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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (10401)	10/13/2009 4:35:31 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Nobody said it was a generational trend. Unless its at least close it can't be shown to be a trend at all, as the factors from the economic cycle and other short term trends are typically the largest factors on the shorter timescales. 1999 was the high point... median for 2000 included post bubble. The recession didn't start until early 2001. 2000 still had GDP growth so it was by that measure a higher point than 1999. The NASDAQ bubble burst in March 2000 not in 1999, and stock markets are more leading indicators than concurrent or trailing indicators (to the extent they are indicators at all, you can get large moves without a boom or a recession). The S&P and the Dow also peaked in 2000. Beyond the selection of the period, the stat used, median household income, is also weak for several reasons mentioned in my post. And because median household income doesn't include non-cash benefits which have become a larger portion of income.