If LBJ wasn't such a liar, would he be rated one of the best presidents ever?

Desh said:
Go trace home prices and you will understand
Click to expand...

Desh... oops... I mean retard... please do not try to provide educational lessons in economics. You are an idiot when it comes to economics (among other things). On second thought...

Please explain to us what you mean by the above....
 
cawacko said:
The middle class is not a static group. Many people who were in the middle class in 1980 have advanced to the upper-middle class today. For instance, any homeowner from the '80's who held their homes until now are sitting on a windfall. One did not have to be rich to purchase a home in 1980.

As long as we have immigrants, especially ones from poor countries, coming to America to follow their dream there will always be poorer people. The beauty of our country is that our economic situation is fluid and one has the opportunity to move up to middle class or beyond.
Click to expand...


Cawacko, your dad your your grandad could in their day, could go out and get a nice blue collor or white collar job, and support thier entire family on that one income.

That barely happens anymore. Most middle income and working class families have to have both spouses working, just to stay above water. I'm speaking broadly; not everything is stagnant.
 
Cypress said:
Cawacko, your dad your your grandad could in their day, could go out and get a nice blue collor or white collar job, and support thier entire family on that one income.

That barely happens anymore. Most middle income and working class families have to have both spouses working, just to stay above water. I'm speaking broadly; not everything is stagnant.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but in his dad and granddads days, they typically lived within their means, did not believe in debt, it was a different society then. People were more frugal in general with their money. I look at the home my grandparents lived in with 6 kids... it was a three bedroom home with about 2200 square feet.
 
Superfreak said:
Then just how is it that we have so many more millionaires today than we did in 1980?
Click to expand...

It's called inflation and real estate SF. This is basic economics. A million $$ today, is not the same as a million in 1980. And really, how many "millionaires" do you really know? Okay, maybe in the circles you run.

How is it that home ownership steadily increased since 1980?
Click to expand...

Home ownership rates have barely moved since 1965. It was 65% in 1965. Its, what 68% today? And its going to go down, with people bailing on those funky interest only mortgages. You won't give credit to JFK and LBJ for cutting poverty rate in half, from around 24% to around 12%....and you want me to give credit to either bush, clinton or reagan for a homeownership rate that fluctuates up or down a couple percent? Please.......

http://www.forbes.com/strategies/2004/09/03/cx_da_0903topnews.html


How is it that investment participation broadened so much since 1980?
Click to expand...

Cause working people lost their pensions. Corporations and businesses told their workers they were getting rid of pensions, and workers were told that, anyway, you'll be better off with a 401(k) than with a pension.

Ask any congressman/woman if they would be willing to give up their federal pension, for a cash-balance 401(k). I garuantee you, you won't find a single congressperson willing to do that.
 
Cypress said:
Cawacko, your dad your your grandad could in their day, could go out and get a nice blue collor or white collar job, and support thier entire family on that one income.

That barely happens anymore. Most middle income and working class families have to have both spouses working, just to stay above water. I'm speaking broadly; not everything is stagnant.
Click to expand...


My dad bought a house in the center of the universe, Columbus, OH, in the early '70's for 28K. No one today is buying a house for $28k. So yes, times have changed. If one wants to live in an SF or NY you are gonig to need to make a lot of money or have both family members work.
 
Superfreak said:
Perhaps, but in his dad and granddads days, they typically lived within their means, did not believe in debt, it was a different society then. People were more frugal in general with their money. I look at the home my grandparents lived in with 6 kids... it was a three bedroom home with about 2200 square feet.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

They had 6 kids, a nice size house, and they did it all on grandpa's working class income.

Tell a union member thank you. It was the labor movement of the early 20th century that built this large middle class.
 
Cypress said:
It's called inflation and real estate SF. This is basic economics. A million $$ today, is not the same as a million in 1980. And really, how many "millionaires" do you really know? Okay, maybe in the circles you run.



Home ownership rates have barely moved since 1965. It was 65% in 1965. Its, what 68% today? And its going to go down, with people bailing on those funky interest only mortgages. You won't give credit to JFK and LBJ for cutting poverty rate in half, from around 24% to around 12%....and you want me to give credit to either bush, clinton or reagan for a homeownership rate that fluctuates up or down a couple percent? Please.......

http://www.forbes.com/strategies/2004/09/03/cx_da_0903topnews.html




Cause working people lost their pensions. Corporations and businesses told their workers they were getting rid of pensions, and workers were told that, anyway, you'll be better off with a 401(k) than with a pension.

Ask any congressman/woman if they would be willing to give up their federal pension, for a cash-balance 401(k). I garuantee you, you won't find a single congressperson willing to do that.
Click to expand...

