A Complete Waste of Space

U.S. Annual Income Fell More During Recovery Than Recession

Median annual income has declined 4.8 percent from $53,508 to $50,964 since the recovery technically began in June 2009 , according to a new study from Sentier Research. That's nearly double the 2.6 percent drop during the recession.

One especially hard-hit group: Americans aged 55 to 64, who saw their annual income drop nearly 10 percent. But African-Americans have felt the pain the most during the recovery as their incomes declined 11 percent.

“Based on our data, almost every group is worse off now than it was three years ago,” Gordon Green, co-author of the report, wrote in a press release.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/2 ... 28127.html

Is this a bunch of lies?
Granted, it's revelation through HuffPo could be sketchy?
What if it is true?
It seems when the math is being quoted, it's a dab hard to waggle your
booger finger at it, with out having, some math of your own to back it.

given the data is for median annual income(not average), I think it sounds very reasonable. In fact, I would suspect that median income, corrected for inflation, has been on the decline for a decade or more. What it means is that a few people up on the top end are making much, much more and the rest of you are struggling, which pretty much reflects both reality and what I've been warning on here for years.

Interesting, should you find the way whilst I am in Virginia taking care of business stuff, it to get AVERAGE income for the same period. The contrast would show you just how far apart the top 5% or so are drifting from the rest of the nation.

callmeslick wrote: The contrast would show you just how far apart the top 5% or so are drifting from the rest of the nation.

Not trying to quote you out of context.
Historically, hasn't this always been true?

If there were no top 5%, how would this have a positive effect on
the remaining 95%? What, if any, would be the negative effect?

This is probably a silly example, however, I'll toss it out there?
Some dogs are smarter than others...what is the benefit of "dumbing"
the smart ones down to the others?

I suppose, I'll never understand, why mediocrity is the "new goal/standard"?
It seems to me? That human beings have genetically, historically, been disposed
to excel. To live life, on a lesser perceived notion of others, is abhorrent to me.

I truly believe, it is our national disgrace to our fore bearers/fathers and future generations, to "undo" the sacrifices of the past. "Legally" or otherwise.

I was taught/raised to do and to leave things, better than I found them.
I have always done my best in this regard.

When the price of gold goes up. My income increases.

I like it.

Ah Ha! A self proclaimed 5%'er....

Pudfark wrote:

callmeslick wrote: The contrast would show you just how far apart the top 5% or so are drifting from the rest of the nation.

Not trying to quote you out of context.
Historically, hasn't this always been true?

not at all, Pud. For instance, in the period from 1950-1980, the median was rising faster than the average(both were rising, yet we had top income tax rates of 65-90% over that periond....hmmm).

If there were no top 5%, how would this have a positive effect on
the remaining 95%? What, if any, would be the negative effect?

This is probably a silly example, however, I'll toss it out there?
Some dogs are smarter than others...what is the benefit of "dumbing"
the smart ones down to the others?

this has nothing to do with dumbing anyone or thing down, Pud. Let me give you this example: My dad at one time was VP of Research at a very large Chemical Company. His salary was roughly 6 times that of entry level chemists and engineers. Today, that same position pays 20 times entry. Why? This sort of disparity didn't happen in the decades I cited above because there wasn't the economic incentives for the individual to make massively more money(the govt took it all), yet the rich still stayed rich, my family lived very well, and young chemists moved up the economic ladder faster after college. Overall, good for a society, IMHO.

I suppose, I'll never understand, why mediocrity is the "new goal/standard"?
It seems to me? That human beings have genetically, historically, been disposed
to excel. To live life, on a lesser perceived notion of others, is abhorrent to me.

it isn't about rewarding mediocrity, it is about wasting finite resources on overcompensating a few at the expense of hordes of very talented people, and creating a two-tier society instead of a smooth curve from bottom to top.

I truly believe, it is our national disgrace to our fore bearers/fathers and future generations, to "undo" the sacrifices of the past. "Legally" or otherwise.

I have no clue what you are trying to get at here, but IMHO, generations past did not sacrifice to have a society where a handful live extravagantly well, while the rest sink into poverty, over a few short generations. We fought as a society to keep that from happening in the late 19th century, during the depresson and the post WWII era.

I was taught/raised to do and to leave things, better than I found them.
I have always done my best in this regard.

as was I, which explains why I try and fight to reverse a very negative trend. Sadly, many of the victims of that trend have been sold a bill of goods which blames the wrong parties, or promotes ideological infighting so as to allow the trend to continue. Sad.....

Buzz wrote:When the price of gold goes up. My income increases.

I like it.

and when it drops, it sucks to be you?

Not likely it could ever drop below what I payed 20 years ago. Plus, what I prospect is almost pure profit.

What recovery?

Gold won't fall. As for the rest I agree with what slick says

WTF

The problem with the democrats isn't who or how heavily they will tax the rich, but what use they will make of this tax money.

Nic