Political Crossfire Forums

[beachbum bob]

Fascinating data points in a Forbes magazine looking at "Mr. And Mrs. Median over the decades." take a look at the changes over the years...Makes you wonder how the next 10yrs are going to pan out....






http://www.forbes.com/economy/2006/10/16/demographics-income-population-biz_cx_tvr_1017median.html



Median Income (Men)*

1965 $28,599
1975 $33,148
1985 $42,847
1995 $39,186
2005 $41,386

* All figures in 2005 inflation-adjusted dollars, except where noted. Source: Census Bureau

~~~
Median Income (Women)

1965 $9,533 (33% of men)
1975 $12,697 (38% of men)
1985 $27,720 (65% of men)
1995 $27,990 (71% of men)
2005 $31.858 (77% of men)

Source:Census Bureau

~~~
Income Share of Middle 60% of Wage Earners

1965 52.3%
1975 52.1%
1985 50.4%
1995 47.6%
2005 46.2%

Source:Census Bureau

~~~
Household Net Worth

1965 $254,740
1975 $268,234
1985 $292,143
1995 $345,321
2005 $465,970

Source: Moody's Economy.com

~~~
Personal Savings Rate

1965 8.5%
1975 10.5%
1985 11%
1995 5%
2005 -0.4%

Source:Commerce Department

~~~
Misery Index (Inflation Plus Unemployment)

1965 6.1%
1975 17.7%
1985 10.7%
1995 8.4%
2005 8.5%

Source: miseryindex.us

~~~
Top Federal Tax Rate

1965 70%
1975 70%
1985 31%
1995 40%
2005 35%

Source:taxpolicycenter.org

~~~
Changes in Purchasing Power

1965 -
1975 10 years: -1.3%
1985 10 years: 0.1% 20 years: -1.2%
1995 10 years: 1.8% 20 years: 1.9% 30 years: 0.6%
2005 10 years: 5.7% 20 years: 8.0% 30 year: 7.5% 40 years: 6.2%

Sources:Census Bureau, miseryindex.us
~~~
Home Ownership Percentage

1965 63%
1975 68%
1985 64%
1995 65%
2005 69%

Source: St. Louis Fed

~~~
Productivity Increases Since 1965

1965 (baseline)
1975 +24%
1985 +42%
1995 +66%
2005 +220%

Sources: Moody's Economy.com

~~~
Percentage of Women in Workforce

1965 34%
1975 39%
1985 44%
1995 46%
2005 46%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

~~~
Compensation of CEO of largest U.S. Corporation vs. Median Household

In actual dollars for each year

1965 Frederick Donner/General Motors 3.9 million (med. household income = 0.2%)
1975 Ken Jamieson/Exxon $469,550 (med. household income = 3%)
1985 Clifton Garvin/Exxon $1.5 million (med. household income = 2%)
1995 John Smith/General Motors $7 million (med. household income = 0.6%)
2005 Lee Scott/Wal-Mart $19 million (med. household income = 0.2%)

Sources: Census Bureau, General Motors, Exxon Mobil, Wal-Mart

~~~
Compensation of highly paid athlete vs. Median Household

In actual dollars for each year

1965 Joe Namath/football $142,333 (med. household income = 5%)
1975 Pele/soccer $1.5 million (median household income = 0.8%)
1985 Mike Schmidt/baseball $2.1 million (median household income = 1.1%)
1995 Michael Jordan/basketball $40 million (median household income = 0.1%)
2005 Tiger Woods/golf $87 million (median household income = 0.1%)

Sources: Forbes

[agentkgb]

beachbum bob wrote: Personal Savings Rate

1965 8.5%
1975 10.5%
1985 11%
1995 5%
2005 -0.4%

Source:Commerce Department
There's a happy thought. Maybe they're just following the government's lead now: no need to save, your kids will be the ones to pay it back!

[Mavil Chaveli]

:lol: + :shock:

[Classically Liberal]

Quote: Median Income (Men)*

1965 $28,599
1975 $33,148
1985 $42,847
1995 $39,186
2005 $41,386

* All figures in 2005 inflation-adjusted dollars, except where noted. Source: Census Bureau

Personal Savings Rate

1965 8.5%
1975 10.5%
1985 11%
1995 5%
2005 -0.4%

That is amazing. We have more but save less.

[Brooklyn]

Quote: That is amazing. We have more but save less.

Who needs to save? Isn't that what foreigners are for?

[Classically Liberal]

Brooklyn wrote: Quote: That is amazing. We have more but save less.

Who needs to save? Isn't that what foreigners are for?

That appears to be the case.

[californian conservative]

beachbum bob wrote:
~~~
Productivity Increases Since 1965

1965 (baseline)
1975 +24%
1985 +42%
1995 +66%
2005 +220%

Sources: Moody's Economy.com


Sources: Forbes

As amazing (and unsurprising) the personal savings rate was, this i thought was 10x as amazing, i mean look at the difference over the last 10 years.

[Free Thinkr]

californian conservative wrote: beachbum bob wrote:
~~~
Productivity Increases Since 1965

1965 (baseline)
1975 +24%
1985 +42%
1995 +66%
2005 +220%

Sources: Moody's Economy.com


Sources: Forbes

As amazing (and unsurprising) the personal savings rate was, this i thought was 10x as amazing, i mean look at the difference over the last 10 years.
Computers.

[Brock]

is that the productivity of the whole US or is it per person?

[chris_mthomas]

Quote: Who needs to save? Isn't that what foreigners are for?
I think this was the first time I've laughed out loud reading a post on PCF. I'm such a dweeb.

[psholtz]

These are not my orignal thoughts/words.. I'm getting them from another forum, but they are extremely poignant and noteworthy, and I was about to start a thread about this until I noticed that it might first better here on this thread:

Quote: For instance . . . say a man earned $3,500 in 1964 and put it in his mattress. Another man earned $3,500 and put it in the bank. Another earned $3,500 and traded it for gold coins. At the time, that would have been $35 Federal Reserve Notes per ounce, or the equivalent of 100 $50 US Liberty coins. In 2005, the first man will have the same $3,500 in Fed Notes. They would be worth about 1/10 of what they were in 1964. He would have effectively had $31,500 worth of purchasing power STOLEN from him. What did Lenin say in a quote above? Remember, a new car in 1964 was $3,500 in Federal Reserve Notes. A new, full-sized decent car today is about $35,000. The second man would have about $9,000 in Federal Reserve Note value with interest accrued. He would have effectively had $21,000 in purchasing power STOLEN from him. The last man could trade his gold coins and would have $35,000 in Federal Reserve Note purchasing power. So WHICH lost value? The GOLD or the PAPER?

http://goldismoney.info/forums/archive/index.php/t-18507.html

Yes indeed... there have been big changes in the economy since 1965/7..

[cap'n queasy]

psholtz wrote: t;]These are not my orignal thoughts/words.. I'm getting them from another forum, but they are extremely poignant and noteworthy, and I was about to start a thread about this until I noticed that it might first better here on this thread:

Quote: For instance . . . say a man earned $3,500 in 1964 and put it in his mattress. Another man earned $3,500 and put it in the bank. Another earned $3,500 and traded it for gold coins. At the time, that would have been $35 Federal Reserve Notes per ounce, or the equivalent of 100 $50 US Liberty coins. In 2005, the first man will have the same $3,500 in Fed Notes. They would be worth about 1/10 of what they were in 1964. He would have effectively had $31,500 worth of purchasing power STOLEN from him. What did Lenin say in a quote above? Remember, a new car in 1964 was $3,500 in Federal Reserve Notes. A new, full-sized decent car today is about $35,000. The second man would have about $9,000 in Federal Reserve Note value with interest accrued. He would have effectively had $21,000 in purchasing power STOLEN from him. The last man could trade his gold coins and would have $35,000 in Federal Reserve Note purchasing power. So WHICH lost value? The GOLD or the PAPER?

http://goldismoney.info/forums/archive/index.php/t-18507.html

Yes indeed... there have been big changes in the economy since 1965/7..

If there was a gold or other commodity derived monetary standard he would have actually paid more in actual spending power on his house or car because you pay the principal off near the end of the note when the spending power of the principal amount is reduced. With fiat currency, someone who buys property with borrowed money actually retains more of the spending power of their principal amount because of this. If you borrow a 100,000 dollars on a thirty year note by the time you have paid the hundred thousand dollars off thirty years later that 100,000 dollars you borrowed has lost a good bit of it's spending power, say 10-20%, at least. The advantage is with the borrower rather than the lender in that situation. It is only to the lenders advantage if spending power remains the same over long periods of time because the value of the actual spending power remains static. You pay the entire spending power of the principal on the 100,000 dollars you borrowed 30 years ago and pay the same interest rate anyway. So you lose, and the banker wins.

That is why bankers and other long term investors/lenders love a gold standard. They receive way more actual spending power from the loans they make. The only people who complained when central banking was introduced were bankers and other long term investors/lenders who wanted to make long term loans to the USG. They were the ones getting value siphoned off by inflation, not the borrower, when fiat currency was introduced.

The consumer/borrower gets the shaft in a commodity based monetary system. And on a national economic level there is quite a bit of actual spending power involved. You don't want your taxes going to pay for billions of dollars of lost spending power.

[Robin Hood]

beachbum bob wrote: Fascinating data points in a Forbes magazine looking at "Mr. And Mrs. Median over the decades." take a look at the changes over the years...Makes you wonder how the next 10yrs are going to pan out....






http://www.forbes.com/economy/2006/10/16/demographics-income-population-biz_cx_tvr_1017median.html



Median Income (Men)*

1965 $28,599
1975 $33,148
1985 $42,847
1995 $39,186
2005 $41,386

* All figures in 2005 inflation-adjusted dollars, except where noted. Source: Census Bureau

~~~
Median Income (Women)

1965 $9,533 (33% of men)
1975 $12,697 (38% of men)
1985 $27,720 (65% of men)
1995 $27,990 (71% of men)
2005 $31.858 (77% of men)

Source:Census Bureau

~~~
Income Share of Middle 60% of Wage Earners

1965 52.3%
1975 52.1%
1985 50.4%
1995 47.6%
2005 46.2%

Source:Census Bureau

~~~
Household Net Worth

1965 $254,740
1975 $268,234
1985 $292,143
1995 $345,321
2005 $465,970

Source: Moody's Economy.com

~~~
Personal Savings Rate

1965 8.5%
1975 10.5%
1985 11%
1995 5%
2005 -0.4%

Source:Commerce Department

~~~
Misery Index (Inflation Plus Unemployment)

1965 6.1%
1975 17.7%
1985 10.7%
1995 8.4%
2005 8.5%

Source: miseryindex.us

~~~
Top Federal Tax Rate

1965 70%
1975 70%
1985 31%
1995 40%
2005 35%

Source:taxpolicycenter.org

~~~
Changes in Purchasing Power

1965 -
1975 10 years: -1.3%
1985 10 years: 0.1% 20 years: -1.2%
1995 10 years: 1.8% 20 years: 1.9% 30 years: 0.6%
2005 10 years: 5.7% 20 years: 8.0% 30 year: 7.5% 40 years: 6.2%

Sources:Census Bureau, miseryindex.us
~~~
Home Ownership Percentage

1965 63%
1975 68%
1985 64%
1995 65%
2005 69%

Source: St. Louis Fed

~~~
Productivity Increases Since 1965

1965 (baseline)
1975 +24%
1985 +42%
1995 +66%
2005 +220%

Sources: Moody's Economy.com

~~~
Percentage of Women in Workforce

1965 34%
1975 39%
1985 44%
1995 46%
2005 46%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

~~~
Compensation of CEO of largest U.S. Corporation vs. Median Household

In actual dollars for each year

1965 Frederick Donner/General Motors 3.9 million (med. household income = 0.2%)
1975 Ken Jamieson/Exxon $469,550 (med. household income = 3%)
1985 Clifton Garvin/Exxon $1.5 million (med. household income = 2%)
1995 John Smith/General Motors $7 million (med. household income = 0.6%)
2005 Lee Scott/Wal-Mart $19 million (med. household income = 0.2%)

Sources: Census Bureau, General Motors, Exxon Mobil, Wal-Mart

~~~
Compensation of highly paid athlete vs. Median Household

In actual dollars for each year

1965 Joe Namath/football $142,333 (med. household income = 5%)
1975 Pele/soccer $1.5 million (median household income = 0.8%)
1985 Mike Schmidt/baseball $2.1 million (median household income = 1.1%)
1995 Michael Jordan/basketball $40 million (median household income = 0.1%)
2005 Tiger Woods/golf $87 million (median household income = 0.1%)

Sources: Forbes

[Atlas Bergeron]

Classically Liberal wrote: Quote: Median Income (Men)*

1965 $28,599
1975 $33,148
1985 $42,847
1995 $39,186
2005 $41,386

* All figures in 2005 inflation-adjusted dollars, except where noted. Source: Census Bureau

Personal Savings Rate

1965 8.5%
1975 10.5%
1985 11%
1995 5%
2005 -0.4%

That is amazing. We have more but save less.

This can be somewhat misunderstood. If I open a buisness, I take a risk and must take out a loan. This could be very beneficial to me in the long run, but for the moment I would be in incredible debt.

It could be (I am not saying it is) that there are a large number of people who are borrowing money and investing it wisely. Thus, once they obtain the return on thier investment, the numbers will bounce back.

I am not, however, saying this is how it is. I am just saying that this is a potentially differnt way to read the numbers. It is always important to be cautios around unexplained statistics. Just becuase ice cream sales go up when drownings go up does not mean that when more people drown, more people buy ice cream or that ice cream causes drownings. It is just a coincidence.

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: If there was a gold or other commodity derived monetary standard he would have actually paid more in actual spending power on his house or car because you pay the principal off near the end of the note when the spending power of the principal amount is reduced.
The only thing that reduces spending power is inflation, which does not exist under a gold standard.

I don't understand what you're trying to say..

Quote: With fiat currency, someone who buys property with borrowed money actually retains more of the spending power of their principal amount because of this. If you borrow a 100,000 dollars on a thirty year note by the time you have paid the hundred thousand dollars off thirty years later that 100,000 dollars you borrowed has lost a good bit of it's spending power, say 10-20%, at least. The advantage is with the borrower rather than the lender in that situation.
Yes, you borrow $100,000 and pay back $450,000 or some such figure..

THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT CREATES THE INFLATION IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I don't see how the advantage is w/ the borrower and not the lender.

The lender never "lent" anything.. You understand that, right?

He just whizzed up a bunch of numbers on a computer screen and started charging you interest on them. At worst, he gets 30 years of your labor in return for having given you nothing (other than a piece of paper w/ a bunch of numbers written on it for which he has a government license to issue and you don't). At best, you default on your mortgage and he gets your house for free.

This is called rackateering and extortion.. and from your end of the bargain, slavery (or at beast, indentured servitude).

Quote: That is why bankers and other long term investors/lenders love a gold standard.
They slander gold to keep the price down artificially.

The have to, or else the global oil markets, and in fact the global economy as a whole, will completely collapse.

The Saudis are already paying well over $1,000 an ounce for gold right now. They're exchanging their worthless US debt for the hard currency of gold.

In a truly "free" market, gold would probably be worth about $2,000 an ounce right now (or more).

The dollar is massively, massively overvalued.

Quote: They receive way more actual spending power from the loans they make. The only people who complained when central banking was introduced were bankers and other long term investors/lenders who wanted to make long term loans to the USG. They were the ones getting value siphoned off by inflation, not the borrower, when fiat currency was introduced.
ummm... I guess I never got that memo.

If you could send me a quote from a central banker circa 1913 who was whining and complaining about the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, why don't you send it along to me? I'd love to see it.

Remember, sending comments from central bankers who are whining and complaining that the Fed doesn't centralize power and control and credit ENOUGH does not count..

Quote: The consumer/borrower gets the shaft in a commodity based monetary system.
Stupid consumers and borrowers certainly do, I agree w/ that.

I also agree that if we went back to specie-backed money tomorrow, the average American would be poor as a church mouse.. If for no other reason than b/c Americans don't know how to spend responsibily, nor do they know how to produce anything. Theirs has been an economy that has been "hard-wired" to consume and consume recklessly, cancerously..

Hard days indeed are ahead for America.

Quote: And on a national economic level there is quite a bit of actual spending power involved. You don't want your taxes going to pay for billions of dollars of lost spending power.
LOST SPENDING POWER IS A TAX

Go talk to ol' Thomas Jefferson about that one..

Why do you spend so much time defending murdering, raping criminals?

Seriously..

These guys can do quite well all on their own, w/out the plebs cheering them on too..

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: The only thing that reduces spending power is inflation, which does not exist under a gold standard

If you think a gold standard is going eliminate the effects of supply and demand, you aren't thinking straight.

[thintheherd]

Brooklyn wrote: Quote: That is amazing. We have more but save less.

Who needs to save? Isn't that what foreigners are for?
Actualy, some would ask.... Who needs to save? Isn't that what the government is for? :roll:

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: The only thing that reduces spending power is inflation, which does not exist under a gold standard

If you think a gold standard is going eliminate the effects of supply and demand, you aren't thinking straight.
If you think inflation has anything to do w/ supply and demand, it's you who are not thinking straight, my friend.. :lol:

[skins_warrior26]

well this thread just reiterates why real estate is the best investment, look at the price jump in 40 years, the value of property nearly doubled.

[mODULAR mAN]

The part that bothers me is the difference between CEO's and average worker salary. Especially when they mention the airline business.

Flights may be cheap, that's great, but when some CEO earns a few million and drives the airline to bankruptcy and all the employees lose their savings, it should be a crime.