Poverty under FDR dropped as you said then rose again to 19% in 1938 after he passed the NRA law.
 
cawacko said:
My dad bought a house in the center of the universe, Columbus, OH, in the early '70's for 28K. No one today is buying a house for $28k. So yes, times have changed. If one wants to live in an SF or NY you are gonig to need to make a lot of money or have both family members work.
Click to expand...

Today, you can buy a house for 5k in Detroit Michigan.

In grandpa's day, a working man or woman could live a comfortable normal life anywhere in the united states. There were good jobs and decent local economies from Toledo, Ohio to Oakland California. Consequently, real esate prices were flatter across the nation.

Today, the rust belt, the midwest and the great lakes region have been economically devasted (thanks NAFTA) - so a lot of people can't realistiically choose to live in Toledo or Akron or Detroit. IN contrast, Places where this still is a good local economy, can ask premium price for real estate: Bay Area, Austin, Seattle, etc.
 
Cypress said:
Bingo.

They had 6 kids, a nice size house, and they did it all on grandpa's working class income.

Tell a union member thank you. It was the labor movement of the early 20th century that built this large middle class.
Click to expand...

Then how was all this wealth created during the last 25 years with private union membership dropping to its 8% today?
 
Cypress said:
Bingo.

They had 6 kids, a nice size house, and they did it all on grandpa's working class income.

Tell a union member thank you. It was the labor movement of the early 20th century that built this large middle class.
Click to expand...

2200 square feet for 8 people is a nice size home? Less than 300 square feet per person. Yeah.... real big.

True, the unions in the early decades of the 1900's certainly benefited the workers. Then they became the greedy behemouths they are today. Corrupt and crushing the worker by placing fantasies of higher valuations on their work. Pricing them right out of the market and out of jobs. So I think I would rather tell a union leader to fuck off....
 
cawacko said:
Then how was all this wealth created during the last 25 years with private union membership dropping to its 8% today?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you mean "all this wealth".

I'm pretty sure that the composite average GDP growth rate, from the 1940s to the 1970s, outperformed the composite average GDP growth from 1980 to today.

Certainly in total $$ amount, we have more wealth today. But, as you know, using a total, unadjusted inflationary amount is meaningless when compared to previous decades.

Certainly the wealthy, the affluent, and the professional upper middle classes have prospered since reagan.

But, you do need to get out more cawacko. If you go through rural american, small town america, the rust belt, and the upper midwest, people are hurting.
 
Cypress said:
I'm not sure what you mean "all this wealth".

I'm pretty sure that the composite average GDP growth rate, from the 1940s to the 1970s, outperformed the composite average GDP growth from 1980 to today.

Certainly in total $$ amount, we have more wealth today. But, as you know, using a total, unadjusted inflationary amount is meaningless when compared to previous decades.

Certainly the wealthy, the affluent, and the professional upper middle classes have prospered since reagan.

But, you do need to get out more cawacko. If you go through rural american, small town america, the rust belt, and the upper midwest, people are hurting.
Click to expand...


"I'm not sure what you mean "all this wealth". I'm pretty sure that the composite average GDP growth rate, from the 1940s to the 1970s, outperformed the composite average GDP growth from 1980 to today."



Yep.

Mean Quarterly GDP Growth:

1950s 4.4%
1960s 4.4%
1970s 3.4%
1980s 3.1%
1990s 3.3%
2000s 2.5%


http://www.gongol.com/research/economics/gdpgrowth/
 
"While there are some who would argue that a growing economy inevitably will grow more slowly as it gets larger, there is reason as well to believe that some of the decline may be related to the increase in tax rates and regulations that have inevitably accumulated over time. A worthwhile analysis might test the significance of total taxation and regulation as a causal variable against GDP growth. "

I would certainly argue both of the above points.
 
Good. So we agree that when Cawacko made the claim that the middle class was doing better since 1980 because of all the "weath that has been created", it was an inaccurate statement.

Because economic growth as measured by GDP, was greater in the decades prior to reagan, than in the decades since reagan.

In short, overall economic performance was better from 1946-1980, than from 1980-2006.
 
Superfreak said:
"While there are some who would argue that a growing economy inevitably will grow more slowly as it gets larger, there is reason as well to believe that some of the decline may be related to the increase in tax rates and regulations that have inevitably accumulated over time. A worthwhile analysis might test the significance of total taxation and regulation as a causal variable against GDP growth. "

I would certainly argue both of the above points.
Click to expand...
This ^^^
 
Speculation.

When the data don't support you, Cons always turn to opinion and speculation as to why their polcies don't work.

The empirical data and facts, show the economy and middle class was doing better, relatively, before the reagan years, than after 1980.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top