Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1 Government Is Destroying our Standard of Living 
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,784
    Government Is Destroying our Standard of Living
    http://americanthinker.com/2014/07/g...of_living.html

    By Monty Pelerin

    Finally, the change in net worth has made the mainstream media. The statistics, as reported in the NY Times, are horrific, as are the implications for the future of the country.

    Net worth may be the best single measure of a country's well-being. Median net worth is a reasonable marker for the standard of living. Medians (or averages) are not good measures to capture what is happening at the lowest or highest ends. (More about that below.)

    In the simplest terms, net worth is the value of a person's assets minus his liabilities. If this measure is growing, a person is becoming better off. If it is shrinking then that person is becoming worse off, at least in terms of wealth.

    Shocking Drop in Net Worth

    Conditions economically (and politically) may be getting so indefensible that even the NY Times feels compelled to report them, in this article by Anna Bernasek, which reported:

    The inflation-adjusted net worth for the typical household was $87,992 in 2003. Ten years later, it was only $56,335, or a 36 percent decline, according to a study financed by the Russell Sage Foundation. Those are the figures for a household at the median point in the wealth distribution -- the level at which there are an equal number of households whose worth is higher and lower. But during the same period, the net worth of wealthy households increased substantially.

    She does not go out of her way to shield the Obama Administration:

    ...much of the damage has occurred since the start of the last recession in 2007. Until then, net worth had been rising for the typical household, although at a slower pace than for households in higher wealth brackets. But much of the gain for many typical households came from the rising value of their homes. Exclude that housing wealth and the picture is worse: Median net worth began to decline even earlier.

    She also noted:

    “The housing bubble basically hid a trend of declining financial wealth at the median that began in 2001,” said Fabian T. Pfeffer, the University of Michigan professor who is lead author of the Russell Sage Foundation study.

    This report is damaging to any notion that there has been an economic recovery or that economic matters are back to normal. ...


    ...Matters Are Actually Worse Than They Appear

    Were the economy and its components growing at a real rate of 2 - 3%, then median net worth presumably would be growing at a similar rate. Let's do some quick arithmetic based on the graph above. According to the report, median net worth in 2003 was $88,000. From the graph, it is approximately 25% higher than it was in 1984. That would mean that median net worth in 1984 was approximately 88,000/1.25 or $70,400. Compounding that forward 29 years would produce what one might expect the median net worth to be at the end of 2013. At 2% that number would be $137,500; at 3%, $182,400. Instead, it is only $56,300.

    Based on these quick calculations, American's median net worth has been reduced by 60% to 70% from what might have been expected. How is this possible?

    There are several reasons. I would argue that most of the blame goes to government:

    Government is taking a much bigger share of the economy.
    Government understates inflation which results in an overstatement of real GDP.
    Taxes are higher, especially on capital gains which are unadjusted for inflation and taxed as if they were true gains.
    Government interventions have destroyed the economy's ability to grow.
    Government transfer payments have reduced the workforce, spreading a reduced output over more people.
    Government's encouragement of the use of debt has created behavior not in the best interests of unsophisticated citizens.

    There are other reasons, some that are not related to government although I suspect they have minimal effect. Regardless, the fact is that the U.S. is becoming poorer by the day. For much of this period, people maintained their spending levels by borrowing or consuming capital. The good times of the last twenty years were nowhere near as good as we pretended they were. Now we must pay the piper and hope that government can be reduced back to an affordable level of spending and regulation.....

    (More at the link)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    751
    The DUmmies blame it on capitalism, not Obama's failed policies.

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025305549
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,784
    Quote Originally Posted by thundley4 View Post
    The DUmmies blame it on capitalism, not Obama's failed policies.

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025305549
    They're wrong. It's the curtailing of capitalism for all and allowing only crony-capitalism for a few government chosen elites that is causing the problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member Dori's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Blue State Hell
    Posts
    1,128
    Truer words were never spoken.

    Get the government out, with all their handouts, mandates, regulations and taxes, life would probably change to the better for most Americans.
    Obama isn't the problem. The problem is an electorate that would vote a man like him into office.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,517
    All of those net worth numbers, including $182,400, are insanely low.
    "Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    3,016
    Quote Originally Posted by linda22003 View Post
    All of those net worth numbers, including $182,400, are insanely low.
    Yes and no, it does not mention what percentage of net worth is comprised of depreciating assets that do not grow with the economy but actually go the other way over time, regardless of what is happening to the economy and the value of money. The hypothetical appreciated figures are really predicated on the entire net worth being composed of nothing but capital assets that gain in value over time, such as desirable real estate or investments. In the real world, of course, real people have net worth that includes things like cars, cash, and miscellaneous personal property that either decreases or remains static in value over time.

    However, I do agree with the basic conclusion; no matter what it's composition, net worth is a snapshot of how things stand, and if it's drastically lower now in inflation-adjusted dollars than it was then, that ain't good.
    Last edited by DumbAss Tanker; 07-30-2014 at 03:47 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Ancient Fire Breather Retread's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I came to Texas as soon as I could
    Posts
    5,892
    Quote Originally Posted by linda22003 View Post
    All of those net worth numbers, including $182,400, are insanely low.
    Reasons? Links? Over all, a 2% number is not a bad choice at all.
    It's not how old you are, it's how you got here.
    It's been a long road and not all of it was paved.
    A man is but a product of his thoughts. What he thinks, he becomes. Gandhi
    Quote Originally Posted by Carol
    When I judge someone's integrity one key thing I look at is - How does s/he treat people s/he doesn't agree with or does not like?
    I can respect someone who I do not agree with, but I have NO respect for someone who puts others down in a public forum. That is the hallmark of someone who has no integrity, and cannot be trusted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    17,748
    Quote Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker View Post
    Yes and no, it does not mention what percentage of net worth is comprised of depreciating assets that do not grow with the economy but actually go the other way over time, regardless of what is happening to the economy and the value of money. The hypothetical appreciated figures are really predicated on the entire net worth being composed of nothing but capital assets that gain in value over time, such as desirable real estate or investments. In the real world, of course, real people have net worth that includes things like cars, cash, and miscellaneous personal property that either decreases or remains static in value over time.

    However, I do agree with the basic conclusion; no matter what it's composition, net worth is a snapshot of how things stand, and if it's drastically lower now in inflation-adjusted dollars than it was then, that ain't good.


    I agree
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •