The Fake Economic Boom

[Darth Wong]

This is a really strange point. The idea of one parent not working is very recent as far as societal trends go. It's easy to look back 100-200 years and see that women didn't go outside the house to a job, but that ignores that women, by and large, spent the day working in the house. Things like making and mending clothes, preparing the meals for the day, and the upkeep of the house took a huge amount of time and effort in the days before the industrial revolution and especially the shift to a mass market consumer economy in the post WWII era.

The idea of people shipping their kids off to paid strangers for an upbringing is also very recent as far as social trends go. In the past, while mothers may have worked all day, they did so with their kids close by.

[Terralthra]

The idea of people shipping their kids off to paid strangers for an upbringing is also very recent as far as social trends go. In the past, while mothers may have worked all day, they did so with their kids close by.

I agree. I think the prominence of daycare among affluent two-income households is another symptom of middle class America being quite desperate to act like upper class 1800s England without having to pay as much for it, with daycare replacing an individual nanny for the petty noble's brats. I don't have a practicable solution, since due to economies of scale and societal changes, it's not really cost-effective nor even possible for a stay-home mother to do all the things she used to do.

[Erik von Nein]

Is this really a case of the middle class (not even, since I've known plently of low-mid and upper-low class people who've been forced to do the same) trying to get into the upper class? Or is it that they're getting eaten by the inflated costs of living?

My town is an excellent example of the problems Americans have been facing. It used to be a small-ish town with a predominately agriculture-oriented university and a largely single-family household demographic. In two decades the baby boomer generation has largely moved out of the area, replaced by retirees and college students, merely because the cost of housing here nearly four times in the same two decades without wages keeping up. A majority of the people my parents knew in high-school now live in places like L.A. or Las Vegas merely because housing is radically cheaper there.

Granted, a certain amount of the idea that you're measure of success is gauged by the amount of things you own helps explain why credit card debt shot up in the last decade, but you can't ignore cost of living expenses at all. When you look at that, and the fact that, unless you have a really well-paying job, it's difficult to raise children without both parents working, then you can see why day-care centers have gone up in popularity, as well. Sure, some of that can be attributed to people not wanting to raise their children, but I have to be incredibly suspicious of just how likely that is for most people.

[Darth Wong]

The idea of people shipping their kids off to paid strangers for an upbringing is also very recent as far as social trends go. In the past, while mothers may have worked all day, they did so with their kids close by.

I agree. I think the prominence of daycare among affluent two-income households is another symptom of middle class America being quite desperate to act like upper class 1800s England without having to pay as much for it, with daycare replacing an individual nanny for the petty noble's brats. I don't have a practicable solution, since due to economies of scale and societal changes, it's not really cost-effective nor even possible for a stay-home mother to do all the things she used to do.

You're kidding, right? If even half of the enormous gains going to the super-rich had gone to the middle class instead, it wouldn't be a problem. It could have been quite feasible for the single-earner family to be viable in the 21st century, but not with the absurdly one-sided distribution of economic growth benefits over the last 30 years.

The easy-credit society that right-wingers came up with has also spawned a middle-class "keep up with the Joneses" frenzy unparalleled in previous history. When I was a kid, those single-earner families also had precisely one car, and they milked it for as long as it would go before buying another one. They rarely went on vacation, and when they did, they usually did a car trip. Major overseas or long-distance vacations were a rare luxury. Elbow and knee patches on childrens' clothes were common, and not as style accessories but because people actually tried to keep those clothes serviceable through two or even three siblings. The idea of children wearing designer clothes or $100 shoes would have struck a typical middle-class parent from the 1960s or 1970s as the most ridiculous thing he ever heard. But worst of all, this credit-spawned demand has driven up the price of a lot of basic necessities (particularly housing) in such a manner that those people who tried to be responsible were still forced to pay for the behaviour of others.

In other words, these dual-income families are not necessary, but they are a product of the negative economic trends of the past 30 years. And economist report the health of the economy in such a way that they exaggerate any good qualities and ignore problems.

[J]

And economist report the health of the economy in such a way that they exaggerate any good qualities and ignore problems.

Economists report economic news in such a way that it benefits them, in other words, in whatever way needed so that you invest money in the market so that they can repackage and profit from it, and if it leaves you holding an empty sack, well, too bad. Speaking of which economists demand government bailouts of bankrupt banks at taxpayers' expense.

