Sinking Currency, Sinking Country

World Net Daily ^ | 11/02/07 | Pat Buchanan

[Mase]

One reason why are standard of living is higher today is the dual incomes.

Then how would you explain the real increases in per-capita income and per-capita consumption in this country?

[Toddsterpatriot]

We have a lot more McDonalds, Wendy's, Dollar Stores, food stores, Wally Worlds, etc. strip malls

I wonder where people got the money to buy goods at all those stores?

The illegal immigration flood has had the effective result of keeping those wages depressed for years now.

I want to build a wall and send illegals back.

To me, I knew once when the average American could raise a family on those types of jobs, have medical coverage, and pay for a home.

Let me guess, was that when every other manufacturing nation had been destroyed in WWII?

The manufacturing sector of the U.S. economy has experienced substantial job losses over the past several years. In January 2004, the number of such jobs stood at 14.3 million, down by 3.0 million jobs, or 17.5 percent, since July 2000 and about 5.2 million since the historical peak in 1979. Employment in manufacturing was its lowest since July 1950

And yet we manufacture more than ever. We export more than ever. Damn that increased productivity!

So, with 77 million baby boomers retiring soon (born 1946-1964), which is 22% of the entire population

Our population is 350 million? Are you using New Math?

and millions of manufacturing jobs out the window,

A majority of our population used to be farmers. I don't see any starving Americans now that farmers make up less than 3% of the population.

I guess your interpretation and thinking is a results from your outcome-based education and embracing of the recent "NEW MATH

You've discovered a problem with my math? Where?

And if 77 million boomers are retiring, I guess there'll be some job openings?

The middle class will soon disappear.

Now who's using bad math? LOL!

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you think he's aware that manufacturing jobs and wages both increased in the years following the passage of NAFTA.

You mean does he have facts and not just feelings? No.

[Alberta's Child]

Why are you assuming that the 1950s would be any more valid than the 1930s in terms of comparing standards of living to 2007?

In the 1950s the U.S. was the only major industrial power whose infrastructure had been unscathed by World War II. The 1950s was the exception -- not the norm -- in terms of measuring the U.S. standard of living historically.

[am452]

Do you think he's aware that manufacturing jobs and wages both increased in the years following the passage of NAFTA..

You are really dense or want to mislead. Do you think the loss of manufacturing jobs (and other jobs)in the early 90's due to a recession and then when the economy started to recover in '93/94 companies rehired their workers had something to do with the increase in manufacturing jobs and not Nafta?

[Alberta's Child]

To me, I knew once when the average American could raise a family on those types of jobs, have medical coverage, and pay for a home.

Right. See my last post on this point.

[Alberta's Child]

To me, I knew once when the average American could raise a family on those types of jobs, have medical coverage, and pay for a home.

Right. See #244 on this one.

[RSmithOpt]

Good point! Our GDP currently runs between 13-14 trillion and out total debt is 9.2 trillion. So, on a year's GDP as a nation, our total debt is approximately 66%. With the total debt divided by the total population, that's $27,800 per man, woman, child.

Stated another way and what the gov and the MSM doesn't talk about is:

Stated another way, if 2006 debt had been at the 1957 debt ratio then 2006's debt would have been $19 trillion, not $48 trillion - - indicating excess debt in America today of $29 trillion. (note - if this chart were plotted as debt % GDP, instead of debt % national income, the curve would look near identical to this chart) Stated differently, in 1957 there was $1.86 in debt for each dollar of national income, but today there is $4.42 of debt for each dollar of national income. It also means that this extra $2.56 per dollar of debt produced zilch relative national income.

[Toddsterpatriot]

The only thing with Perot is he did not anticipate the mass loss of manufacturing jobs to cheaper labor China instead of going to mehico.

So he was wrong about NAFTA? Yes, I agree, he was wrong. Thanks.

[RSmithOpt]

See post no. 248

[durasell]

If there is no tariff-level or dollar-value that would make you happy, then the problem isn’t tariffs or the dollar, now is it?

---

Let’s not fall into the trap of all those good folks in the Carolinas waiting for the textile or furniture industries to return.

The businesses gone to China ain’t coming back. It’s time to move on. And the folks who thought there’d always be room for at least one more hardworking blue collar guy to support his family with an honest day’s work were wrong.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you think the loss of manufacturing jobs (and other jobs)in the early 90's due to a recession and then when the economy started to recover in '93/94 companies rehired their workers had something to do with the increase in manufacturing jobs and not Nafta?

I didn't claim the gains were due to NAFTA. You can't blame losses on NAFTA when there were net gains, can you?

[Petronski]

Not debt v. income, debt v. assets.

[am452]

So he was wrong about NAFTA? Yes, I agree, he was wrong. Thanks.

Oh squirt you are so clever.

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, on a year's GDP as a nation, our total debt is approximately 66%.

Great. What's our wealth?

[RSmithOpt]

Nothing, but, we as a nation are going to reducing our standard of living significantly to do that and the government will not balance its budgets or reduce the tax burden to offset that impact.

I'm not being a doomer / gloomer...the numbers point to what has started to happen.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I’m just glad you’re finally right about something.

[1rudeboy]

Cute. Did you lift that from the Kerry ‘04 campaign? How about just answering my question, if you can.

[Thorin]

>>>>>>>One reason why are standard of living is higher today is the dual incomes. Most married women in the thirties did not work outside the home. How many families today would live like they do if you took the wife's income out of the picture?

BINGO! The fact that most families now have two wage earners has helped mask our relative economic decline, as shown by the fact that we've gone from having a third of the population taking home roughly 45% of the GNP in wages in the postwar period to the situation of today, where those two numbers are reversed. In real dollars, wages have been largely stagnant for decades. Of course, this purely economic analysis doesn't take into account all the family and societal problems caused by the need to have two wage earners instead of one in a family.

[Petronski]

I'm not being a doomer / gloomer...

Those words are the very best indicator that one is being precisely that.