So what? Are you saying this is proof that America is collapsing?
American Economics Thread
- Thread starter Bernard
- Start date
From your own source
Low-wage workers comprise a substantial share of the workforce. More than 53 million people, or 44% of all workers ages 18 to 64 in the United States, earn low hourly wages. More than half (56%) are in their prime working years of 25-50, and this age group is also the most likely to be raising children (43%). They are concentrated in a relatively small number of occupations, and many face economic hardship and difficult roads to higher-paying jobs. Slightly more than half are the sole earners in their families or make major contributions to family income. Nearly one-third live below 150% of the federal poverty line (about $36,000 for a family of four), and almost half have a high school diploma or less.
Women and Black workers, two groups for whom there is ample evidence of labor market discrimination, are overrepresented among low-wage workers
They are so old that one medical illness will likely wipe out their savings.
And that's for healthy couple. Imagine if not healthy. That net worth will not be enough. Better decrease consumption to save up.
That's most if not all their social security payments nwts and pension payments.
I don't think you truly understand what he is trying to convey though.
It definitely isn't something simple as "stresses that US economy is doing well" lol.
In fact, just check the title lol.
Yeah and if you kept reading further - you’ll notice that a lot of them have low levels of education, had children way too early in life, have medical & disability issues, are foreign-born, among others (). Those are simply conditions that no set of curricular standards or macroeconomic circumstances can fix. They “count” and are deserving of fiscal transfers but their distress cannot be used as evidence of failings anywhere else; just the unluckiness of life and how the dice are rolled
This isn’t really evidence to disprove anything - women and black workers also tend to have higher rates of medical issues and disability issues and (obviously for women) premature pregnancies.
Which will be covered by Medicare and Medicaid
The average person is going to be way above the 50th percentile (Median) and consumption included healthcare so this proves the point quite well. Using fairly conservative assumptions - an all bond portfolio with no principal withdraw and no capital appreciation - the median retiree is able to find enough interest income and social security income to cover the average spending case.
Indeed - long-run economic growth is always supply-side factor with a familiar production function Y = F(K, L, A) where K is physical capital, L is labor, and A is technology and institutions.
all 3 point to sustained growth in the U.S. economy. For physical capital: the U.S. financial system is extraordinarily efficient at matching savers/investors with corporate borrowers that need to fund capital projects to increase the stock of private capital and the recently passed trio of Inflation Reduction Act, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and CHIPS and Science Act are similarly leading to an explosion of public capital stock.
With labor - the U.S. workforce is the worlds most educated workforce (as a % of the workforce that has at least a college degree) and has decades of invaluable experience across all fields of human endeavor in a way that exists in no other country which will thus power the way for future innovation and development; this will further be powered by cohorts with more college education in more rigorous coursework than ever before and a workforce steadily increasing in size due to immigration.
With respect to technology (and its closely related side-cousin governance) - U.S. firms posses copious amounts of technology - from the codebase of Windows OS, to industrial designs for Applied Materials ion deposition machines, to chip designs at Intel, to chemical formularies at Pfizer and Dow Chemical, to CAD files at Agilent and Badger Meter and those generate their own network ecosystems and lock-in effects that lead to more innovation in the future (and whose development is so entrenched, they will continue to persist for decades - for example, it takes a decade for a drug to be brought to market after the first clinical trial: thus, a first-in class antibody today by Incyte to treat a liver disease or an antiviral by Gilead Sciences will bring continue to bring continuous profits for a decade, regardless of what anyone else does). What’s more - the U.S. has a very well established network of antitrust, financial stability, insurance, banking, patent, environmental and other similar types of regulators that have blazed the way for others and who continue to lead the way in trend-setting and policy innovation; a highly adaptive and professional bureaucracy that is able to come up with ingenious solutions to all the new issues that arise. What’s more - there’s a cumulative effect: for example, since a series of Supreme Court decisions in the 1860s banned states from engaging in protectionism, the U.S. has had one unified single market for a century and a half and that has led to continuous trade and investment deepening between all 50 states (), meanwhile, China even today, cannot get its provinces and municipalities from engaging in explicit protectionism (). Just one example out of thousands of how continuous ingenious policy making from both centuries past and today continue to drive economic growth.
It doesn't matter how your phrase it. Basically there is a large percentage that fits the bill but you're literally swiping them under a rug saying, oh because they may have more medical issues and less education, it doesn't count. But it does count and it's not a small proportion of the population no matter how you try to marginalize it.
So they shouldn't count? So basically white male and highly educated are the ones that should count in your books?
Pretty damning racist sentiment.
If you read the article it's in addition to Medicare and Medicaid. I don't you're not in the health care field, so you may not know but medicare and medicaid do not cover a lot for stuff and many times the care they do give is subpar since their coverage may be limited and you still have to pay out of pocket.
False. The median in this situation represents the most common "average" person so it would be false to say the average person would be higher or else the median would also shift. That's statistics.
You want proof that America is not the same anymore in regards to economic growth?
This is all you need.
America's long term growth average was over 3% and that was the biggest reason America was such a powerful country.
Through the 1960's they grew fast, the 1970's they grew fast even with the oil shock, Reagan ushered in the right wing tilt to America life sustaining growth over 3%, then the Berlin Wall fell and this this new President Clinton saw the US economy sustain its long term average of over 3% growth with the internet revolution.
Every step of the way, from recent history of 1960-2000, America found a way to maintain its fast growing economy, then something strange happened.
Under the Obama years, all 8 of them, he was the first US president to rule without a year of 3% growth, which was the long term US average.
Is America collapsing? No.
America is in a decline, and they cannot pull themselves out of it.
The numbers do not lie. The annual GDP numbers are all right there.
Then you add in the fact that over 60% of the population lives paycheque to paycheque, that is a very troublesome mix.
Then add in another fact of the money printing, and you get a very different picture of America.
Okay, I want to say something to the regulars here.
It is the money printing.
Jerome should be pumping up the US economy with all his hard work, yet it is not going gangbusters at all.
Growth is still kind of flat.
The United States from 1960-2000 was able to grow its economy over 3% easily, WITHOUT THE MONEY PRINTING!
Now they print the money, and hail 2% growth if they can actually make that.
It is a different world.
It is the money printing.
Jerome should be pumping up the US economy with all his hard work, yet it is not going gangbusters at all.
Growth is still kind of flat.
The United States from 1960-2000 was able to grow its economy over 3% easily, WITHOUT THE MONEY PRINTING!
Now they print the money, and hail 2% growth if they can actually make that.
It is a different world.
PiSigma
"the engineer"
If my networth is only 400k at 55, I would be doing mass shootings too. That's like my networth when I was 25. Missing a zero somewhere