Are You Better Off Now Than You Were Before Bush?
August 28th, 2006 | by Ken Grandlund |Evidence that the average Joe and Jane Doe are losing ground continues to pour in.
One measure of this the news that inflation adjusted American wages are actually well below where they were as far back as 2001. In addition to that little bit of information, median household income, adjusted for inflation, has actually fallen for five years in a row and was actually four percent lower in 2004 than in 1999.
Median Household income in 2000 was around $46,000. In 2006 it is around $45,000. But if incomes were keeping pace with inflation, including the cost of food and fuel (which the government never includes in their fuzzy math figures), to stay even that number should be around $64,000. (You can use this handy calculator to find out the numbers yourself, although you can only go up to the year 2005.)
Add to that the growing costs of energy and health care, and an out of control federal deficit that will have us paying interest for generations and it’s pretty clear that unless you are an oil baron or a major shareholder of a corporation who makes munitions, sells insurance, pharmaceuticals, or financial products you aren’t gaining any ground in the financial arena.
Of course, if your measure of ‘better off’ includes living in a country that is becoming increasingly more despised around the world while domestically being run by a bunch of warmongering theocrat wannabe’s, then break out the bubbly! The good times are really rolling.
[tag]economy, better+off+now, Bush[/tag]
14 Responses to “Are You Better Off Now Than You Were Before Bush?”
By Liberal Jarhead on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply
Not only are we not better off than we were five years ago, on average, if we compare the situations of our young adult children with ours when we were the same age, the difference is even more glaring and more stark.
By manapp on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply
Here in the mountains of Colorado serving the rich who visit Vail, we are clearly better off now. We have two sources of economy here skiing and construction. Without the first we would not have the second. We were threatened in the 90’s when the tech bubble burst and were just recovering when 9/11 hit. The stock market taking a 3000+ point plunge and the fear of air travel threatened a serious effect on our local economy. The tax cuts for the rich caused not only the return of our guests but encouraged them to invest in building high end mountain homes here. This created jobs for all the trades involved in building who in turn spent more money at local stores resturants etc. The trickle down of wealth is clearly evident here. However, now that 2 out of the 3 county commisioners are Dems, we are hearing talk of a building moratorium. This would have a chilling effect on all who make a living in construction directly and indirectly.
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply
Am I better off now than before Bush? Yes. Absolutely. The pharmaceutical aspect of Medicare Part D has been a definite help. My wife takes medication on an ongoing basis and it has helped a lot.
By landcomm1 on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply
Having left an excellent job working for a horrible manager at a national mortgage company, I have found myself employed as a contractor, rather than as an actual employee. In the Twin Cities and in many cities across our formerly great nation, many companies are shifting away from employees, who have benefits like medical, paid time off, 401K’s etc, to contract employes like me. I get paid a decent wage but don’t earn squat for benefits. Instead, I pay for my own health care; I save toward my own retirement; I lose when I want a day off. I personally believe we are all worse off since the shrub stole two elections. I am confident a company will eventually hire me and I will again benefit from being an employee. Meanwhile, I pay and I lose.
By Jersey McJones on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply
Unfortunately, as we can see from two of the above posts, when you ask the question, “Are you better of now?,” you often get a personal, anecdotal, subjective answer. The better question would be, “Are we better off now?,” to wit, only a moron would answer, “Yes.”
I personally gained a great deal from the burgeoning trade deficit over the years as an importer. However, I’d be loathe to say that it was good for America, and it rather shames me. I will make pretty good money from a mutual fund heavily vested in the pharmies as I knew what the Part D would do for those companies, but again, it rather shames me. All said, though, I console myself in the notion that I am making beck some of my wasted tax dollars via the mutual fund and my work in imports simply grew out of a fascination with trade and logistics and had nothing to do with my personal feelings on “free” and “fair” trade. But, unlike the aforementioned posters, it still bothers me a bit, and I certainly wouldn’t say that any of this is good for America just because it may be personally good for me in a rather cold and heartless, greedy way.
JMJ
By Paul Merda on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply
manapp,
What happens to your local economy when the rich quit building, whether or not its imposed by regulation? There is only so many people who can afford to build these types of homes and it will end one day, what will happen to the local economy when it does come to pass? I guess you guys can shovel the rich guys snow for table scraps :-) The housing bubble is deflating, what are you gonna do now? I sure hope you saved lots of money, you’ll need it because your own your own!
Me, the wife and the children are better off now, but it only has to do with the fact that my wife got a well-deserved promotion (25% + salary increase). My salary has gone up about 3.5% per year for the past 8 years so if we were relying on my salary, I’m fairly certain things would’nt be better but worse. Not to mention that I work for a building products company, so the now deflating housing bubble kept us all gainfully employed, for now…
By Dr. Forbush on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply
One needs to admit that there has been a boomlet in the economy and this is mainly due to more spending as all economic booms are. But, where did the money come from and will it continue are the obvious next questions. Although Reaganites would like to believe that the tax cut to the wealthy is tinkling down on the middle class, this is not the major source of the boomlet. In fact, the money has been coming from the low interest rates and the refinancing of homes across America. People are refinancing and using the opportunity to take equity out of their homes. Then they spend money which has been pushing the economy along. But, with the rise in interest rates this activity has slowed to almost nothing. The economy is on the verge of a stall.
But, even the Fed lowers the interest rate again things won’t pick up so fast. Most people have already taken everything out of their homes and home prices are begining to fall across the country. At some point this will end and the result will be more debt for the middle class and more cash, bonds and stocks for the wealthy…
By steve on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply
Yeah Doc… whatever… Our state alone needs 250,000 homes every year and we only produce 200,000 so REAL ESTATE in California is a pretty safe bet. Unless you are one of those poor saps that took everything out to build a pool you’ve used once this summer because you couldn’t afford the electric bill.
Me… I am way better off than I was in 2000. In fact, in 2000, I was WAY WAY better off than I was in 1992… Fuck I’d take 8 more years of Bill Clinton but this time he’d better get bin Laden if he is handed him on a platter like he was twice. Two cruise missles? You have got to be kidding me!!
Ken:
“Of course, if your measure of ‘better off’ includes living in a country that is becoming increasingly more despised around the world while domestically being run by a bunch of warmongering theocrat wannabe’s, then break out the bubbly! The good times are really rolling.”
Ha Ha HA…
Say we go by your rules and “cut and run” out of Iraq. Iran and Hezbollah are now unstoppable with the UN around because God knows, they aren’t on the side of freedom. Prove me wr…. Ah… never mind. Don’t!
(Wow! I praised Clinton and defended Bush all in the same comment! I wonder why that is?)
By Dr. Forbush on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply
Steve,
I live in California as well. And, just because I am careful with what I do does not mean that other people don’t. Three of our neighbors cashed out on their equity in different ways. One refinanced and bought more than $100k worth of furniture. Interest rates went up and thier adjustable mortage went up as well. Their two incomes couldn’t pay the minimum payment and long story short they are living in Pensylvania today. Another neighbor cashed out, bought an RV and who knows where they are today. The third cashed out and moved to Oklahoma to live on a reservation. Their money is going into the economy as they spend it….
Just because California has expensive real estate doesn’t mean that people will continue to want to buy it…
By steve on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply
“Just because California has expensive real estate doesn’t mean that people will continue to want to buy it… ”
I didn’t say it was expensive I said 250,000 homes are needed and only 200,000 are built per year. Therefore 50,000 people are looking and willing to buy your home. Supply and demand. Until that time when supply matches or goes lower than demand, don’t worry. Realitors are still saying that the median price for a home in California is up 6.1% over last year. Can you earn that in a bank? During the Clinton era?
Your neighbors may be gone but you have no idea if they are happy or better off than they were in 2000.
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
Well, steve, as a couple of my closest frineds in the States, both working, are about to be made homeless unless something dramatic changes, I’d have to say that there are probably quite a few people who are not better off. You are. Good for you. Now try being a human being and giving a shit about other people.
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
steve,
I apologise for the last post. Because of my friends’ situation, I’m extremely pissed off and angry, and I shouldn’t have taken that out on you.
By Jersey McJones on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
Actually, Cali guys, better watch out. California is a libertarian nightmare that people are beginning to awaken to. Native-born Americans are leaving at a faster pace than arriving. Your infrastructure is dilapidating fast, and hasn’t kept up with growth in 40 years. The housing boom and overdevelopment are reminiscent of Houston circa 1986. You have no water, no power, no mass transit, a weak governorship, and way too much democracy. California is big though. What happens down South doesn’t necessarily translate to what happens up north. But from the Central Vally to San Diego, things look bleak. Just be careful.
This is part of the reason I moved to central Florida. The boom here seems unlikely to be affected by future dangers the way Southern California and other areas might. I saw this coming when I lived there in the late 80’s - sprawl, traffic, poor services, resource dependency. Just be careful.
JMJ
By tos on Sep 3, 2006 | Reply
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110008889