Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Family Incomes Slipped In 1st Part Of Decade ("Rich getting richer" alert)
The Associated Press ^ | Feb 24, 2006 | MARTIN CRUTSINGER

Posted on 02/24/2006 6:24:09 AM PST by Sam's Army

WASHINGTON - After the booming 1990s when incomes and stock prices were soaring, this decade has been less of a thrill ride for most American families.

Average incomes after adjusting for inflation actually fell from 2001 to 2004, and the growth in net worth was the weakest in a decade, the Federal Reserve reported Thursday.

Many families were struggling in the aftermath of the 2001 recession and the bursting of the stock market bubble in 2000, the Fed's latest Survey of Consumer Finances showed. The comprehensive look at household balance sheets comes every three years.

Average family incomes, after adjusting for inflation, fell to $70,700 in 2004, a drop of 2.3 percent when compared with 2001.

That was the weakest showing since a decline of 11.3 percent from 1989 to 1992, a period that also covered a recession.

The average incomes had soared by 17.3 percent in the 1998-2001 period and 12.3 percent from 1995 to 1998 as the country enjoyed the longest economic expansion in history.

The median family income, the point where half the families made more and half made less, rose a tiny 1.6 percent to $43,200 in 2004 compared with 2001.

Economists said the weakness in the most recent period was understandable given the loss of 2.7 million jobs from early 2001 through August 2003, when the country was struggling with sizable layoffs caused by the recession, the terrorist attacks and corporate accounting scandals.

The weak income and the stock market decline in the early part of the decade, which wiped out $7 trillion of paper wealth, had an adverse impact on family balance sheets.

Net worth, the difference between assets and liabilities such as loans, rose by 6.3 percent in the 2001-04 period to an average of $448,200. That gain was far below the huge increases of 25.6 percent from 1995 to 1998 and 28.7 percent from 1998 to 2001, increases that were fueled by soaring stock prices.

The 2001-04 performance was the worst since net worth actually declined by 9.9 percent in the 1989-92 period.

The report showed that the slowdown in the accumulation of net worth would have been even more sizable except for the fact that homeowners have enjoyed big gains in the value of their homes in recent years.

The gap between the very wealthy and other income groups widened during the period.

The top 10 percent of households saw their net worth rise by 6.1 percent to an average of $3.11 million while the bottom 10 percent suffered a decline from a net worth in which their assets equaled their liabilities in 2001 to owing $1,400 more than their total assets in 2004.

"This is the continuing story of the rich getting richer," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York. "Clearly, the gains in wealth are going to the top end."

Democrats used the new report to blast President Bush's economic policies, contending it would be wrong to make permanent his tax cuts, which primarily benefit the wealthy.

"These statistics show why, even though GDP is rising, most people do not feel better off," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

The Fed survey found that the percentage of Americans who owned stocks, either directly or through a mutual fund, fell by 3.3 percentage points to 48.6 percent in 2004, down from 51.9 percent in 2001.

Analysts said this was an indication that investors burned by plunging stock prices in the decade's early years have been leery about getting back into the market.

The share of Americans' financial assets invested in stocks dipped to 17.6 percent in 2004, down from 21.7 percent in 2001.

Reflecting the housing boom, the share of assets made up by home ownership rose to 50.3 percent in 2004, compared with 46.9 percent in 2001.

The Fed survey found that debts as a percent of total assets rose to 15 percent in 2004, up from 12.1 percent in 2001. Mortgages to finance home purchases were by far the biggest share of total debt at 75.2 percent in 2004, unchanged from the 2001 level.

There was concern that families might start to feel even more squeezed as the cost of financing their debts increases along with rising interest rates.

Although surging home values have supported consumer spending in recent years, analysts worry about the economic impact if, as expected, the home price surge begins to slow this year.

"This report shows a race between factors boosting net worth, such as home ownership, and factors pushing the other way, such as weak wage growth," said Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News
KEYWORDS: income
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 361-373 next last
To: sauropod

review


41 posted on 02/24/2006 8:09:30 AM PST by sauropod ("All you get is controversy, crap and confusion." Alan Simpson defining the WH Pimp Corps.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

"All well and good -- but you're making Cato's mistake: you've not accounted for human nature, and thus will end up surprised when socialism makes another leap forward."

Absolutely true. When the masses start believing that capitalism is giving them a raw deal, capitalism is in deep trouble. Eventually the socialists will accomplish change, either through the ballot box or the bayonet.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just saying the possibility is there and it's very real.


42 posted on 02/24/2006 8:09:55 AM PST by Ace of Spades (Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
No sir, it hasn't. I have and will take continued steps to be nimble enough to not choose such a career path (I'm currently in sales; was previously in management).

If it should happen one day, Good Lord willing, I will simply find something else. Or, like I am doing now, continue training/education so that I get more tools in my toolbox.

No one owes me a living, but I owe my young family my most earnest efforts to provide them with one.

43 posted on 02/24/2006 8:12:46 AM PST by Sam's Army (Another unsuccessful attempt to refrain from posting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army
I love the subliminal codes here.

"After the booming 1990s when incomes and stock prices were soaring" means during the Clinton administration

"Average incomes after adjusting for inflation actually fell from 2001 to 2004" means Bush's first term

We are smart enough to see through this transparency
44 posted on 02/24/2006 8:13:28 AM PST by slowhand520
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army
The average incomes had soared by 17.3 percent in the 1998-2001 period

How much of this was driven by the Y2K mobilization? For a while there, qualified IT folks could pretty much name their salary.

45 posted on 02/24/2006 8:17:02 AM PST by Constitutionalist Conservative (Eschew obfuscation, ya'll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army
You and I are in complete agreement about how one should respond in that event.

