SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Bosco who wrote (7278)10/24/1998 12:32:00 AM
From: Frodo Baxter  Read Replies (2) of 9980
 
>I ve not read that book, but I am not sure if I would agree "why our economy has been so solid up until recently" if it is framed between the Reagan years till now. A great number of my friends lost their jobs after the 80s hangover. The grayer they were, the harder the time they could bounce back. Ok, so one may argue that there was a technological shift and thus the dislocation.

Would you rather we follow the Japanese model? Capitalism is a harsh master; but the alternatives stink.

>I heard that the real median income has risen for the 1st time only recently since 1981 [?]

I find it odd that people fixate on the odd statistic rather than trust what they know to be true, that the growth in America for the past decade and a half or so, while not completely unprecendented, is still pretty darn good.

average annual real GDP growth, by Presidents:
Carter, 3.1% [actually, not bad, but masked by the hyperinflation of the period and killed by recession at end of tenure]
Reagan I, 2.8% [1982 recession depressed average, ended 1984 with 7%(!) average real growth]
Reagan II, 3.4%
Bush, 1.6% [1991 recession killed 1992 campaign]
Clinton I, 2.9%
Clinton II, 3.8% [probably unsustainable given current circumstances]

As for your specific grievance, let me quote from the following link:
census.gov

From 1969 to 1996, median household income rose a very modest 6.3 percent in constant dollars (from $33,072 to $35,172). At the same time, per capita income rose by a robust 51 percent in constant dollars (from $11,975 to $18,136)... A time-series on the median income of households can be misleading if the characteristics of households change in a substantial way over time. The 1969 to 1996 stagnation in median household income may, in fact, be largely a reflection of changes in the size and composition of households rather than a reflection of a stagnating economy. The data in this report do show that the characteristics of households changed substantially from 1969 to 1996, and data users should be aware of these changes when attempting to interpret time-series data on the median income of households.

Oh well, back to the drawing board on why America sucks. <ggg>
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext