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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frodo Baxter who wrote (7286)	10/24/1998 6:14:00 AM
From: Bosco	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9980

G'day all - dear Larry, thanks for the response. It must be the case that I have presented myself poorly in my prior post. It is precisely my questioning why [and what time frame] Jay has said "our economy has been so solid up until recently" that I made the rhetorical response. Of course we don't want the ostrich-like japanese model of the last 8 years. Of course free market has its harsh aspect. But that doesn't negate my point that "the good old days" are only in the heads of those who have prospered but not necessarily true to the general population as your subsequent statistics [from Carter to Clinton.] While I will grant you the Clinton 2nd term is not finished, but so far it has beat out all others [and btw, since it has gone thru Clinton 1st term, any argument for fiscal lag should be taken care of.] Also, I respect Jay's theme that politicans like to take credits for the good showings [well, it comes with the territory, doesn't it <g>] The real and only point I was making is that we are not going downhill recently [that doesn't mean it is great <G>] best, Bosco

To: Frodo Baxter who wrote (7286)	10/24/1998 9:34:00 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

LK, "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." This is a odd paragraph. It should include the fact that in 1969, a majority of households--perhaps a large majority--had one wage earner. By 1996, that had changed considerably. I'm not sure what the percentage is, but I think it is now the case that a solid majority of households in the US have 2 wage earners. And, of course, the average number of children per household has gone down since the late 60s. So looking at the both per capita and median incomes without adjusting for these gives a misleading picture, and, I think, would tend to support Bosco's sense. Or perhaps I ought to go look at your link, and see what other qualifications are included. As it stands, considering the changes that I know about in households, it seems to me to be going out of its way to not state directly that the relative wealth of average individuals in the US has decreased over the past 30 years.