OTOH, the idea that you might lose your job because some Chinese or Bangladeshi is cheaper ... that's where one can plausibly apply the "faceless capitalism" label: to the company it's not personal, it's just business. Of course, to you it's utterly personal.

The economic arguments in such cases are all very well and good; however, the difference between "nothing personal" on one side, and "of course it's personal" on the other, cannot help but cause friction.

46 posted on 02/24/2006 8:19:10 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army
Just curious; where is capitalism currently operating "without a human face"?

And where is socialism with a human face?

47 posted on 02/24/2006 8:24:56 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
I agree. Any downsizing, firing, layoff, rightsizing, outsourcing, etc. IS indeed personal to that individual. I have been on the line before; forced to resign in one case, somehow ended up with a promotion in another before it was said and done.

Given the amount of information available in this culture, my opinion is that one must stay informed enough to at least read about current trends. Being able to interpret current trends and make hopefully sound judgements about your own future should ward off a career choice of a role that could easily be done in Bangladesh.

48 posted on 02/24/2006 8:28:31 AM PST by Sam's Army (Another unsuccessful attempt to refrain from posting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Good question. Plenty of the Left would point to Cuba, Venezuela, etc. unforutnately.


49 posted on 02/24/2006 8:33:21 AM PST by Sam's Army (Another unsuccessful attempt to refrain from posting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
I think I understand your point of the perception by the lower income earners, they feel they are taking the brunt of the pain in this economy.

You aren't advocating socialism, just point out the perception that many voters have, and will carry to the polls in Nov.

I fear a backlash in the northern states because of high heating costs, in some areas its far worse than is being reported.
Natural gas prices are way up and the average family is paying an extra $80-90 a month, about $200-250 total heat bill per month.

What isn't reported is the areas that don't have natural gas service, and they use propane for heat, their bills are running $500-700 a month!
The price of that has tripled in just a couple years, and there is no regulation on what they can charge.

Right or wrong, people are being strapped in some areas, and socialists will be playing that card in the 2006 elections. IMHO
50 posted on 02/24/2006 9:05:56 AM PST by Beagle8U (An "Earth First" kinda guy ( when we finish logging here, we'll start on the other planets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

I truly wasn't sure where you were headed, thanks for the explanation.

I now find that our differences are far fewer.

As a free marketer and a believer in individual freedom, I hardly think that prices of goods and services should be set individually according to predetermined asset levels. Instead, prices ought to be determined by what people are willing to pay. That's nearly unavoidable in any case.

I do agree that those of wealth have some *moral* obligation to help in some way those who are in need. Even though, IMO, the actual wealth that they've created is more (generally) helpful to the needy than their charity is. But the obligation should not be a legal one in a free country, charity should be at the discretion of the giver rather than the receiver...or the state.

As for outsourcing and free trade, I am philosophically a free trader, but do have mixed feelings and concerns, especially where national security comes in. Besides which, how can there be free trade if only one side is doing it?


51 posted on 02/24/2006 9:08:50 AM PST by Sam Cree (absolute reality) - ("Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army
"Clearly, the gains in wealth are going to the top end."

 

And in other news, reliable studies have shown that it gets darker when the sun goes down.


52 posted on 02/24/2006 9:15:06 AM PST by Fintan (See??? Sometimes I do read the articles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

Absolutely, if you have only 2 major strata, exceedingly wealthy, and exceedingly poor... you will wind up with a Boshevic outcome or some sort, whether it be all out Communist uprising, or socialism.

You must have a vibrant middle class, where the lower classes honestly can see a path to improving their lot peacefully.. otherwise, you will wind up with a nice revolution on your hands.


53 posted on 02/24/2006 9:18:31 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
And where is socialism with a human face?

If you're one of those folks who sees a hungry kid and wants to help her, then you see its human face every time you look in the mirror.

Most humans naturally do want to help people in need. I'd go so far as to say that many folks who are in favor of various socialist ideas are genuinely motivated by a desire to help. And there's nothing wrong with wanting to help.

The failures of socialism as a governing principle are well-known. It's a perversion of a good and natural desire to help; the problem is that it raises "wanting to help" above all other moral imperatives (like freedom, for example), and thus not only ruins those things, but also ends up failing to help.

Still -- the "human face" of socialism is yours and mine.

54 posted on 02/24/2006 9:22:36 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army

Another lefty CRUTSINGER "analysis" supported by Schumer Wyss and Bernstein...all educated in the laps of Marx.


55 posted on 02/24/2006 9:24:17 AM PST by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
If you're one of those folks who sees a hungry kid and wants to help her, then you see its human face every time you look in the mirror.

My human face and my desire to help is not socialism.

56 posted on 02/24/2006 9:30:56 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army
The Dims have been abusing this issue for years. There is a paradox that family income has been stagnant for many years while personal income generally has been increasing. Economists without a political agenda have explained the paradox as a result of the continued atomization of the American family, due in part to high divorce rates among other things, leading people to live in smaller family groups.

However you slice it, the rich do get richer. That's how capitalism works. Get over it. Perhaps you'd rather watch the nomenklatura get richer instead?

57 posted on 02/24/2006 9:37:36 AM PST by colorado tanker (We need more "chicken-bleep Democrats" in the Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
My human face and my desire to help is not socialism.

No -- but it is the driving force behind socialism nevertheless. As I said, socialism perverts the desire to help by making it The Only Thing That Matters.

58 posted on 02/24/2006 9:37:49 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

Comment #59 Removed by Moderator

Comment #60 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 361-373 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson