True there have always been poor people in America. My post was poorly worded.

However, supply and demand is not w/o manipulation. By putting up barriers to unionization , allowing guest worker programs and "free trade" the U.S. has kicked the stuffing out of the power of labor after its brief period of ascendency in the 50s.


I would like to see a link to your numbers on income. The sources that I look at refer to "household income"; in the past 30 years the percentage of households with 2 income earners has gone up. That has helped boost the "household" income numbers and they are still unimpressive.

This is from U.S. census bureau


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). The two data series are not inconsistent, because the median simply identifies the income level of the household in the middle of the income distribution while per capita income is calculated by dividing aggregate income by the total number of individuals in the universe. Although the two series are not inconsistent, the difference between the two is sufficiently large that an attempt to identify the reasons behind the difference seems useful. The material below will focus on changes in income inequality and changes in the size and composition of households as factors that help explain the different growth rates in the two income series.

The fact that median household income showed only a small gain during the same time period that per capita income rose sharply suggests that a major change occurred in income inequality. The distribution of income changed dramatically over the period, but it changed in such a way as to have a small effect on the median.

No, but if things have been stagnant before, they are taking a downward turn,now. Cassandra that I am, I think that things look grim. The numbers are manipulated to make the economy look better than it is. Inflation is certainly higher than the numbers suggest. The credit/ debt driven consumer activity has to slow. Baby boomers are retiring. What will America do for its' next act? We have already tried war and that is not going too well.

You answered your own question really. The single largest demographic in poverty is the single mother and her kids. So when you talk poverty in the US, that should be the first thing you're talking about.

The next biggest demographic seems to be families where people are working, they just doesn't make enough for the number of children and/or older relatives on hand.


I think pretty much everyone here agrees that a healthy person with no children or other dependents and no serious drug problem or particularily bad criminal record can get over the poverty line if they want to.

Yes?

It's just that they make up quite the minority of people in poverty.

The talk about sending jobs to Asia isn't about the quantity of jobs, it's about the quality and pay of availible jobs. (And it seems like what's actually happened is we've switched from a manufacturing to a service economy)

At any rate the point is that lowering the minimum wage can only possibly help the poor when there are not already crap jobs for them to take. But there seem to be plenty of crap jobs around at least so long as you're willing to relocate or take a bus to work at this point in time, therefore lowing wages just means lower wages.

How stupid do you have to be to make $10,400?? I made $12,000 before I even graduated college...and that was 8 years ago!! I worked at a kennel....not glamorous, but it was money.

And much of that was the fault of Labor, too. And labor "manipulated" prices for labor upward. But the bottom line is that we have labor competition in this country, so wages are determined by the market, not by ABC Corp. I can guarantee you my employer would love to pay me less. But they can't. I would love to make more. But I can't.

No sweat! I'll get you a link in a minute.

That's just your way, dear! There is no such thing as a trend that never changes. Over a period of time you are going to get periods where real wages are flat or declining. Just like with the stock market. But over time we've experienced increasing real wages. Things have not been great in the regard under Bush, but were very good under Clinton. But things are not getting markedly worse, either.

Not sure what you mean! We know what things cost. We know what they cost last week and last year. So I'm not sure how the numbers are wrong.

__________________
Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?

I think your entire premise as well as your follow up questions are drastically over simplified, if not out right incorrect. (example: Dems prefer targeted Tax cuts and job training, not just "give people more money") A targeted Tax cut IS supply side.

So this is why I didn't bother to answer your "question."

Ixtellor

P.S. If republicans hate sex, how do they reproduce? (silly example to illustrate a point)

P.P.S The last unemployment rate, can NOT just be accounted for with frictional unemployment. Hence there are people LOOKING for work who can NOT find it.

What Billy described are people who are not considered unemployeed. Being out of work does not make you officially unemployed. (see housewife)

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

What on earth are you talking about? ...prove it. If you can, I might just change parties lmao

__________________
So your logic is that if we are not there, the number will go down... That makes perfect sense... not.

Good point. So how do you fix it? And let's discuss other ideas besides putting tax on imports.

__________________
So your logic is that if we are not there, the number will go down... That makes perfect sense... not.

Just remember, the tragedy of Cassandra wasn't that she was wrong, it was that no one believed her!!


I have been reading Kevin Phillips on the topic. It seems that Nixon was the Pres. who came up with the concept of "core" inflation which successfully excludes all of the things that are really inflating. Reagan further finagled the numbers by deciding that the C.P.I. was overstating housing prices. In 1983 they sidestepped the problem by using an "owner equivalent rent" measurement. Economist John Williams calls the many ways that government uses to understate the truth, "Pollyanna Creep".

Well, it wasn't a conspiracy done to fool you! Economists measure inflation in more than one way. Core inflation eliminates products that commonly experience temporary price shocks. The theory is that it better predicts underlying inflation. But they still measure inflation including those things. Core inflation is just something in the toolbox. Although the government has a vested interest in "good news" it also has vested interest in getting good data. An economic collapse caused by bad data does not bebefit those in power.

__________________
Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?

Not so, a person working full time and earning minimum wage lives above the poverty level.