[BlackGriffen]

We've got some statistics on the real world economy as it matters to the majority of Americans. The data is derived from census data:
Change in median income over term -

• Bush I: -$1,314
• Clinton: +$5,489
• Bush II: -$1,535

Change in number of people below the poverty line -

• Bush I: +6,269,000
• Clinton: -6,433,000
• Bush II: +4,280,000

Here's the reason why median income is a better measure than average income (ie gdp per capita, which is better than gdp) - the median is insensitive to extreme outliers like Bill Gates and those people with "Will work for food" signs. In other words, it isn't effected by the huge income growth of billionaires and such.

It looks like Kerry will be able to ask, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" and win points on it.

BlackGriffen

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Change in number of people below the poverty line...

Ah, yes - The recently employed liberal strategy of publicizing actual numbers instead of actual rates. It makes their spin sound much more severe. Like the unemployment rate, which as 5.5%, is considered by many economists to be full employment. SInce the libs don't want the nation to know that, they instead say "millions" are jobless".

From the report:

Median incomes of non-Hispanic white households, black households, and Asian households remained unchanged. Hispanic households experienced a decline in median income of 2.6%

The poverty rate for people 18 to 64 year olds remained unchanged at 10.8%, although the number in poverty rose to 19.4 million, up from 18.9 million.

Poverty rates for the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West all were unchanged.

[MindFad]

[Millennium]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Ah, yes - The recently employed liberal strategy of publicizing actual numbers instead of actual rates. It makes their spin sound much more severe. Like the unemployment rate, which as 5.5%, is considered by many economists to be full employment. SInce the libs don't want the nation to know that, they instead say "millions" are jobless".

Change in rate of those below the poverty line = 0%

Liberals post numbers when it suits them, and they post rates when it suits them. Conservatives do this too.

This is why I long ago stopped trusting statistics when applied to humanity. Stats are fine for completely random or completely ordered factors, but when your subjects are sentient everything breaks down.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Change in rate of those below the poverty line = 0%

Two things. First, performance relative to the other party is more relevant than absolute numbers or fractions in isolation. Second, if you look at the map on page 22 (30 of the pdf), you'll find that it wasn't evenly distributed nationally. The two year average (not to be confused with the career totals from before) went up by 1% or more in the following states (West to East): NV, TX, SD, IL, MI, VA, and NC. States that went down by 1% or more: ND and MS.

Not to mention that the overall 2 yr ave rate for the US went up 0.4%, not quite zero.

BlackGriffen

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Two things. First, performance relative to the other party is more relevant than absolute numbers or fractions in isolation. Second, if you look at the map on page 22 (30 of the pdf), you'll find that it wasn't evenly distributed nationally. The two year average (not to be confused with the career totals from before) went up by 1% or more in the following states (West to East): NV, TX, SD, IL, MI, VA, and NC. States that went down by 1% or more: ND and MS.

Not to mention that the overall 2 yr ave rate for the US went up 0.4%, not quite zero.

I was quoting the actual report that stated that the rate (for all regions) was unchanged, as in this line ...

Poverty rates for the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West all were unchanged.

Besides, this was already discussed in another thread. You even participated. Was that subject line not satisfactory enough for you?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
It looks like Kerry will be able to ask, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" and win points on it.

BlackGriffen

And to him I will respond, "Why yes, I am -- thanks for asking."

Maury

[Zimphire]

Same here. I was actually able to upgrade my system this year.

[smacintush]

My income has has doubled since Bush took office.

[itai195]

I'm better off, but I was in college 4 years ago

[BlackGriffen]

Hmm, these numbers need normalizing for time in office:

• Bush I: -$328/yr
• Clinton: +$686/yr
• Bush II: -$428.37/yr

Change in number of people below the poverty line -

• Bush I: +1,567,000/yr
• Clinton: -804,000/yr
• Bush II: +1,194,000/yr

Note also that these dollar figures are already inflation adjusted.

There's a reason these figures were released earlier/farther from the Presidential election this year.

To the two people who have higher income: congratulation. What about other members of your family? Did they all go up with you? Just on balance, would you say that Bush has been better or worse than Clinton was for your siblings, parents, cousins, etc?

Remember, it's comparative performance that counts.

Luckily for Kerry, and for the accuracy of my earlier statement, I said that he would come out ahead in asking that question, not that he would get everyone's vote for it.

BlackGriffen

[deedar]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Ah, yes - The recently employed liberal strategy of publicizing actual numbers instead of actual rates. It makes their spin sound much more severe. Like the unemployment rate, which as 5.5%, is considered by many economists to be full employment. SInce the libs don't want the nation to know that, they instead say "millions" are jobless".

From the report:

Median incomes of non-Hispanic white households, black households, and Asian households remained unchanged. Hispanic households experienced a decline in median income of 2.6%

The poverty rate for people 18 to 64 year olds remained unchanged at 10.8%, although the number in poverty rose to 19.4 million, up from 18.9 million.

Poverty rates for the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West all were unchanged.

Rates, while a useful comparison, do not completely reflect the picture. ACTUAL NUMBERS are valuable because ACTUAL PEOPLE are involved.


edit: added "not"

[smacintush]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
To the two people who have higher income: congratulation. What about other members of your family? Did they all go up with you? Just on balance, would you say that Bush has been better or worse than Clinton was for your siblings, parents, cousins, etc?
BlackGriffen

The only one I can think of that has been adversely affected is my uncle. He was stupid enough to have 50% of his retirement in a single stock. That stock was Enron.

The rest have been the same or better in the last four years. None have been laid off, or have had pay cuts.

[MacGorilla]

If things keep going the way they are going, GW will be the first President since Herbert Hoover to create NO net jobs in term.

[itai195]

In my family, three people (including myself) were jobless during the last 4 years. But we all ended up with better jobs. Overall I'd actually have to say that my family is better off, though my father's investment accounts may still be down. All that said, my own family was relatively well off before Bush, so none of this is much of a surprise.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by smacintush:
The only one I can think of that has been adversely affected is my uncle. He was stupid enough to have 50% of his retirement in a single stock. That stock was Enron.

The rest have been the same or better in the last four years. None have been laid off, or have had pay cuts.

Was their pay stagnant? You realize that such is a loss of "real income" because the value of what they're being paid goes down.

Also of interest:

Consumer spending increased 0.8 percent in July after a revised 0.2 percent decline in June. With spending rising faster than incomes, the personal savings rate fell from 1.3 percent to 0.6 percent, the lowest since December 2002. Read the full release.

Disposable incomes (after taxes) increased 0.1 percent in July after no change in June
[...]

Some good news for Bush - flat inflation rates means that stagflation shouldn't be a problem.

He has a couple more months, though, so we'll see what happens.

BlackGriffen

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Ah, yes - The recently employed liberal strategy of publicizing actual numbers instead of actual rates. It makes their spin sound much more severe. Like the unemployment rate, which as 5.5%, is considered by many economists to be full employment. SInce the libs don't want the nation to know that, they instead say "millions" are jobless".

From the report:

Median incomes of non-Hispanic white households, black households, and Asian households remained unchanged. Hispanic households experienced a decline in median income of 2.6%

The poverty rate for people 18 to 64 year olds remained unchanged at 10.8%, although the number in poverty rose to 19.4 million, up from 18.9 million.

Poverty rates for the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West all were unchanged.

AND all of this was done despite the economic downturn caused by 9/11. Very impressive indeed.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
AND all of this was done despite the economic downturn caused by 9/11. Very impressive indeed.

And the recession that welcomed Bush to office... and the corporate scandals that were seeded during the previous administration's bubble (due to relaxation of corporate reporting laws). And while at war.

Impressive indeed.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

To the two people who have higher income: congratulation. What about other members of your family? Did they all go up with you? Just on balance, would you say that Bush has been better or worse than Clinton was for your siblings, parents, cousins, etc?

Neither had any significant effect. Because such things aren’t strictly to the credit of, nor to the blame of who is President. It’s just overly-simplistic thinking to assign it that way.

During the Clinton years we enjoyed the (highly temporary) boom of the dot.com bubble- but many investors saw the handwriting on the wall while the bubble was still being inflated. Companies were straight-up overvalued, had ridiculously elevated stock valuations that weren’t based on any kind of solid financial foundations. We had an entire segment of the economy based on a ridiculous fad; jobs with no viable future being created without a proper need, nor real-world funding for them, and companies that were financial turd nightmares being paraded around the market as golden eggs. It was neither Clinton’s doing that created the situation, nor his fault that it failed and helped trigger the recession that began during his term.

Bush wasn’t responsible for the direct hit our economy took after 9/11, and the pretense some try to float that it wasn't 9/11, but all Bush's fault, is further proof of the depths of intellectual dishonesty that some will stoop to. We’ve all seen that some people lose their memory when it comes to events we all witnessed back in 1998 (Democrat policy/Iraq war) but we’re also not supposed to remember as recently as September 2001? We need some fat moron to tell us what happened? What are you kidding?

As for the initial question, yes I’m better off now than 4 years ago, but then I’ve never had a victim attitude, and never will. Same with the majority of my family. I don’t blame nor fault the president (whoever is president) for my own success or failure. People that fall back on that are both weak-willed and weak-minded, and love to scapegoat others for it.