Replies

Some seem to think that 0.2% income growth from 1965 - 2002 is good news, since it indicates "growth even during the worst period on the chart." But first let's define the time period as "during our lifetimes" (for most of us). So "our lifetime" is the same as "the worst period on the chart" for economic growth.

Let's look also at the cost. Back in 1965 most people didn't need a college education to make good money. Now you do. This puts you in debt and behind the 8-ball before you even start your career.

Rather than "rich get richer while poor get poorer," I see it as a lottery economy. A small sample (movie stars, athletes, dot-com millionaires) get fabulously wealthy, while the rest of the population stagnates and lives vicariously through these "celebrities." The enormous growth in actual gambling including state-sponsored lotteries is part of this trend.

What happens when we try to connect the economy to the lives of real people? The fact is that the populations of western countries are not reproducing themselves. Somehow the economy is not generating the income and the security to encourage people to have enough children to continue our society. National suicide would seem to be the ultimate negative indicator for a society, just as personal suicide might be considered the ultimate negative indicator for an individual's well-being.

An obvious question is "Where did all the money go?" We have lived through the computer age, to give one example. This has had a revolutionary effect on society the way that trains, petroleum and cars have done in the past. Yet somehow we haven't made any money from this enormous leap forward in technology. Clearly there are countries like Taiwan, China, Korea and even Japan that are much better off today than they were in 1965. But it seems that the average American has not been able to profit.