Posted on 05/05/2016 3:16:39 PM PDT by LS
Pundits and prognosticators are in a rare mea culpa moment, acknowledging how badly they misjudged Donald Trump as a presidential candidate and apologizing for being so narrow-minded. But they didnt need to travel to dozens of campaign events or poll hundreds of Iowans to understand Trumps appeal. All they had to do was understand one single number: $55,191.
That was median household income, adjusted for inflation, in June 2015, the month Trump declared he was running for the Republican presidential nomination. That number is neither good nor bad on its own, but when you compare it with a second number, the problem becomes clear. In January 2000, median household income was $57,371, which means when Trump declared his candidacy, the buying power of the typical family had fallen 4% during the prior 15 years.
This simple chart, courtesy of Sentier Resarch, shows the problem. This is an index of median household income, in todays dollars, which accounts for inflation and other factors over time. That allows apples-to-apples comparisons between now and then. The red line represents the income index (left scale), while the gray line shows the unemployment rate (right scale).
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
Trick question. You’ve NEVER had a good steak.
Well, I think you are wrong only because the anger and frustration is on the Dem side too. I agree, the GOPe is useless and should be disbanded. But I think an economic malaise, UNSEEN BY THE ELITES ON THE COASTS, has been killing this country for a decade.
Add to that quoted 4% drop the fact that the gov’t understates inflation on purpose to reduce interest and SS costs by at least 1-1.5% a year that means a drop of about 20% over that timeframe.
Billionaires and their pet politicians, media cohorts are doing fantastically well, the rest of the people have been sacrificed for their globalist wet dreams
I saw what you did there.
Sorry, 50% of Americans are below median, not below average. But I see what you were aiming for.
I’m 75 and still working cause I gotta pay five doctors and two hospitals, and besides, no millennial has the smarts to do my job. They don’t teach Math, Science and Technology anymore. They can’t even make change right.
Right, but if he had used U6, his editors would have had (a) no idea; and (b) pushed back because it wasn't what they saw on HuffPo this morning; and (c) just rewrite what's on the wire, Newman.
Here's hoping Newman finds a good job after Yahoo implodes very very soon...
There are now nearly 13 million more U.S. jobs than there were in 2000, for instance, but if median household income is essentially the same, thats de facto evidence that many jobs pay less than they used to.
If median household income is essentially the same in 2015 as it was in 2000, this could simply be evidence that households are smaller than they used to be.
If you really want to compare incomes from one year to the next, a comparison of individual income is a much more accurate indicator than household income.
Seven years ago, I worked as a hospital medical transcriptionist, and my husband worked at Insight. He also worked a couple nights a week at a restaurant as a server. We made over $100k.
My job got sent to India in 2010, and he was fired from Insight 3 years ago (just before he turned 60) due to two bad quarters. Luckily, he became full-time at his restaurant job so we still have benefits. I got unemployment for awhile and now I’m in school, living off loans as well as early retirement. We make 2/3 of what we made when Obama took office.
We got the change all right...but not a lot of hope.
According to this both legal immigrants and illegals were given the jobs:
http://cis.org/all-employment-growth-since-2000-went-to-immigrants
There’s also the middle-aged people who were laid off, weren’t rehired or couldn’t find another decent job, and then decided to take early Social Security at 62 as well as draw on their retirement accounts in order to survive. I’d like to know how big that number is.
I think you could make a decent estimate by looking at the number of folks going on SS at 62 by calendar year vs. the total population of that age bracket.
If your theory is correct, the percentage should show an upward jump.
donna, you and I have sparred before, but I see we are (finally) on the same side of something: Trump. :)
But... WELL DONE STEAKS???!? Ew.
I like the farmer to gently whisper the word 'flame' into the cows ear.
Cut, garnish, and serve.
Try giving them a $20 bill and a quarter for a charge of $17.25 and watch their heads explode.
You and your husband are SO CUTE!!!
Median, not average. 1/5 or 20% of households have not one person in the household working.
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.