[Master of Ossus]

But how would an increase from 0 to a sum be weighed? Earlier some of those costs may have not even existed, so they couldn't have been counted in the consumer product range, could they?

The US uses the chain-weighted system to allow for changes in the market basket. You weight it just like you weight everything else--fundamentally, the issue is whether to price THIS YEAR's market basket using LAST YEAR's prices to calculate inflation, or whether you want to calculate the price of last year's market basket with this year's prices. The US system never calculates more than one year in either direction using market baskets (so to get inflation further out than that you just convert into X money where X is a year), so inflation is "chain-weighted" in the sense that inflation further than that uses a continually varying market basket.

As I said, the US system has advantages and disadvantages over other measures of inflation, and other countries can and do use different methods (in fact, the US only switched fairly recently on the urging of Alan Greenspan, who preferred chain-weighting). Mostly, economists have agreed that the problems of an invariable standard of value are unsolvable and have agreed to stop arguing about them but to create the best approximations possible.

MoO, if wages have remained stable, how the hell does that mean that the actual disposable income has remained so, given that prices have risen in the meanwhile and at a faster rate than the wages?

REAL wages have remained stable. Prices have not risen significantly faster than nominal wages. The definition of real wages are wages adjusted for inflation (e.g., changes in prices).

As someone who is unemployed and has no health insurance, that's a tough one to swallow. As a matter of fact, right now I AM worse off than the 1970's

Fair enough. Some people are worse off than they were at some point in the past, but some people are also better off than they were. On balance, not too much has changed. (I seem to recall people being unemployed and without health coverage in the 1970's, too). Good luck, though, with your situation.

I think his argument is that shit like computers, and technology gives better bang for your buck so comparing 2007 with 1977 means you live a better life in 2007. I'm sure there's a better selection of food too, better selection of everything.

Sort of. Lots of things provide better "bang for the buck" today than they did in the 1970's, just like lots of things are more expensive for what you get. On balance, though, for an average family, everything's about the same in comparison with the wages people are getting. It's a wash.

But when the rich increase their wealth by obscene amounts every year, the gap is what's the concern. And that's not even bringing in the question of job security.

Frankly, I don't buy that argument. I'd much rather live in a society in which everyone was better off but some people were MUCH better off than in a society in which everyone was equally poor. I agree with you that distribution is something of a concern, but in general I'm much more concerned about overall well-being than with equality of income. It's more of a policy/ethical argument, and I have talked to people who (at least claim) to actually prefer an egalitarian society in which people less well-off but had more similar incomes, so I can understand that there are arguments that go the other way and I'm not going to tell you you're wrong for saying this.

Obviously short-term retard thinking believes it to be a boon, yay for girl power, but quality parenting is a full-time job. I'm sure Mike would have some choice words for people who argue Rebecca should get her ass out and work rather than take care of his kids.

You seriously don't want to give women the OPTION of working? I can understand people who want to have one parent at home--it's a totally reasonable choice, but I also don't want to tell the wives in this country that they should be home taking care of the kids instead of out in the labor market.

I'm curious. As I read Stas Bush's "Generational Shift" chart, if you subtract Fixed Expenses from After-Tax Income then with one person working in the 70's you were left with $19,560, while with 2 people working in 2004 you were left with $18,140; that is, you were left with less money for doing twice the amount of work.
Master of Ossus, why isn't this a bad thing?

Because the price of other goods (the non-fixed costs) has gone down as well, or at least remained very stable. Imagine a society in which people only consumed two goods (we'll say) pizza and housing. In 1970, someone in our hypothetical society earned $20,000/year and spent $10,000 on pizza and $10,000 on housing. In 2000, the same person is making $30,000/year, and spends $5,000 on pizza and $25,000 on housing to get an identical apartment and the same amount of pizza that he had before. This would indicate that prices have changed--the price of housing has gone up significantly, while the price of pizza has gone down significantly. By your measure, this person only has $5,000 in disposable income, but I would argue that he is no worse off than he was in 1970. In fact, in my simplified example the person is consuming precisely the same things that he consumed in 1970, even though the proportion of his income spent on the two goods has changed radically. Overall, therefore, his real wage has clearly not changed.

The data posted in the chart actually tells of a scenario very similar to the one that I presented: the real wage is virtually identical to that of several decades ago. Peoples' spending on "fixed costs" has gone up. Therefore, their spending on non-fixed costs must have dropped proportionally, but the fact that there is real wage stability indicates that they are still no worse off than they were before, so they seem to be able to purchase a comparable level of overall goods.

Edit: Furthermore, the use of fixed costs is sort of disingenuous since it masks the fact that houses, cars, and medicine are all better today than they were in 1970. Whether or not daycare is better or not for the child is questionable, but daycare CENTERS that do exist are unquestionably better than they used to be. Lumping this all under categories like "mortgage payments" therefore masks the fact that the house that the second family is living in probably has more amenities than the one from 1970, even if it's in the same market. We have no idea whether or not this family decided to have the wife work so that they could move into a larger and more luxurious house than the family in the 1970's, since it's clearly just based on the average expenses that people have but doesn't take into account the fact that housing has improved even as it's grown more expensive. The same is true for cars, and arguably health insurance and daycare.

[Master of Ossus]

And economist report the health of the economy in such a way that they exaggerate any good qualities and ignore problems.

Economists report economic news in such a way that it benefits them, in other words, in whatever way needed so that you invest money in the market so that they can repackage and profit from it, and if it leaves you holding an empty sack, well, too bad. Speaking of which economists demand government bailouts of bankrupt banks at taxpayers' expense.

Right, because all economists have precisely the same interests and are part of some ginormous conspiracy that inducts everyone who's educated in economics to keep everyone else in the dark about everything financial.

[Darth Wong]

And economist report the health of the economy in such a way that they exaggerate any good qualities and ignore problems.

Economists report economic news in such a way that it benefits them, in other words, in whatever way needed so that you invest money in the market so that they can repackage and profit from it, and if it leaves you holding an empty sack, well, too bad. Speaking of which economists demand government bailouts of bankrupt banks at taxpayers' expense.

Right, because all economists have precisely the same interests and are part of some ginormous conspiracy that inducts everyone who's educated in economics to keep everyone else in the dark about everything financial.

Quick! Someone is pointing out the obvious! Accuse her of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories!

How many economists are there who do not stand to gain from stock market inflation, MoO?

[The Dark]

Quick! Someone is pointing out the obvious! Accuse her of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories!

How many economists are there who do not stand to gain from stock market inflation, MoO?

*raises hand*

Seriously, though, I did hunt down some information on wages and the economy, since I couldn't find the paper I remember reading back in my undergrad work.

Principal findings for the 1990s:
o Wage inequality increased between 1989 and 1997, but at a slower pace than it did between 1979 and 1989.
o Increases in the federal minimum wage in 1990, 1991, 1996, and 1997, and low unemployment, especially in 1997, seem to have played an important role in retarding and eventually reversing the long-standing decline in wages for workers at bottom of the wage distribution.
o At the median and at the 90th percentile, wage growth was slower in 1989-97 than it was in 1979-89.
o Over the period 1989-97, even those workers at the 90th percentile and those with a four-year college degree saw their wages, on average, lag behind growth in average economy-wide productivity.
o Family income inequality grew sharply between 1989 and 1996, with the Gini coefficient rising from 0.401 to 0.425.
o Over the 1989-96 period, family incomes were flat or falling in real terms for the bottom four quintiles of the family-income distribution; the share of the bottom four quintiles in total family income fell 2.2 percentage points.
o Between 1989 and 1996, the share of persons in poverty increased from 12.8% to 13.7%.
o Household wealth inequality rose significantly between 1989 and 1997, driven in part by the bouyant U.S. stock market.
o While direct and indirect stock holdings have become much more widely distributed, the value of stock holdings for the vast majority is relatively small. The middle quintile of the wealth distribution, for example, owned about $7,500 in stock in all forms in 1997; the bottom 40% held an average of about $1,500

Real wages declined through the end of 2004 and beginning of 2005, as corporate profits reached record levels. Corporate profits grew from 2001 to 2005 by 60%, while wages grew by less than 10% (note that these are not real numbers - I don't have inflation levels for those years). Between February 2006 and August 2006, real wages fell .5%.

The worst areas are the technical fields, although that's probably somewhat due to the busts in the dot-com businesses and other such high-tech firms. Computer engineers with Master's degrees have starting salaries 14% below that of 2003. Electrical engineers and computer scientists have also had big losses, construction wages are now below 1965 levels when adjusted for inflation. If the minimum wage had been adjusted to keep up with inflation, it would currently be somewhere around $14.

[K. A. Pital]

The Dark
Thanks, man. Rather informative.

[Master of Ossus]

How many economists are there who do not stand to gain from stock market inflation, MoO?

A lot. Very few economists have substantial stock holdings, since they tend to diversify their portfolios even when they don't have professional obligations to avoid investing. Furthermore, economists are NOT financiers. There's some overlap in skills, but not too much. Moreover, most economists agree that there's very little they can do in the short term to alter the stock market, so when they do invest they invest for the long-term and consequently have little, if anything, to gain from momentary increases or decreases in the market.

[brianeyci]

Sort of. Lots of things provide better "bang for the buck" today than they did in the 1970's, just like lots of things are more expensive for what you get. On balance, though, for an average family, everything's about the same in comparison with the wages people are getting. It's a wash.

Maybe, maybe not. The problem is mobility.

Frankly, I don't buy that argument. I'd much rather live in a society in which everyone was better off but some people were MUCH better off than in a society in which everyone was equally poor. I agree with you that distribution is something of a concern, but in general I'm much more concerned about overall well-being than with equality of income. It's more of a policy/ethical argument, and I have talked to people who (at least claim) to actually prefer an egalitarian society in which people less well-off but had more similar incomes, so I can understand that there are arguments that go the other way and I'm not going to tell you you're wrong for saying this.

What makes you think that much better off + bad distribution and much worse off + good distribution are the only choices?

You seriously don't want to give women the OPTION of working? I can understand people who want to have one parent at home--it's a totally reasonable choice, but I also don't want to tell the wives in this country that they should be home taking care of the kids instead of out in the labor market.

Your rebuttal only works if women would rather work than take care of their children full time. Do you seriously think that welfare mom taking second job at McDonalds wouldn't be happier if the first job paid double or if she could stay at home looking at Ikea catalogues?

[Darth Wong]

How many economists are there who do not stand to gain from stock market inflation, MoO?

A lot. Very few economists have substantial stock holdings, since they tend to diversify their portfolios even when they don't have professional obligations to avoid investing. Furthermore, economists are NOT financiers. There's some overlap in skills, but not too much. Moreover, most economists agree that there's very little they can do in the short term to alter the stock market, so when they do invest they invest for the long-term and consequently have little, if anything, to gain from momentary increases or decreases in the market.

So all but a "very few" economists have invested their money somewhere other than equities? What are they invested in then, since they obviously don't keep their money in wads of cash under the mattress? Interest-bearing securities after a decade of low interest rates?

[Master of Ossus]

So all but a "very few" economists have invested their money somewhere other than equities? What are they invested in then, since they obviously don't keep their money in wads of cash under the mattress? Interest-bearing securities after a decade of low interest rates?

The point is that they're invested for the long-term--short-term fluctuations in the market aren't helping them or hurting them, and realistically reporting news differently isn't going to affect anyone.

[Master of Ossus]

Maybe, maybe not. The problem is mobility.

What do you mean, "Maybe, maybe not?" We've had a whole thread in which I'm describing what the real wage stability actually means. As for mobility, the only studies I've ever read on the matter suggest that Americans have very good upward mobility compared to historical trends and also compared to other countries. I think McMurrer and Sawhill is still the most recognized study on this.

What makes you think that much better off + bad distribution and much worse off + good distribution are the only choices?

They're not, but they're theoretical extremes designed to illustrate the underlying ethical dilemma. If you could make everyone richer AND more equal, of course that's better. If you could make everyone poorer and LESS equal, of course that's worse.

Your rebuttal only works if women would rather work than take care of their children full time. Do you seriously think that welfare mom taking second job at McDonalds wouldn't be happier if the first job paid double or if she could stay at home looking at Ikea catalogues?

I guess the fact that many moms in this position are actually choosing to work the second job when they still retain the option of staying at home escapes you?

[Darth Wong]

So all but a "very few" economists have invested their money somewhere other than equities? What are they invested in then, since they obviously don't keep their money in wads of cash under the mattress? Interest-bearing securities after a decade of low interest rates?

The point is that they're invested for the long-term--short-term fluctuations in the market aren't helping them or hurting them, and realistically reporting news differently isn't going to affect anyone.

