Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (61679)	8/6/2007 1:31:58 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 90947

These are MEDIAN incomes from 1990 to 2004: infoplease.com Here's 1982 to 2007: hud.gov (Estimated for 2007, obviously.) (3rd entry here if that doesn't work. google.com ) Median means the effect of wage inequality, a favorite liberal bugaboo, doesn't enter in. It is the MIDDLE income; as many people earn more as earn less. The increase of a CEO's pay from $10M to $100M would affect the average income, but not the median. The late 1990's WAS a bubble. The comparison made is like comparing incomes from the late 1920's to those during the depression. OF COURSE they're lower! What would you expect? Look at M1 (currency): research.stlouisfed.org You can see an upward change in slope about 1995. Here's that change annualized: research.stlouisfed.org That money paid for higher wages. THAT was the "unexplained productivity" Greenspan couldn't find. He undoubtedly knew all along what happened but wouldn't or couldn't admit it. There is another factor at work: other nations saw what modernization and education did for the US. They got on the ball. Now we face much stiffer foreign competition. Until we make our educational system competitive too, we will lose.