 PM.

  9. #199
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Again, if you are not even able to change Wikipedia, then you don't have much of an argument. There is a reason why you use way more time debating why you are not going to change wikipedia, than what it would take to just do it.
    This is what, your third admission that you have no case to make here other than to demand that I go change wikipedia? Here's a hint: That's not a case at all. This is a debate forum, not a hoop-jumping forum. If you are not able to debate, just hang up and try your call again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    I never claimed there was a devastating bubble. I said there was a bubble that caused the slowdown, and not the thought of Bush getting elected.
    Reminder: Your entire thesis is that some awful tech/dot-com bubble was the cause of the 2001 recession. Yet there are no identifiable traces of this bubble that can possibly have been severe enough to have pushed a strong national economy -- the largest in the world -- into a general recession. Your theory is a bunch of manufactured fluff and rumor that has no substance behind it at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Remember that the economy didn't even enter into recession, so it wasn't that serious.
    What? The economy was in recession from March to November 2001. You could look it up but obviously haven't. Uncertainty and dislocation effects associated with George W Bush were a principal cause of this recession.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    I am still waiting for you to give sources, here are some more that agrees with me that the dotcom bubble was an important cause. Before 2001 there was an over investment in the tech industry.
    None of these sources agrees with you. They report what I predicted earlier -- that select and particular markets went up and then they went down again. All markets do this. This is normal market behavior. There is nothing cited to connect these micro- and sometimes extreme micro-level movements with the macro trends of the broader economy.

    ("over-investment" is meanwhile an after-the-fact buzzword that has no actual use or meaning.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    I think this graph show well what caused the slowdown.
    LOL! The graphs show what happened only in the tech sector and only in twelve locations, half of which did experience a significant employment peak and half of which didn't. No such peaks were seen at macro levels.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    In what way is a drop in 150K tech jobs just in San Jose insignificant. Why would it have such a large effect on tech jobs when you claim it was fear of Bush getting elected that caused this?
    Actually, I hadn't previously mentioned any events in San Jose. It is only you who needs to in your ever more desperate attempts to grab at micro-level straws. There was a general recession in the US economy during 2001. That downturn first evidenced itself in a marked softening in GPDI over late 2000. Some of that was expected given the certainty of a change in administration. The sizable and growing excess was due in large part to a growing lack of confidence in Bush generally and in his extreme economic policies in particular. Some portion of it was no doubt due to Bush's own incessant preaching of gloom and doom in arguing a non-existent need for tax cuts for the rich. Those tax cuts were enacted in June 2001 -- with various provisions retroactive -- and they did nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    I never meant that their only power is veto bills, but that is the only one where they can have a large influence. Being head of the departments does not mean much, and neither does commander in chief. At least if you talk about in term of economics under normal circumstances. And you never disputed that.
    Pathetic. Your claim was clear. And just as clearly worthless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Now you are changing the subject.
    No, you claimed that there was some parallel to the 2004-06 increases in the federal funds target rate that began in mid-1999. I merely point out that in fact there was not such a thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    The reality is that interest rates started increasing way before Bush got elected, and even before he was close to being nominated.
    That's not reality at all, as has been pointed out previously. Rates had been remarkably stable since 1994.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    You said 2004 was the beginning of the financial crisis...
    Correction, I said that the credit crisis grew up between 2002 and 2006. These years were spent by Wall Street et al. in producing large volumes of mortgage paper that could not hold up in the event of significant increases in interest rates. 2004 through 2006 saw signficant increases in interest rates.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    ...why can't I say the same about 1999 and the dotcom bubble.
    Because none of it is even remotely true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    And why would Federal Reserve increase interest rates in the first place. If it is just fear of Bush getting elected, then they would decrease interest rates. Maybe because the economy was getting too overheated?
    Read at least some history. Interest rates were lowered through the Lesser Bush Recession. They were lowered again after 9/11. When the Tax Cuts for the Rich failed, the Fed pledged to keep rates low for as long as it took for economic activity to pick up. Two years later they finally began a long series of quarter-point increases that led back to 5.25% by mid-2006. Too many phony mortgages had in the meantime been created to withstand that. Warnings had been given. They weren't heeded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    I have said before that cutting 4% over 2 years should never have been done, and it was a significant cause of the 2007 recession.
    Nothing you have said has made any actual sense and this doesn't either. You are now arguing against the use of rate cuts as a response to recessions and negative exogenous shocks. You are becoming only more and more addled and illogical.

  10. #200
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    This is what, your third admission that you have no case to make here other than to demand that I go change wikipedia? Here's a hint: That's not a case at all. This is a debate forum, not a hoop-jumping forum. If you are not able to debate, just hang up and try your call again.
    Oh... right you were too busy to change wikipedia. Again, it is quite clear why you are more willing to debate why you are not going to edit wikipedia than actually doing it. That is because you lack a case. You can try to make all sorts of pathetic excuses, but we can all see them for what they are.

    Reminder: Your entire thesis is that some awful tech/dot-com bubble was the cause of the 2001 recession. Yet there are no identifiable traces of this bubble that can possibly have been severe enough to have pushed a strong national economy -- the largest in the world -- into a general recession. Your theory is a bunch of manufactured fluff and rumor that has no substance behind it at all.
    500K tech jobs out of 2.5 million is a big deal. I feel sorry for you if you can't see that. I also hope you have learned about the multiplier effect in your economics degree. These people hired a lot of people to work for them and bought a lot of goods for their industry. Hence, 500K tech jobs lead to a lot more job losses in other industry.

    What? The economy was in recession from March to November 2001. You could look it up but obviously haven't. Uncertainty and dislocation effects associated with George W Bush were a principal cause of this recession.
    You are right, but it wasn't much of a recession. I mean GDP fell with a total of 0.3% GDP. List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Also this link disagrees with you too, and this link says it directly.


    None of these sources agrees with you.


    Good attempt. They all agree with me. You need to have a pretty imaginative mind if you read this as anything else that the recession being the cause of the dotcom bubble.

    "By early 2000, reality started to sink in. Investors soon realized that the dot-com dream had devolved into a classic speculative bubble. Within months, the NASDAQ stock index crashed from 5,000 to 2,000. Hundreds of stocks such as Pet.com, which once had multi-billion dollar market capitalizations, were off the map as quickly as they appeared. Panic selling ensued as the stock market’s value plunged by trillions of dollars. The NASDAQ further plunged to 800 by 2002. In 2001, the U.S. economy experienced a post dot-com bubble recession, which forced the Federal Reserve to repeatedly cut interest rates to stop the bleeding. "
    http://www.stock-market-crash.net/dot-com-bubble/

    Why would you talk that specifically about the NASDAQ, dot-com and call it a dot-com bubble recession if you think it is irrelevant to the recession?

    ("over-investment" is meanwhile an after-the-fact buzzword that has no actual use or meaning.)


    More stupid comments. If I choose to take up huge loans and then investing. Then when the interest rate goes up I go bankcrupt. Am I not overinvesting? And you call yourself an economist.

    LOL! The graphs show what happened only in the tech sector and only in twelve locations, half of which did experience a significant employment peak and half of which didn't. No such peaks were seen at macro levels.
    Such a lame excuse. About 500K of 2.5 million tech jobs got destroyed. That is not insignificant.

    You didn't answer the important question. Why would the tech markets be affected in such a large way when they are only scared of Bush getting elected.

    Pathetic. Your claim was clear. And just as clearly worthless.
    So that is how you answer when you are unable to respond. As pointed out, the President have limited power. Only an idiot would close down their business because they are scared of Bush getting elected.

    No, you claimed that there was some parallel to the 2004-06 increases in the federal funds target rate that began in mid-1999. I merely point out that in fact there was not such a thing.
    Because that has Cardinal Fang decided? You need to provide arguments to support your points.


    That's not reality at all, as has been pointed out previously. Rates had been remarkably stable since 1994.
    I reccomend you to get some glasses if you can't see the increase from 1999. It increased with nearly 2% over 1 year. That is not stable. Do you think they increased it just for fun, or because the market was getting overheated?

    Because none of it is even remotely true.
    because that has Cardinal Fang decided? Hint, you need to provide arguments to support your points.

    Read at least some history. Interest rates were lowered through the Lesser Bush Recession. They were lowered again after 9/11. When the Tax Cuts for the Rich failed, the Fed pledged to keep rates low for as long as it took for economic activity to pick up. Two years later they finally began a long series of quarter-point increases that led back to 5.25% by mid-2006. Too many phony mortgages had in the meantime been created to withstand that. Warnings had been given. They weren't heeded.
    Trying to change topic again?

    Again, if it was Bush that was the cause interest rates would drop. They increased, before they dropped. Why would they increase before they drop if it is only due to fear of Bush.

    You increase rates, because you fear a bubble. You decrease rates if people are underinvestment for a stupid reason, such as that Bush may get elected. Not only does every single source disagree with you, but the markets did too.


    Nothing you have said has made any actual sense and this doesn't either. You are now arguing against the use of rate cuts as a response to recessions and negative exogenous shocks. You are becoming only more and more addled and illogical.
    Not supporting your opinions do not mean you do not make sense. There is a reason I pointed out that Sarah Palin makes better analysis than you do. I don't believe stimilus is the answer to all crisis. I believe markets need to adjust first before you can start with stimilus, or else you are just feeding a bubble.

    But I notice that again you fail to provide any sources for your comments and you refuse to change wikipedia. I have provided 5 sources now who all refute your position. You haven't got a single one. Have you ever though about why you are unable to provide any sources. And no the answer is not, "I am awsome, and know better than everyone else in the world".

    Also, learn how to quote. You know it is possible to quote more than one sentence. I mean, imagine if you meet yourself in a debate. Your post lengths would rise exponentially.
    Last edited by Camlon; 10-03-12 at 09:35 PM.

Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1018192021 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •