I like pictures that tell a story, and I love this chart (thanks to TPM for bringing it to my attention):
Bureau of Labor Statistics data plotted by Speaker Pelosi's office. Click on chart to enlarge.
So, in spite of the obstructive Republicans in Congress, Obama’s economic policies have had a dramatic affect; saving us from near economic collapse and getting us back to near zero job-loss-rate. All in just one year!
Yet, if you listen to the Republicans in Congress you would think the sky was falling; according to them, the stimulus was nothing but a waste of taxpayers money. Had we just kept doing what Republicans did for their last eight years, (cut taxes for the wealthy again and leave the financial banks alone) the economy would be much better (for the very wealthy, maybe). I’m sorry, the Republican ideas make absolutely no economic sense to me.
Now, we must move on with job-recovery. The total job-loss (represented by the area of the negative bars on the graph) is a staggering 8-plus million. Obama is clearly on the right track, but his bold policies have only stopped the bleeding. More stimulus is required to recover all those lost jobs. We must not let the electorate forget this enormus loss of jobs came as a result of the Republican tax cuts for the very rich and deregulation. Over their last eight years the Republican laissez faire policies transferred all of the real growth in GDP, and then some, to the wealthiest while median income actually fell in real dollars. (Results that are clearly not sustainable.) Don’t let Republicans bamboozle the rest of the country out of its recovery (or decent health care for everyone).
The US has the most expensive second rate health care “system” in the world. There are many ways to demonstrate this.
The most dramatic graphic I have seen is from the UCSC Atlas of Global Inequality (using data here from the year 2000, I believe):
The graph clearly shows that, although we spend about twice as much per capita as the average of the top 30 nations in life expectancy, we place 27th in that catagory. Our infant mortality rate is similarly poor when compared with other industrialized countries.
A new study on the influence illness and medical expenses have on personal bankruptcies was recently published in the August 2009 issue of the American Journal of Medicine (the corrected proof became available online June 5). The article is summarized online at AOL News, Forbes.com, and ScienceBlog as well as in local Ohio newspapers (The Athens Messenger and The Columbus Dispatch) today. The new study finds the fraction of all personal bankruptcies contributed to by illness or medical expenses increased from 46% in 2001 to over 60% in 2007.
…Following up on a 2001 study in 5 states, where medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of all bankruptcies, researchers from Cambridge Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Harvard Law School and Ohio University surveyed a random national sample of 2,314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court records, and interviewed 1,032 of them. They designated bankruptcies as “medical” based on debtors’ stated reasons for filing, income loss due to illness and the magnitude of their medical debts.
Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. …
…Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by medical problems had health insurance. More than three-quarters (77.9 percent) were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness, including 60.3 percent who had private coverage. Most of the medically bankrupt were solidly middle class before financial disaster hit. Two-thirds were homeowners and three-fifths had gone to college. In many cases, high medical bills coincided with a loss of income as illness forced breadwinners to lose time from work. Often illness led to job loss, and with it the loss of health insurance. …
…Dr. David Himmelstein, the lead author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, commented: “Our findings are frightening. Unless you’re Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy. For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection. Most of us have policies with so many loopholes, co-payments and deductibles that illness can put you in the poorhouse. And even the best job-based health insurance often vanishes when prolonged illness causes job loss – precisely when families need it most. Private health insurance is a defective product, akin to an umbrella that melts in the rain.” …
…Dr. Deborah Thorne, associate professor of sociology at Ohio University and study co-author[emphasis added], stated: “American families are confronting a panoply of social forces that make it terribly difficult to maintain financial stability – job losses and wages that have not kept pace with the cost of living, exploitation from the various lending industries, and, probably most consequential and disgraceful, a health care system that is so dysfunctional that even the most mundane illness or injury can result in bankruptcy. Families who file medical bankruptcies are overwhelmingly hard-working, middle-class families who have played by the rules of our economic system, and they deserve nothing less than affordable health care.” …
It is also interesting to note that subsequent to the 2001 study, Congress made it harder to file for bankruptcy, causing a drop in filings. Thus, although the “medical bankruptcy” fraction of all bankruptcies increased from 2001 to 2007 the absolute number declined so that the US had, on average, one “medical bankruptcy” every 90 seconds in 2007 (instead of every 44 sec. as in 2001).
Recent data show that our health care “system” is not improving. In 2006, the US spent $2.1 trillion on health care.That’s about 15% of GDP or about $7,000 for every man, women, and child in the country — both measures are the highest of any country. Paul Krugman recently pointed out that not only is the health-care fraction of our total economy the highest of any nation, but over the past 35 years that fraction has been growing faster in the US than in other countries. We’re #1 in health care costs …and pulling away.
Furthermore, our health care “system” causes a serious drag on our ability to compete in the global economy. An association of CEOs called The Business Roundtable sanctioned a report released early in 2009: Health Care Value Comparability Study(executive summary in pdf format) or (full report pdf). This study uses 2 measures of spending and 17 measures of national health and concludes that our health care system fails to deliver value compared to our global competitors. From their summary (remember this is a report sanctioned by an association of CEOs):
When our health care system fails to deliver value, it does not just affect individual companies and their workers; it harms our nation’s ability to compete in the global economy by raising the cost of our products and services and diverting resources from needed investments. To improve U.S. competitiveness, we must make fundamental changes in our health care system to get more value.
Put figuratively (but also literally in too many cases), our health care system is “killing” us and we need to fix it now. The Obama administration and congress are working on health care reform and it is politically important that a long term plan is agreed to this year. The new plan should reduce costs, improve quality, and cover everyone. This would be impossible if we had an efficient first rate health care system, but (in this context) the good news is that our current health care “system” is demonstrably inefficient and second rate in too many ways. Thus, it should be politically possible agree on a better system.
The really good news is that there seems to be a growing consensus on why our system is so costly and ineffective. This should point the way to reform. In my next post, I hope to provide a brief summary of (what I have found that makes sense to me about) what experts say regarding why our current health care “system” is so costly and the types of reforms that these reasons suggest.
President Barack Obama gives a speech at the National Academy of Sciences on April 27, 2009. Photo by Patricia Pooladi courtesy National Academy of Sciences.
Viewing, hearing, or reading the full presentation will surely bring warmth to the heart of any person interested in science and politics.
President Obama provides specific actions and goals that show he is committed to a major new emphasis in basic and applied scientific research. I pull out a few items from the speech below.
First, a historical comment by Obama links President Lincoln to the events of the day and also makes the point that scientific discovery must be strongly supported even in difficult times:
A few months after a devastating defeat at Fredericksburg, before Gettysburg would be won and Richmond would fall, before the fate of the Union would be at all certain, President Lincoln signed into law an act creating the National Academy of Sciences.
Lincoln refused to accept that our nation’s sole purpose was merely to survive. He created this academy, founded the land grant colleges, and began the work of the transcontinental railroad, believing that we must add “the fuel of interest to the fire of genius in the discovery… of new and useful things.”
This is America’s story. Even in the hardest times, and against the toughest odds, we have never given in to pessimism; we have never surrendered our fates to chance; we have endured; we have worked hard; we have sought out new frontiers.
On the commitment of resources (3% of GDP):
I believe it is not in our American character to follow – but to lead. And it is time for us to lead once again. I am here today to set this goal: we will devote more than three percent of our GDP to research and development. We will not just meet, but we will exceed the level achieved at the height of the Space Race, through policies that invest in basic and applied research, create new incentives for private innovation, promote breakthroughs in energy and medicine, and improve education in math and science. This represents the largest commitment to scientific research and innovation in American history.
…
In addition to the investments in the Recovery Act, the budget I’ve proposed – and versions have now passed both the House and Senate – builds on the historic investments in research contained in the recovery plan.
We double the budget of key agencies, including the National Science Foundation, a primary source of funding for academic research, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which supports a wide range of pursuits – from improving health information technology to measuring carbon pollution, from testing “smart grid” designs to developing advanced manufacturing processes. And my budget doubles funding for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science which builds and operates accelerators, colliders, supercomputers, high-energy light sources, and facilities for making nano-materials. Because we know that a nation’s potential for scientific discovery is defined by the tools it makes available to its researchers.
On why public funding of basic research is important:
This is important right now, as public and private colleges and universities across the country reckon with shrinking endowments and tightening budgets. But this is also incredibly important for our future. As Vannevar Bush, who served as scientific advisor to President Franklin Roosevelt, famously said: “Basic scientific research is scientific capital.”
The fact is, an investigation into a particular physical, chemical, or biological process might not pay off for a year, or a decade, or at all. And when it does, the rewards are often broadly shared, enjoyed by those who bore its costs but also by those who did not.
That’s why the private sector under-invests in basic science – and why the public sector must invest in this kind of research. Because while the risks may be large, so are the rewards for our economy and our society.
On incentives for private funding of research and development:
But the renewed commitment of our nation will not be driven by government investment alone. It is a commitment that extends from the laboratory to the marketplace.
That is why my budget makes the research and experimentation tax credit permanent. This is a tax credit that returns two dollars to the economy for every dollar we spend, by helping companies afford the often high costs of developing new ideas, new technologies, and new products. Yet at times we’ve allowed it to lapse or only renewed it year to year. I’ve heard this time and again from entrepreneurs across this country: by making this credit permanent, we make it possible for businesses to plan the kinds of projects that create jobs and economic growth.
On alternative energy, reducing carbon emissions, and the formation of a new government agency focused on energy research:
Our future on this planet depends upon our willingness to address the challenge posed by carbon pollution. And our future as a nation depends upon our willingness to embrace this challenge as an opportunity to lead the world in pursuit of new discovery.
…
The fact is, there will be no single Sputnik moment for this generation’s challenge to break our dependence on fossil fuels. In many ways, this makes the challenge even tougher to solve – and makes it all the more important to keep our eyes fixed on the work ahead.
That is why I have set as a goal for our nation that we will reduce our carbon pollution by more than 80 percent by 2050. And that is why I am pursuing, in concert with Congress, the policies that will help us meet this goal.
…
And today, I am also announcing that for the first time, we are funding an initiative – recommended by this organization – called the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E.
This is based on the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as DARPA, which was created during the Eisenhower administration in response to Sputnik. It has been charged throughout its history with conducting high-risk, high-reward research. The precursor to the internet, known as ARPANET, stealth technology, and the Global Positioning System all owe a debt to the work of DARPA.
On health care:
The Recovery Act will support the long overdue step of computerizing America’s medical records, to reduce the duplication, waste, and errors that cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives.
…
And because of recent progress – not just in biology, genetics and medicine, but also in physics, chemistry, computer science, and engineering – we have the potential to make enormous progress against diseases in the coming decades. That is why my Administration is committed to increasing funding for the National Institutes of Health, including $6 billion to support cancer research, part of a sustained, multi-year plan to double cancer research in our country.
On science vs. ideology and science and public policy:
On March 9th, I signed an executive memorandum with a clear message: Under my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over. Our progress as a nation – and our values as a nation – are rooted in free and open inquiry. To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy.
…
We also need to engage the scientific community directly in the work of public policy. That is why, today, I am announcing the appointment of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, known as PCAST, with which I plan to work closely.
On science and math education:
… since we know that the progress and prosperity of future generations will depend on what we do now to educate the next generation, today I am announcing a renewed commitment to education in mathematics and science.
Through this commitment, American students will move from the middle to the top of the pack in science and math over the next decade. For we know that the nation that out-educates us today – will out-compete us tomorrow.
…
That is why I am announcing today that states making strong commitments and progress in math and science education will be eligible to compete later this fall for additional funds under the Secretary of Education’s $5 billion Race to the Top program.
I am challenging states to dramatically improve achievement in math and science by raising standards, modernizing science labs, upgrading curriculum, and forging partnerships to improve the use of science and technology in our classrooms. And I am challenging states to enhance teacher preparation and training, and to attract new and qualified math and science teachers to better engage students and reinvigorate these subjects in our schools.
…
My budget also triples the number of National Science Foundation graduate research fellowships. This program was created as part of the Space Race five decades ago. In the decades since, it’s remained largely the same size – even as the numbers of students who seek these fellowships has skyrocketed. We ought to be supporting these young people who are pursuing scientific careers, not putting obstacles in their path.
Sorry, I did not intend this post to be so long. There is still more. You should read (or listen to) the full speech.
It happened as Chief Justice John Roberts was administering the oath of office to President Obama as prescribed by Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
But Chief Justice Roberts was winging it (not using notes) and changed the order of wording in the second line. Review exactly what happened (taken from Talking Points Memo and youtube).
This, now well known event, provides an (ironic) contrast between the incoming and outgoing administrations (ironic because Justice Roberts is one of the strict constitutionalists championed by George W. Bush and yet it appears that he chose not to bring notes).
It seems to me President Obama realized there was a mistake in the wording and paused in mid sentence ….Roberts started to correct himself….and then Obama quickly repeated the phrase as Roberts had originally (but incorrectly) given it to him. The rest of the oath was administered correctly.
Having caught the mistake, it surely was a dilemma for Obama. Should he correct the Chief Justice, or repeat exactly as given? How could this be done correctly, yet graciously, in front of a world audience. Obama coolly chose to use the original words given to him. The oath always could be administered again if necessary. (It quietly was re-administered the next day by the Chief Justice.)
The cool gracious confidence of Obama contrasts with the insufferable (and often bungling) overconfidence typical of the George W. Bush administration. This mistake was easily corrected by a do-over. Unfortunately, we cannot do-over the past eight years (but , oh what a wishful thought).
I was waiting for it. There had to be a line. And finally, about an hour and 10 minutes into the debate it came. But let me set it up as I think it happened:
Sarah Palin must have thought her chance was never going to come. She had so carefully set up it up, like she was carefully coached to do. When she walked out onto the stage and they greeted each other for the very first time, they shook hands at center stage, exchanged first meeting pleasantries, she asked Joe Biden “hay, can I call you Joe?” and she turned to go to her podium. [I thought it seemed a bit forced.] Biden smiled and nodded [I think he smelled something] as he went to his podium. Then, about one hour and ten minutes into the debate, the appropriate time finally came. It was just as her coaches at debate training camp had told her it would be. Joe Biden gave a (of course, partial) list of rotten things that happened to us during the last seven and a half years because of the Bush administration. And she jumped: “Ah, say it ain’t so, Joe. There you go again. Looking backwards. Talking about the Bush administration….” and then she delivered a two minute, well rehearsed, presentation of how McCain/Palin is the maverick ticket that is looking forward (not backward) and offering real change. [Mind boggling logic.]
The McCain handlers had worked so hard to set it up. It worked. She got the line in…perhaps it was so smooth that it almost went unnoticed. But maybe they can use it in one of their campaign ads. I am sure we will hear it again. They will not let it go unnoticed. They worked too hard to set it up.
All the above is not important with regard to the substance of the “debate”. It is a clear example of how the “debates” can be turned into an act. There were no follow-up questions. And often, the answer was not responsive (or even related to) the question asked. It demonstrated that this “debate” format can be easily gamed. We already knew that. What we learned is how EASY it is to play the game. We all saw that Sarah Palin could not carry on a coherent conversation with Katie Curic which included a modicum of follow-up questions. “What newspapers or magazines do you read?” “Oh, all of them…what ever I see…” [I think I got that question when I was interviewing to be accepted into a co-op house as an undergraduate, and I would have been laughed out of the room if I had given that answer.] Yet, she was able to conceal her complete lack of depth for nearly the entire hour and half “debate”. Had we not seen the Curic interviews we would not realize it was a sham. It was theater; a song and dance.
….meanwhile the pundits are struggling to determine who won the “debate”.
Which plan seems more thoughtful, fair, and “reasonable” to you?
The (Republican controlled) administration plan: Draft here.
or
The (Democrat controlled) congressional plan: 9/24/08 Draft here.
Update: The above link to a summary of an early version of the congressional plan is not connecting at the moment so here is a new summary of a later versionof the congressional plan.
Update II Congress has agreement on a final version of the bailout plan. (I will link to it as soon as it is available.) I mention here just one item…apparently the final version does not cap executive compensation directly but it caps executive compensation that is tax deductible by their employer at $500,000. Well, it is a minimal start that should be applied across the board to all executive compensation and not just for employers that participate in the bailout.
No surprise, but the executive compensation limit provisions are a fraud as explained by Adam Levitin, associate professor of Law at Georgetown University.
Update VI The House passes the Senate version of the Bailout before 2pm on Friday 10/3/08 and The President signed it into law very soon thereafter. The DJI fell another 200 points after the Bailout proposal passed the House.
John McCain’s acceptance speech last night brought back memories of how the last eight years began. What little there was that was not biographical in McCain’s speech sounded frighteningly familiar to George W. Bush’s speech eight years ago. McCain proposed the same Bush policies (lower taxes, smaller government, a balanced budget, etc.) and the same Bush “heart felt” promise to work with Democrats and Independents. Republicans must think hope the American people are clueless and getting more so. After all, McCain claimed all this in the name of CHANGE and the crowd in the hall ROARED in approval! I hope think that crowd was not representative of the average American voter.
Judging from McCain’s speech, when it comes to what he says he will do and how he will go about doing it, McCain = Bush doubled down.
Thank Goodness! The Supreme Court decided today that the constitutional right of habeas corpus cannot be taken away by The Congress or The President or both (at least not in the way they tried in 2006). See Daily Kos post:SCOTUS: Guantanamo Detainees Have Habeas Rights for a summary of the decision.
PS: For a reminder of how we got here see the ChaosWorld post on the (attempted) suspension of habeas corpus by the (then Republican) Congress at the urging of The President. That action inspired a strong special comment by Keith Olbermann on Countdown, Oct. 2006: Death of Habeas Corpus.
In 1961, a young African-American man, after hearing President John F. Kennedy’s challenge to, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,” gave up his student deferment, left college in Virginia and voluntarily joined the Marines.
In 1963, this man, having completed his two years of service in the Marines, volunteered again to become a Navy corpsman. (They provide medical assistance to the Marines as well as to Navy personnel.)
The man did so well in corpsman school that he was the valedictorian and became a cardiopulmonary technician. Not surprisingly, he was assigned to the Navy’s premier medical facility, Bethesda Naval Hospital, as a member of the commander in chief’s medical team, and helped care for President Lyndon B. Johnson after his 1966 surgery. For his service on the team, which he left in 1967, the White House awarded him three letters of commendation.
What is even more remarkable is that this man entered the Marines and Navy not many years after the two branches began to become integrated.
While this young man was serving six years on active duty, Vice President Dick Cheney, who was born the same year as the Marine/sailor, received five deferments, four for being an undergraduate and graduate student and one for being a prospective father. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both five years younger than the African-American youth, used their student deferments to stay in college until 1968. Both then avoided going on active duty through family connections.
Who is the real patriot? The young man who interrupted his studies to serve his country for six years or our three political leaders who beat the system? Are the patriots the people who actually sacrifice something or those who merely talk about their love of the country?
After leaving the service of his country, the young African-American finished his final year of college, entered the seminary, was ordained as a minister, and eventually became pastor of a large church in one of America’s biggest cities.
This man is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the retiring pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, …
…
Lawrence Korb and Ian Moss are, respectively, Navy and Marine Corps veterans. They work at The Center For American Progress. Korb served as assistant secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration.
Indeed, Rev. Jeremiah Wright has demonstrated his patriotism.
Subtitle: Systemic Stagnation for the last quarter century
We have all heard that upper income people have done well in the past few years. Folks at the very very top are experiencing outstandingly good fortune (see Scripts Howard News Editorial). At the same time it is common knowledge that lower income earners have had to work more hours and/or somehow add wage earners to their household just to maintain their standard of living or to pay for increasing medical expenses or college tuition. (Read, for example the March 2008 edition of The Hightower Lowdown ($10/yr subscription required for full article). As part of Jim Hightower’s discussion about why the recent stimulus package to “fix” our economy lacks vision, he points out the “real economy” experienced directly by most working families is not sweetness and light.
The best year for the bottom 90-percenters was 1973, when the average taxpayer reported $33,000 in income (in today’s dollar value). By 2005, that average had fallen by about $4000. In other words, after three decades of explosive growth in GDP [Gross Domestic Product], America is prosperous, but Americans are not! That un-American imbalance is the most important fundamental of our economy. (emphasis mine).
Wait a minute! “…best year for the bottom 90-percenters was 1973…” This got my attention! I would have thought this may be true for the bottom 20% …or maybe 30%, but, on average, the bottom 90% have been stuck in a stagnant economy for the last quarter century …surely not!
Most of our “leading” economists and political “leaders” persistently say things like “…times are a bit tough right now for some people, but the economy is basically sound …”. I am a scientist, not an economist, but if “some people” turns out to be the average of the bottom 90% and “now” turns out to be the last quarter century then we have a serious problem. It may not be an “economist’s” problem because they are fixated on macro measures like stock markets and GDP but it would be a serious politician’s problem. Practicing politicians should at least Google “stagnant economy”, just in case. How widespread, among US economic groups, is income stagnation? This is a frequent topic in political magazines with left leaning pundits on one side and right leaning on the other. Being a semi-retired physicist with some time on my hands, I decided to look at US economic data to see for myself.
I started with the Tax Foundation article “Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data” referenced in the Dale McFeatters editorial mentioned above. The annual Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) reported on individual income tax forms seems like a pretty good measure of “income” (there are problems with it but lets not digress). The summary includes aggregate data from all individual income tax returns with positive AGI from the years 1980 through to 2005 for several income groups (e.g., top 1%, top 10% and top 50%). The AGI are expressed in current dollars in the summary and I transform to “real AGI” using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) obtained from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. I also added the “Real GDP” over the same period for comparison.
The results are displayed in the graphic below. The effect is striking!
Click on the chart for the raw data spreadsheet (in pdf format) used to produce the chart. See the footnote at the end of this post for some details on how I massaged the data.
The upper curve is the normalized ave. AGI for Top 1%, the next curve is for the the Top 10%. The middle graph is the normalized GDP. The lower two nearly-horizontal curves are the normalized ave. AGI for the bottom 90% and bottom 50% respectively.
The chart shows that the overall results are faithfully summarized by simply considering the first and last years, 1980 and 2005. These results (expressed in 2005 dollars) are:
Top 1% ave. AGIncome went from $349,948 in 1980 to $1,200,280 in 2005
(increases by the factor 3.43).Top 10% ave. AGIncome went from $132,865 in 1980 to $262,949 in 2005
(increases by the factor 1.97).Bottom 90% ave. AGIncome went from $31,178 in 1980 to $33,690 in 2005
(increases by the factor 1.08).Bottom 50% ave. income went from $14,620 in 1980 to $14,526 in 2005
(decreases by the factor 0.99).The GDP per Tax Return went from $62,787 in 1980 to $94,786 in 2005
(increases by the factor 1.50).
Indeed, the evidence shows the average real growth in AGI of bottom 50% was slightly negative during of the 25 year period and the real income of the bottom 90% was essentially stagnant for the last quarter century. Significant real income growth for the bottom 90-percenters occurred only during a brief five years in the late 1990’s providing a measly 8% total real growth over the 25 year period (or an average 0.3% per year)! This stagnation of the bottom 90% occurred at the same time Real GDP increased by 50% and the top 10% soaked up essentially the entire income effect of the real growth in GDP. The top x-percenters (where x<10) experienced a much larger percentage of real income growth than that of the Real GDP while the average bottom 90-percenter experienced essentially no real growth. Not much that starts trickling down makes it through the top 10%.
The economic stagnation of the bottom 90% is not just perception clouded by envy; it is a real problem. It can be solved, but we should no longer buy the argument that even further increases in real income for the top 10% (resulting in an even greater concentration of wealth at the top) is necessary to lift the incomes of the bottom 90%. We have been taking that patent medicine for the past quarter century and it did not work.
Furthermore, the evidence suggests that the problem is systemic. The chart shows the ave. incomes of the bottom 50% and bottom 90% are almost exactly flat (following the Consumer Price Index) while the income of the upper 1% and 10% fluctuate rather dramatically (presumably associated with recessions and recoveries). This suggests that some “natural laws” are forcing the income of the bottom 90% to mirror the CPI. It suggests the bottom 90% of our economy has very little real economic freedom i.e., no significant income left after necessities are covered. The lack of real economic freedom naturally results in doing what ever is necessary to stay even with their current economic level, which means doing whatever it takes to keep up with the CPI.
Widespread systemic stagnation has far reaching political consequences. Accessing infrastructure necessary for broad economic growth, such as health care and education, often have costs that increase much faster than the CPI. Thus, it is not surprising that health care and education are among the top on the list of voter concerns. The role of government in providing access to this infrastructure is clearly important. Tax policy may exacerbate or ameliorate the problem. Globalization adds new dimensions to the problem. Addressing these issues will provide fertile ground for future discourse.
Surely the top 1% should have the self confidence to realize that the bottom 90% must have economic power to fuel real growth. They could then help convince the rest of the top 10%. They should also realize the current distribution of real economic growth in the US is not sustainable and, in fact, is a threat to their own future economic growth. Greed does have its limits after all.
Footnote on how I massaged the data:
After obtaining real AGI by expressing the incomes for all years in 2005 dollars, the (average AGI for group) = (total AGI for the group)/(total number of returns for the group) was calculated for each income group (Top 1%, Top 10%, Bottom 90%, and Bottom 50%) for each year from 1980 to 2005. The Real GDP expressed in 2005 dollars was divided by the total number of tax returns to get Real GDP per Tax Return for comparison. The graph displays the average Incomes of the different groups on a single chart by normalizing the ave. AGI in each income group using the 1980 ave. AGI for that group. Therefore, the normalized ave. AGI of each group starts at 100% in 1980. The Real GDP is similarly normalized and displayed on the same graph. A pdf file with the raw spreadsheet I used to produce the chart can be viewed by clicking on the chart.
...where we ponder reality.
Whether in politics,
where laws are made,
or in physics,
where (other) laws are discovered,
the realities we find appear
to be persistently unstable.
Such behavior is like
Chaos,
as defined in Physics and Mathematics.
--Roger W. Rollins, your host.