The massive middle-class outpouring of money into the stock market over the last 20 years has generated a long upward climb. That isn't "long term" enough for you, especially when many leading economists are of an age where they're looking at cashing out those investments in the near term? We're not talking about daily fluctuations here; convincing the general public to pour money into equities en masse has generated a long-term trend.

[brianeyci]

Maybe, maybe not. The problem is mobility.

What do you mean, "Maybe, maybe not?" We've had a whole thread in which I'm describing what the real wage stability actually means. As for mobility, the only studies I've ever read on the matter suggest that Americans have very good upward mobility compared to historical trends and also compared to other countries. I think McMurrer and Sawhill is still the most recognized study on this.

Is this "whole thread" this thread? Several people disagree with you.

Class mobility asshole. Money is relative, and if man A has a million and man B has half a million, man A has more power. If man A and man B have half a million each 30 years ago that doesn't matter a shit. Why do you overlook the point of gap? Is the gap meaningless to you?

Let's see you weasel your way out of this one: money is power. No doubt you'll walk around and say it's not.

What makes you think that much better off + bad distribution and much worse off + good distribution are the only choices?

They're not, but they're theoretical extremes designed to illustrate the underlying ethical dilemma. If you could make everyone richer AND more equal, of course that's better. If you could make everyone poorer and LESS equal, of course that's worse.

Why not everybody poorer and more equal? How is that a bad alternative?

I guess the fact that many moms in this position are actually choosing to work the second job when they still retain the option of staying at home escapes you?

Maybe I need to spell this out for you asshole. Just because more are working, that doesn't mean there's more choice, only that more are working. You made the claim of choice, you provide the evidence these working class moms would rather work than take care of children given the same income. Or even better -- that they would rather work than not work and have the same income. That should be a riot.

[Darth Wong]

Do you seriously think that welfare mom taking second job at McDonalds wouldn't be happier if the first job paid double or if she could stay at home looking at Ikea catalogues?

I guess the fact that many moms in this position are actually choosing to work the second job when they still retain the option of staying at home escapes you?

That has to be the worst rebuttal you've ever posted, MoO. You can't use someone's choices as proof that in a different situation, they would still make the same choice. By this logic, if someone asks "don't you think he'd rather have a nicer house", you would answer "Ah, but you're obviously wrong because he doesn't have a nicer house!"

[Master of Ossus]

Is this "whole thread" this thread? Several people disagree with you.

But their reasons for disagreeing with me are clearly wrong. This is purely a definitional thing: real wages are wages adjusted for changes in prices in the overall economy, as observed by a normal citizen. Ergo, stable real wages indicate stability of buying power over time.

Class mobility asshole. Money is relative, and if man A has a million and man B has half a million, man A has more power. If man A and man B have half a million each 30 years ago that doesn't matter a shit. Why do you overlook the point of gap? Is the gap meaningless to you?

That's not mobility, asshat. That's inequality. Only 2% of Americans spend a continuous decade beneath the poverty line (compared to close to 35% of French poor, for example--and it goes UP in the third world). The flip side of that statistic, of course, is that nearly 40% of Americans spent SOME part of the last decade beneath the poverty line. And 2% of the people impoverished in America today will spend some part of the NEXT decade making $100,000/year or more, if present trends continue. Think about that: they have as high a chance of joining the upper class as they do of remaining impoverished continuously.

Let's see you weasel your way out of this one: money is power. No doubt you'll walk around and say it's not.

Or I'll just point out that you're mistaken or lying and move on. I'm tired of your bullshit strawmen.

Why not everybody poorer and more equal? How is that a bad alternative?

As I said the first time, I realize that richer and less equal does not stochastically dominate poorer and more equal. It's a value judgment between the two, but I would prefer everyone make more money and for some people to make MUCH more money than the inverse.

Maybe I need to spell this out for you asshole. Just because more are working, that doesn't mean there's more choice, only that more are working. You made the claim of choice, you provide the evidence these working class moms would rather work than take care of children given the same income. Or even better -- that they would rather work than not work and have the same income. That should be a riot.

Because they're actually doing it! Jesus Christ! Do you not understand that someone's behavior, given the real alternative of remaining at home, constitutes evidence of preference? Also, you're pulling yet another strawman: I never said that they could maintain the same income if they chose not to work (which is kinda the point of working). I said that a family that had ONE spouse working would have the same income as a family that had ONE spouse working in 1970. Except now there's the ADDITIONAL choice that if you have both spouses working you can pull in more money at the cost of having less time at home. And many people are actually taking this option. What part of this concept are you having trouble with?

