How Are People Getting By?

[andyfox]

I posted a few weeks back about the long wage recession that extends back, basically, to the 1970s. There have been several ways that people have coped with what can either be seen as the higher cost of living or the recession in wages:

1) Working longer hours: In 2000, 31% of workers age 16 and over worked more than 40 hours/week and 8% worked more than 60 hours. In 1979, the average number of weeks worked by married couple families with children was 3,331/year. In 2000, it was 3,719.

2) Having two wage earners in the family: In 1950, 28% of the labor force was women; in 2000, that figure was 60%. In 1951, 22.9% of married couples had a wife in the paid labor force; in 1997, 61.7%

3) Going into debt: In 1947, household debt as a % of income was 20%. In 2002, it was 109%. In 1968, credit card debt was $10,000,000,000; in 2000, $600,000,000,000 (adjusted for inflation).

Thoughts?

[FrankTheTank]

Many of them aren't. 1 in 4 homeless people in America work full-time or part-time jobs. Others live in their cars, and those who can afford a roof over their heads are often stuck living week to week in motels because they can't afford the deposit for even the cheapest apartments, so they pay through the nose just waiting for some unforeseen expense, usually health-related, to cripple them.

Many just get by (to use the term loosely) on the help of others, usually their similarly destitute co-workers and friends. I remember reading in Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed that the poor give more of income percentage-wise to charity than either the middle-class or the rich (unfortunately I can't find the exact numbers right now but when I do I'll edit this post).

[FishHooks]

Homeownership is at an all time high and your payments on your house that you have left are considered debt if I'm not mistaken. This is probably not taking into account equity in your homes either.

Your points 1 and 2 just show why the economy is always growing, people aren't necessarly forced to work more, people want to work more to improve their life. I think it also shows that umemployment over the last decade is much lower. Companies dont want to pay people for over 40 hours a week, they hate paying overtime. But its getting harder to find people for work, so they are forced to pay overtime.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I posted a few weeks back about the long wage recession that extends back, basically, to the 1970s. There have been several ways that people have coped with what can either be seen as the higher cost of living or the recession in wages:

[/ QUOTE ]

I also remember posting something where the median income in the U.S. has risen at a faster rate over the last 20 years than the previous 20 years before it inflation adjusted. So I don't think it's accurate to paint this with a broad brush so to speak. I don't know but certainly a significant number of people are worse off than they were before. The question is for whom has it gotten worse and why. However, I will repeat again there are industries where there is demand for workers and wages are rising.

[ QUOTE ]
1) Working longer hours: In 2000, 31% of workers age 16 and over worked more than 40 hours/week and 8% worked more than 60 hours. In 1979, the average number of weeks worked by married couple families with children was 3,331/year. In 2000, it was 3,719.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have to look at the numbers as to why. Not necessarily bad.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Having two wage earners in the family: In 1950, 28% of the labor force was women; in 2000, that figure was 60%. In 1951, 22.9% of married couples had a wife in the paid labor force; in 1997, 61.7%

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure this a bad thing. Many women want to pursue careers and women's lot in the labor force has improved alot since 1950 and in fact I think it's fair to say that many women would take offense to being put in a pidgeon hole of staying at home and raising the children.


[ QUOTE ]
3) Going into debt: In 1947, household debt as a % of income was 20%. In 2002, it was 109%. In 1968, credit card debt was $10,000,000,000; in 2000, $600,000,000,000 (adjusted for inflation).

[/ QUOTE ]

On household debt, I owe $200,000 on my house but I could sell it for $400,000. My household income is $190,000 a year and I have little other savings of significance. Therefore my debt burden is over 100% of my income. However, I'm not saying this is the norm. Just pointing out that closer scrutiny of the data is needed. As far as credit card debt well credit cards are used a lot more now and so more stuff goes on them. Again we have to look at the ability to pay them off.

With all that said I made some posts this week about the price of a gallon of gasoline and how price increases hurt the less affluent (including those imposed for cleaner emmissions) a whole bunch more than other income groups. Ditto for energy costs in general. I don't think there's much doubt about that. I've reflected quite a bit about the energy situation in the U.S. and I see our energy problems contributing to a lot of other problems (no surprise there to many I'm sure).

Anecdotally I've read lots and lots of horror stories about excessive credit card debt. Yeah I think it's a lot harder for many to make ends meet now than in yesteryear. But also the U.S. economy has changed drastically from the 50's, 60's and 70's as to who businesses are looking to hire. I think also but not sure that our educational system has failed us in a lot of ways and that a big part of the problem is that people lack the training and education to obtain higher paying jobs. Also I think many hold the view that the U.S. consummer needs to cut back and save more but I think the point you're driving at is that this is impossible for a great many people. I think you're probably right.

[TomCollins]

Here's a thought... People are buying more crap now.

We live in a country where "poor" people have multiple cars, big screen tvs, etc...

This obviously doesn't speak for the homeless (the drugs and alcohol might), but the reason most people in this country have huge debt is because they don't know how to live within their means.

[Chris Alger]

1. The rise in median income, if that means the "middle" income of all incomes sampled, could be exclusively attributed to the higher number of rich incomes conentrated among the very few. The fact remains that the lowest half or 2/3's of American society hasn't seen any improvement in real household dollars/hour for the better part of two generations, there are more poor, and the middle class is shrinking as a result of losing income.

2. The causes of this seems pretty clear: globalization, a decline in skilled manufacturing jobs, higher education costs, and the determination by political leaders to shift income and productivity gains to their wealthier supporters while shifting the tax burden to the lower classes. These goals are the GOP's raison d'etre.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
1. The rise in median income, if that means the "middle" income of all incomes sampled, could be exclusively attributed to the higher number of rich incomes conentrated among the very few. The fact remains that the lowest half or 2/3's of American society hasn't seen any improvement in real household dollars/hour for the better part of two generations, there are more poor, and the middle class is shrinking as a result of losing income.

2. The causes of this seems pretty clear: globalization, a decline in skilled manufacturing jobs, higher education costs, and the determination by political leaders to shift income and productivity gains to their wealthier supporters while shifting the tax burden to the lower classes. These goals are the GOP's raison d'etre.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are mistaking median with mean. The mean income of 1985 North Carolina Geography majors is $1M. The median is much lower. Any guesses why?

[FrankTheTank]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a thought... People are buying more crap now.

We live in a country where "poor" people have multiple cars, big screen tvs, etc...

This obviously doesn't speak for the homeless (the drugs and alcohol might), but the reason most people in this country have huge debt is because they don't know how to live within their means.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you done any research on this at all?

[TomCollins]

I'm clearly not talking about the poorest of the poor in this country (who still live better than 90% of the rest of the world). If you are going to include huge figures like credit card debt, a large portion will be from people who buy crap they can't afford nor need.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The rise in median income, if that means the "middle" income of all incomes sampled, could be exclusively attributed to the higher number of rich incomes conentrated among the very few.

[/ QUOTE ]

Median income, half below and half above. I'll try to find the post again. Mean income is distorted in the way you suggest. I'll readily concede that the distribution of income has changed over the last 20 years or in that it's skewed in the way you state.

[ QUOTE ]
2. The causes of this seems pretty clear: globalization, a decline in skilled manufacturing jobs, higher education costs, and the determination by political leaders to shift income and productivity gains to their wealthier supporters while shifting the tax burden to the lower classes. These goals are the GOP's raison d'etre.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you are wrong about the tax burden. I've posted many times about it. Go to the archives [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

What data supports your claim about higher education costs? Not saying I disagree but would like to know how you arrived at that. Productivity gains are supposed to go to producers.

Here's one thing I've wondered about. Jokerswild started ranting about Halliburton many months back. I told him to buy the stock. It's tripled since then and has paid out a fair amount of divys too. If people knew who was going to gain from government action then why not take advantage of that. Same thing about energy. I was making posts about it at least a year and a half ago. Why not take advantage of something that is clear? Maybe take some of that credit card money. Maybe divert some of that poker money.