PDA

View Full Version : Debunking the struggling middle class Joe



Topspin
10-19-2006, 10:05 AM
The average American: 1967 and today
They’re earning more, but think previous generations had it better
When you compare them with previous generations today's "average" Americans are making more — though enjoying it less.
Forbes
By Tom Van Riper

Updated: 12:09 p.m. CT Oct 18, 2006
As the U.S. population crossed the 300 million mark sometime around 7:46 a.m. Tuesday (according to the U.S. Census Bureau), the typical family is doing a whole lot better than their grandparents were in 1967, the year the population first surpassed 200 million.

Mr. and Mrs. Median's $46,326 in annual income is 32 percent more than their mid-'60s counterparts, even when adjusted for inflation, and 13 percent more than those at the median in the economic boom year of 1985. And thanks to ballooning real estate values, average household net worth has increased even faster. The typical American household has a net worth of $465,970, up 83 percent from 1965, 60 percent from 1985 and 35 percent from 1995.

Throw in the low inflation of the past 20 years, a deregulated airline industry that's made travel much cheaper, plus technological progress that's provided the middle class with not only better cars and televisions, but every gadget from DVD players to iPods, all at lower and lower prices, and it's obvious that Mr. and Mrs. Median are living the life of Riley compared to their parents and grandparents.
So why are they so unhappy?

Yes, despite their material prosperity, the Medians are a grumpy lot. A Parade Magazine survey (a good source for all things median) performed by Mark Clements Research in April showed that 48 percent of Americans believe they're worse off than their parents were.

A June 2006 study by GFK-Roper group showed that 66 percent of Americans said that their personal situations in the "Good Old Days" — defined by the bulk of respondents as anywhere between the 1950s and the 1980s — were better than they are today. And in May, a Pew Research Center poll showed that half of U.S. adults believe the current trends point toward their children's future being worse than their own present.

Attribute some of the dissatisfaction to what economist Milton Friedman dubbed "Permanent Income Theory," which assumes that people measure where they are relative to where they expected to be a few years ago. They don't care a bit what the average income was four decades ago.

"If you expect a 3 percent rise in income and you get 2.5 percent, you're disappointed," says Ken Goldstein, an economist at the Conference Board, a private research group in New York.

And because people generally judge their fortunes not in absolute terms, but by comparing themselves to others, the super-success of the top 1 percent can make Mr. and Mrs. Median feel relatively poorer. Take CEOs — the $19 million that Wal-Mart Chief Lee Scott raked in last year was 410 times what Mr. and Mrs. Median made, as opposed to the $469,000 a year earned by Exxon's Ken Jamieson in 1975, which was a mere 40 times more.

It's the same with celebrity athletes. Those who worshipped Joe Namath in the 1960s could at least identify with the $142,000 a year he made ($848,000 in today's dollars). But how many can identify with the $87 million Tiger Woods took in last year? And not only are the elite making much more today, relatively, than the Medians, the rise of cable television and the Internet assures that they know all about it.

uscitizen
10-19-2006, 10:35 AM
Compare the personal debt load of current average middle class Joes to that of those in 1967, even adjust for inflation ;)

Topspin
10-19-2006, 11:49 AM
guess you missed the point that said net worth of 400,000+ thouand which is assets - debts.

uscitizen
10-19-2006, 12:05 PM
Yeah, how many on here are worth 400k ?

Topspin
10-19-2006, 12:23 PM
Prob more than half since computer users are above average

uscitizen
10-19-2006, 12:28 PM
naah, I know plenty of poor rednecks that use Ebay all the time to trade Matchbox toys, and other collectable stuff. They come to me when they get them so plugged up with virus and spyware and bad game installs, AOHell and such...Any idiot can use a computer. Fixing them is another matter now.

uscitizen
10-19-2006, 12:30 PM
Spin , There was a lot of truth in that post, but a lot of spin and ignoring some aspects as well. Just not as fair and balanced as FOX ;)

IHateGovernment
10-19-2006, 12:45 PM
I ain't anywhere close to 400K I ain't even at 40K.

Topspin
10-19-2006, 12:46 PM
hey I didn't make it up, it's from forbes.
The main point of it is people are less happy even though they make a lot more.
I know you and Lorax and several others poo poo the economy at nausim and here are your facts. Granted that 400,000 is prob 1/3 home equity but it's still counts.

uscitizen
10-19-2006, 12:49 PM
I didn't say you made it up Spin, just that is is a bit more rosy and optomistic than reality is for most of us out here. Might be just right for the forbes crowd though ;)

Topspin
10-19-2006, 12:51 PM
Half are doing better half are doing worse.
Luckily I'm alread better than double the median.
Why would one want to achive only what half can do?

LadyT
10-19-2006, 12:55 PM
guess you missed the point that said net worth of 400,000+ thouand which is assets - debts.

There's a lot of fuzzy math with assets/debts. Unless the person has paid off their home, you can't really call that an asset. I somehow doubt the authors of thist study, looked at people's principal and equity and took the difference.

That being said.....This is heavily skewed by people who are older and own a home. People my age that want to become first time home owners are getting screwed -BIG TIME. That asset appreciation in people's home values just means that we are going to have to put relatively more $ into our home and energy prices than people in the 60s did. Not only that, older people are really making out well (especially in my area) because of hte tax breaks new developments get for catering to older people. They sell their homes at over-inflated prices, I pick up the bill and they live in a 5000+ square foot home in a gated community for $200K a year.

uscitizen
10-19-2006, 12:58 PM
Half are doing better half are doing worse.
Luckily I'm alread better than double the median.
Why would one want to achive only what half can do?

top, I keep tellin you everyone cannot be abvove average....

LadyT
10-19-2006, 01:03 PM
I'm still calling bull$hit on the study and tops over enthusiastic outlook.

To truly get an idea of a person's net worth inclusive of their home, you'd have to take the market value of the home, take out equity and the outstanding principal. What you're left is their true net worth. I've seen studies where we are paying relatively more for housing and for energy prices.

Topspin
10-19-2006, 01:11 PM
Lady, you are on point and I wish real estate weren't than High and that the majority of people didn't rely on it so much.
I read another study showing the average 401K was like 150,000 and they broke it down by age group. The 50 to 60 group only had like 164,000.
I'm like damm, that is not a lot. The balance has to be there homes, and small brokerage acounts etc.
But some of the worste economy bashers would not have believe the increased wages over inflation.
Outlook is very bright for the investor class. For those that choose not to participate in the boom it's likely to be a struggle.

LadyT
10-19-2006, 01:18 PM
Lady, you are on point and I wish real estate weren't than High and that the majority of people didn't rely on it so much.

This isn't fun if you agree with me. Perhaps you missed this when I was trying to egg you on :pke: ....


I'm still calling bull$hit on the study and TOPS over enthusiastic outlook.


But some of the worste economy bashers would not have believe the increased wages over inflation.

Again, energy and health care prices have eaten to that heavily. You may be making 13% marginally more than your parents when you adjust for inflation, but when you take into account housing is up 300%, insurance has doubled, and gas prices have almost tripled since Clinton left office, that measly 13% ain't $hit.

uscitizen
10-19-2006, 01:50 PM
Yes it seems that the govt excludes energy and food from the inflation figures for a reason ? ;)

Topspin
10-19-2006, 01:52 PM
You guys must have huge gas tanks, price is down to about $2.15 around here. Dam

There are 8,000,000 millionaires.
My question to the whinners is why don't you invest more than 10% of your take home.

uscitizen
10-19-2006, 02:04 PM
Because it is cyclical Spin. if people were more frugal and invested more, our economy based on excesses and waste would collapse....
If you want the economy to continue to be pretty good then you should encourage more spending not more saving :)

Topspin
10-19-2006, 02:08 PM
thanks that was funny

uscitizen
10-19-2006, 02:11 PM
actually pretty sad. at least 2/3 of our economy is a self eating watermellon. It is based on what qwe spend, so if we all save 10% then our economy goes down 10%, Or whatever 2/3 of 10% is (dixie can fill that in) layoffs happen, thus less to spend, thus it falls farther, etc...

LadyT
10-19-2006, 02:12 PM
You guys must have huge gas tanks, price is down to about $2.15 around here. Dam

There are 8,000,000 millionaires.
My question to the whinners is why don't you invest more than 10% of your take home.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_history.html

Click on regular. In the Excel worksheet on the second tab, scroll down to the Clinton years B442. In Feb of 99 the average price for gas was $0.89. Continue to scroll down toward the Bush years. B783 - gas prices in Sep 05 went up to $3.04.

Again, I say to you: "and gas prices have almost tripled since Clinton left office,"

Are you implying, that I'm wrong?

LadyT
10-19-2006, 02:14 PM
You guys must have huge gas tanks, price is down to about $2.15 around here. Dam

There are 8,000,000 millionaires.
My question to the whinners is why don't you invest more than 10% of your take home.

If it includes their home appreciation, I've already shown how that's misleading.

uscitizen
10-19-2006, 02:23 PM
He did not pick the moniker of Topspin for nothing LadyT ;)

Topspin
10-19-2006, 04:17 PM
Lady T, how convienient you pick an unusually low year.
Go back to the 80's and gas has gone up way less than general inflation.
Take out home equity, for net worth. LOL
So If I have a million dollar house and no morgate you don't want to count that wealth. Tell that to the property tax guys'

uscitizen
10-19-2006, 06:30 PM
Not many guys with a million dollar house has no mortgage. If they do thys don't worry about much anyway.
Some with a 500k mortgage now have a house now worth 400k.
And they have been using "creative financing" and paying no pricipal....

LadyT
10-19-2006, 07:34 PM
Lady T, how convienient you pick an unusually low year.
Go back to the 80's and gas has gone up way less than general inflation.
Take out home equity, for net worth. LOL
So If I have a million dollar house and no morgate you don't want to count that wealth. Tell that to the property tax guys

No, I specifically stated you have to take in to consideration the remaining principal AND how much equity you have in the house. If I'm in the first year of an ARM and I've only paid interest on my house, how the hell can that be considered an asset in determining my net worth? That's called debt. I specifically made exception to the condition you mentioned.


To truly get an idea of a person's net worth inclusive of their home, you'd have to take the market value of the home, take out equity and the outstanding principal. What you're left is their true net worth. If you don't have a mortage, yes: The entire value of your house should be considered a part of your assets.

BRUTALITOPS
10-19-2006, 07:56 PM
Yeah, how many on here are worth 400k ?

I alone am worth way more than that just at my young age.

uscitizen
10-19-2006, 07:58 PM
Bull grind you would not being $200 on the open slave market.
Maybe $500 if they removed your tongue ;)

Topspin
10-20-2006, 07:28 AM
Not many guys with a million dollar house has no mortgage. If they do thys don't worry about much anyway

You'd be really stress free if you had the mill in financial assets and no mortgage :-)

Prakosh
10-20-2006, 07:46 AM
You guys must have huge gas tanks, price is down to about $2.15 around here. Dam

There are 8,000,000 millionaires.
My question to the whinners is why don't you invest more than 10% of your take home.

This is quite amazing. In the first place gas prices are widely different in different locations. Here gas is still well over $2.50 at most stations. I have seen one or two with $2.49.9.

And saying there are 8 million millionaires is quite deceptive as well. As MR. SPIN may or may not know, the population of the US has recently exceeded 300 million. So 8 out of 300 is less than 3% of the population. Roughly 2 3/4 percent of the total population. But hey if 2 percent of the population can do it it should be so easy that everyone can do it right SPINNER! I mean 98 percent of the population aren't millionaries so they must all be really fucked up huh, SPINNER?????? Jesus what the hell is wrong with that other 98 percent. Don't they understand how easy this whole millionaire thing is???? How can you have a country where 98 percent of the population are too stupid to become millionaires when money grows on trees and all you have to do is save 10 percent and you will automatically become a millionaire. What is wrong with this other 98 percent??? No wonder the country is going to hell in a hand basket. 98 percent of the population is too stupid to be millionaires. My-Oh-My!!!!

uscitizen
10-20-2006, 09:06 AM
Prak, I have had this same argument with Spinner many times, as I said before his moniker is topspin for a reason. His motto, if you ain't ritch you are stupid.
I have long since given up on this argument with him.

Topspin
10-20-2006, 10:26 AM
the loser circle jerk with you two.
You never heard me say too stupid to do it.
To undisciplened is what its is, most people would rather not have to wait for the plasma tv or new car every couple years.
I never ever say what they should do, just what they can.:clink:

Prakosh
10-20-2006, 10:47 AM
the loser circle jerk with you two.
You never heard me say too stupid to do it.
To undisciplened is what its is, most people would rather not have to wait for the plasma tv or new car every couple years.
I never ever say what they should do, just what they can.:clink:

So exactly why is it that the other 97.25 percent haven't become millionaires???

According to your theory. Are you saying that only 2 percent of the population has any discipline? How is it possible to run a country when only 2 percent of the population have or execise any discipline?

This ought to be good!!!!!!!

Topspin
10-20-2006, 10:50 AM
your really a dipstick you know.
AGAIN, I never said anyone SHOULD be a millionaire just that they could.
Also it takes time, took me over 20yrs of disciplined investing.

Some people are disciplined in their craft or hobby and could give to shits about being a millionaire.
Why you hold to this point that it's soo hard to do if there are 8 million of them

Prakosh
10-20-2006, 10:53 AM
your really a dipstick you know.
AGAIN, I never said anyone SHOULD be a millionaire just that they could.
Also it takes time, took me over 20yrs of disciplined investing.

Some people are disciplined in their craft or hobby and could give to shits about being a millionaire.
Why you hold to this point that it's soo hard to do if there are 8 million of them

Why do you hold to the point that it is sooooooo easy to do if there are 292 million who aren't. What do you think the relation is between those who are and those who aren't?

uscitizen
10-20-2006, 10:54 AM
Ahh yes a million dollars is worth what in 1960 dollars? Being a millionaire just does not mean what it used to ;)
Perhaps you have to be worth 5 or more million to be that same as millionaires jused to be. Imagine letting all that trashy riffraff into the millionaires club now-a-days.

Topspin
10-20-2006, 10:59 AM
I said it was easy, I didn't say it was fun.
I've lived way below the means of my salary my whole career, coworkers always having way more expensive cars, houses etc.
I was born poor so it never bothered me. I'll prob leave 75% to my kids anyway.

But look around you, how many of you friends and aquantances have too much debt, from cars, houses, credit cards.
That's the reason that the number isn't like 40% instead of 3%

Piece,
and legalize marijuana tax it and eliminate the national debt

uscitizen
10-20-2006, 11:18 AM
Spin what would it take to = a million dollars in lets say 1960 ?
the millionaires club has gotten cheaper.
I think that percentage of millionaires needs to be adjusted for inflation.

Topspin
10-20-2006, 12:09 PM
did you hurt youself with that one, there is inflation every year.
The article states salary's are up 25% adj for inflations.

uscitizen
10-20-2006, 12:16 PM
But did it say that it had adjusted the millionaires total based on inflation ? a milion just does not go as far as it used to.
If the number of millionaires had gone down, we would really have to worry.

Topspin
10-20-2006, 04:52 PM
cleary the article states the median guy is way better off financially, the fact that all you an P can do is whine is kind of telling as to your efforts to better your shitty plite.

uscitizen
10-20-2006, 06:32 PM
I have been whining ? I think not, just pointing our your spin.