I have to go to work, now. I will try and get back on sometime this evening.

[Master of Ossus]

Do you seriously think that welfare mom taking second job at McDonalds wouldn't be happier if the first job paid double or if she could stay at home looking at Ikea catalogues?

I guess the fact that many moms in this position are actually choosing to work the second job when they still retain the option of staying at home escapes you?

That has to be the worst rebuttal you've ever posted, MoO. You can't use someone's choices as proof that in a different situation, they would still make the same choice. By this logic, if someone asks "don't you think he'd rather have a nicer house", you would answer "Ah, but you're obviously wrong because he doesn't have a nicer house!"

No, I agree--I didn't realize what he was asking.

The problem with his scenario is that he's asking about a totally unrealistic situation because it's not a choice that anyone ever actually faces. I answered the question I THOUGHT he was asking, instead.

[K. A. Pital]

They're not, but they're theoretical extremes designed to illustrate the underlying ethical dilemma.

"Dilemma"? As if dilemma between "rich" and "equal"? Equality does not equal poverty. A good distribution does not make everyone "much worse off" and is not equal to everyone being worse off - in fact, if it makes it better for 80-90% of the population, whilst making the rich "worse off" than they were before, what's the reason not to do it? Fluffy bunnies from Rockefeller house?

How's your claim that there's a "dilemma" between equality+worse condition and inequality+better conditions, doing with two "ands" there, eh? It doesn't fair well against practically existing low-GINI countries either - they can demonstrate good growth tempoes, high living standards AND equality at the same time.

[K. A. Pital]

Only 2% of Americans spend a continuous decade beneath the poverty line

How many of the 40% who passed below poverty "shot up" into the upper class, as opposed to simply living on the brink of poverty in the working class, and shifting up and down, like a bouncing ball? Any statistics, eh?

[TheKwas]

That's not mobility, asshat. That's inequality. Only 2% of Americans spend a continuous decade beneath the poverty line (compared to close to 35% of French poor, for example--and it goes UP in the third world). The flip side of that statistic, of course, is that nearly 40% of Americans spent SOME part of the last decade beneath the poverty line. And 2% of the people impoverished in America today will spend some part of the NEXT decade making $100,000/year or more, if present trends continue. Think about that: they have as high a chance of joining the upper class as they do of remaining impoverished continuously.

Exactly where are you getting this information from? From just about every report on American mobility I have read, America has some of the worst upward mobility, and is more comparable to Brazil than it is to France.

By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States...

[The overall volatility of household income increased significantly between 1990-91 and 1997-98 and again in 2003-04...

The middle class is experiencing more insecurity of income, while the top decile is experiencing less. From 1997-98 to 2003-04, the increase in downward short-term mobility was driven by the experiences of middle-class households (those earning between $34,510 and $89,300 in 2004 dollars). Households in the top quintile saw no increase in downward short-term mobility, and households in the top decile ($122,880 and up) saw a reduction in the frequency of large negative income shocks.

For the middle class, an increase in income volatility has led to an increase in the frequency of large negative income shocks, which may be expected to translate to an increase in financial distress.

Households whose adult members all worked more than 40 hours per week for two years in a row were more upwardly mobile in 1990-91 and 1997-98 than households who worked fewer hours. Yet this was not true in 2003-04, suggesting that people who work long hours on a consistent basis no longer appear to be able to generate much upward mobility for their families.

Full report and summary here, and that's just the first report I could find on the internet. If I bothered to look through my university database, I could probablely find other ones I've read before.

That's not mobility, asshat. That's inequality. Only 2% of Americans spend a continuous decade beneath the poverty line (compared to close to 35% of French poor, for example--and it goes UP in the third world). The flip side of that statistic, of course, is that nearly 40% of Americans spent SOME part of the last decade beneath the poverty line. And 2% of the people impoverished in America today will spend some part of the NEXT decade making $100,000/year or more, if present trends continue. Think about that: they have as high a chance of joining the upper class as they do of remaining impoverished continuously.

This is a general sentiment I absolutely oppose, but rather than side track this thread further, I'll try to make a thread about this in SLAM later.

