Re: [You should be looking only at inflation-adjusted numbers. Also: you say "per person", so be sure it's not "per family" data that you are looking at.] "The average household has shrunk in size, so per person data shows more positive results than per household data."
The slight decline in household size over the period of the nineteen seventies was MORE than offset by the rise of 'two wage earner' households over that same period, as WOMEN entered the working world in a big way.
So, yes, both demographic trends are real... (it's just that the effect on the statistics of the one I referred to, the entrance of women into workforce, was much much larger in magnitude.)
Re: "The 70s were generally a poor time economically, worse than the 80s" [(NOT 'worse than the 80s' for middle class in per-person wage growth or in job creation rates or in GNP rates. Better.)] "Which is why I say I believe the inflation of the 70s distorted the data collecting."
You really can't have it both ways, Tim. You said that your data was 'inflation adjusted'. Either it is or it isn't.
So you can't use that shibboleth to magically dismiss data that you happen to find inconvenient.
Re: "I'm saying the 80s (and certainly yhe 80s post early 80s recession) was better than the 70s, even though some data shows otherwise."
In some respects it obviously was.... Just NOT in the statistics that I specifically mentioned: wage growth, job creation, or GNP growth rates. (And obviously not in government deficits or national debt *either*. :-)
Re: [Believe the 90s entered a secular bear market]....
(Many analysts and market commentators, given to analyzing longer-term trends, now include the post-Tech stock crash recessionary period and the even larger in magnitude financial crisis Great Recession as part and parcel of one longer 'secular Bear Market'. Secular Bears being well known for having periods of sharp retracement contained within their longer-term malaise.)
|