[Broomstick]

But their reasons for disagreeing with me are clearly wrong.

You said "no one" is worse of than in the 1970's. I disagreed, saying that I am worse off. My reasons are that I lived in a larger home in a more prosperous neighborhood, with full medical coverage throughout the 1970's. I am now renting a small apartment, in a run-down neighborhood with many of my neighbors unemployed, currently with no job myself, and no health insurance. How am I "clearly wrong"?

Maybe you should generalize less. Sweeping, all inclusive terms like "all" and "no one" often mark the idealogical zealot.

real wages are wages adjusted for changes in prices in the overall economy, as observed by a normal citizen.

Define "normal citizen"

Only 2% of Americans spend a continuous decade beneath the poverty line (compared to close to 35% of French poor, for example--and it goes UP in the third world).

How can you make a flip statement such as that when the quality of the social safety nets in the two countries are so different? Consider just the fact that in France the poor have health coverage on par with just about everyone else as a matter of course - in the US the poor have substandard care at best.

The flip side of that statistic, of course, is that nearly 40% of Americans spent SOME part of the last decade beneath the poverty line. And 2% of the people impoverished in America today will spend some part of the NEXT decade making $100,000/year or more, if present trends continue.

Please provide PROOF that "present trends continue" - that's the problem right now, it is EXTREMELY unlikely the trends of the past few years will continue. There have, indisputably, been periods in history with prolonged economic downtowns, yes, in the US as well. Please review the history of The Great Depression, roughly 1929 through the end of the 1930's. Yes, a few remained or became rich - that in no way removes the real suffering of millions, or in any way made it OK that so many were destitute.

Why not everybody poorer and more equal? How is that a bad alternative?

As I said the first time, I realize that richer and less equal does not stochastically dominate poorer and more equal. It's a value judgment between the two, but I would prefer everyone make more money and for some people to make MUCH more money than the inverse.

The problem is when a few make MUCH more money and most make the same OR LESS - which is what the CURRENT situation has been the past few years. If you hadn't noticed, there are several states (Illinois, in particular around here, made a big stink about it) where "real wages", as you defined them, slipped down for the vast majority of the population. It's all very well to talk about 20 years down the road but I have bills I have to pay NOW - and my wages weren't going as far as they used to even before I lost my job. It would be STUPID for people not to notice stable or even retreating "real wages" for even a one-year period. How much food, housing, fuel, etc. cost today matters today - I can't tell my landlord I'll pay him February's rent twenty years from now when my investments pay off - and affects everything from what is bought to how much is available for putting into long term investments.

Because they're actually doing it! Jesus Christ! Do you not understand that someone's behavior, given the real alternative of remaining at home, constitutes evidence of preference? Also, you're pulling yet another strawman: I never said that they could maintain the same income if they chose not to work (which is kinda the point of working). I said that a family that had ONE spouse working would have the same income as a family that had ONE spouse working in 1970. Except now there's the ADDITIONAL choice that if you have both spouses working you can pull in more money at the cost of having less time at home. And many people are actually taking this option. What part of this concept are you having trouble with?

I think YOU are having trouble understanding how many people are doing this because they perceive they have no choice. You seem to be looking at the number of women in married households are working and assuming they are ALL doing it be choice. They are not. You have made no effort to break out women doing it by choice from women who are working from necessity.

Let me put it another way - minimum wage is not a living wage in this country. If two spouses are both earning minimum wage they both HAVE TO work to make ends meet, even if they're living in a trailer park.

[Broomstick]

I guess the fact that many moms in this position are actually choosing to work the second job when they still retain the option of staying at home escapes you?

That has to be the worst rebuttal you've ever posted, MoO. You can't use someone's choices as proof that in a different situation, they would still make the same choice. By this logic, if someone asks "don't you think he'd rather have a nicer house", you would answer "Ah, but you're obviously wrong because he doesn't have a nicer house!"

No, I agree--I didn't realize what he was asking.

The problem with his scenario is that he's asking about a totally unrealistic situation because it's not a choice that anyone ever actually faces. I answered the question I THOUGHT he was asking, instead.

Oddly enough, I'm reminded of when Ronald Reagan stated that the poor choose to remain poor...

There ARE people who take that attitude - you must not want more money/a nicer house/a better life because you don't already have it. Funny how they're usually the people who have had those goodies handed to them on a platter without having had to work their way up from the bottom.