I AGREE, I FEEL SORRY FOR THOSE PEOPLE FORCED TO SUBMIT TO BANKRUPTCY, BUT I BELIEVE MORE AMERICANS ARE LEARNING MORE ABOUT HANDLING DEBT, AND TRENDS TO PAYING OFF DEBTS ARE ON THE RISE.

http://moneycentral.msn.com...

"The truth about credit card debt
Conventional wisdom is that we’re all hooked and struggling. The reality is, in fact, quite different and less frightening.

You’ve probably heard that the average American carries more than $8,000 in credit card debt.

It’s a figure frequently cited by politicians, journalists and pundits as a sure sign of impending economic collapse. They argue that consumers, already struggling under this massive burden of debt, soon will have to stop spending like drunken sailors. The economic recovery, therefore, is doomed!"

"The surprising thing about this statistic isn’t that it’s so widely known. Rather, it’s that the statistic paints a picture that’s just plain wrong.

In reality, most Americans owe nothing to credit card companies.

Most households that carry balances owe $2,000 or less.

Only about 1 in 20 American households owes $8,000 or more on credit cards.

These figures are from the Federal Reserve’s 2001 Survey of Consumer Finances, one of the most comprehensive assessments of what Americans own and owe."

"Take heart: We’re actually frugal
In much the same way, a relatively small population with huge credit card balances can skew the average to make it look like the typical American is carrying a much bigger debt load than he or she actually is. Consider:

23.8% of American households have no credit cards at all -- no bank cards, no retail cards, nothing.

Another 31.2% of the households the Fed surveyed paid off their most recent credit card bills in full.

So together, the households that owed nothing on credit cards equaled 55% of the total.
Here’s some better news: Paying off balances actually became more common between 1998 and 2001. The proportion of households that had bank cards (Visa, MasterCard, etc.) who reported that they regularly paid off their balances in full rose 1.5 percentage points to 55.3%."

"We don’t carry that much debt
Of the households that did carry a balance, the median amount owed was $1,900. That means half of the households with a balance owed more, and half owed less. (Medians are less subject to the skewing phenomenon that plagues averages; that’s why economists tend to favor them.)

Bill Whitt at the VIP Forum, a Washington D.C. research firm, helped me dig even deeper. By analyzing the credit card debts of all the households the Fed surveyed, Whitt discovered:

Only 29% of households owe $1,000 or more on their cards.

21% owe $2,000 or more.

6% owe $8,000 or more.

4% owe $10,500 or more.

1% owe $21,400 or more.
The Fed statistics pretty much gibe with what Fair Isaac, the creator of the FICO credit score, discovered when it reviewed millions of credit reports.
There are a few differences between the universe the Fed examined and the one looked at by Fair Isaac. For one thing, credit reports are individual -- there’s no such thing as a household or even a joint credit report. Also, you have to have and use credit to have a credit report. Finally, credit reports don’t typically distinguish between balances you pay off and those you carry each month.
"There’s still plenty of trouble out there
Does this mean all the hand-wringing over consumer debt is so much noise? Hardly. Although most Americans seem to be avoiding the credit card trap, there are still plenty of people on the financial edge:"

ADMITEDLY MOST BANKRUPTCY IS NOT DUE TO CREDIT CARD DEBT, BUT I BELIEVE MORE AND MORE AMERICANS ARE LEARNING HOW TO CONTROL DEBT AND MANAGE THEIR FINANCES. HOPEFULLY SOMEDAY WE WILL NOT HAVE TO WATCH ANY MORE OF THOSE ANNOYING COMMERICALS ABOUT DEBT CONSOLIDATION AND "NON-PROFIT" ((RIGHT, LIKE THERE TRULY IS SUCH AN ANIMAL)) DEBT MANAGEMENT SERVICES. IF YOU ARE A COLLEGE STUDENT GO AHEAD AND GET THAT CREDIT CARD, BUT WHEN YOU START USING IT TO PAY FOR BEER AND PIZZA, THAT IS A SURE SIGN YOU ARE HEADED FOR TROUBLE.

Mondo, you need to look at some more recent numbers - personal debt levels, foreclosures & bankruptcy filings are at record levels right now. People can say whatever when they're "surveyed" on the telephone, but the raw numbers tell a different tale. And none of those numbers measure secure debt (like car loans & home loans).

Used to be back in the days, you had to have annual income near equal to home price to qualify for a loan. Then it went to 2X, then 3X, now the standard is 4X. What that means is when a medical emergency occurs or job loss occurs, you lose and are wiped out. Again, in previous times, unemployment compensation & lower cost of healthcare could keep you afloat (until the benefits ran out). Now, unemployment paid cannot even pay for health insurance in most states, let alone the average mortgage payment.

Again, way to miss the point, though I was tired when I wrote this, and may not be making the point - that is, one standard is employed if you're a business (like me & friends I've known that have taken advantage of the lax law and have folded up companies and started new ones, fleeing debt quite easily) as opposed to working folks, who have no protection. Yet the conservative philosophy is that we're all business agents in the "new economy". So the dichotomy just doesn't flush IMV, and again, it's another token handed out to the affluent, while working Americans must pay.

And further, wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, and the standard of living for the average American will decline like it has over the last 30+ years.

Oh, one more note - your quoted numbers are from 2000/2001 which means it's neglecting the past few years which have been harsh on the <50% income brackets.

AGAIN, I AGREE ... I GOT YOUR POINT... MY POINT IS FROM THE PRIVATE CITIZEN BEING RESPONSIBLE POINT OF VIEW, IS THAT WE WHO ARE NOT BUSINESSES REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS OR DOES, IS STILL RESPONSIBLE TO PAY OUR DEBTS AS YOU STATED, AND THAT , PER THE COLUMN I POSTED WE ARE LEARNING HOW TO MANAGE DEBT ALLOT BETTER THAN WE DID IN THE PAST. AS FOR THE MOST RECENT NUMBERS, I'LL HAVE TO WAIT TILL I SEE THOSE NUMBERS, BUT AMERICANS IN DEBT IS NOT AS BAD AS THE MEDIA TRIES TO PORTRAY.

I THINK WITH DEBT, LIKE MOST OF AMERICANS PROBLEMS EDUCATION IS THE KEY, NOT LEGISLATION.THE LESS THE GOVERNMENT IS INVOLVED IN OUR DAILY LIVES THE BETTER OFF WE WILL BE.

"standard of living for the average American will decline like it has over the last 30+ years." YUP, DESPITE SPENDING FOR SOCIAL PROGRAMS GOING UP NEARLY EACH YEAR FOR THOSE 30 YEARS, MOST OF WHICH THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN IN POWER, FUNNY HUH? BTW THAT STATEMENT DOESNT WASH, DO YOU REALLY THING THAT THE AMERICAN STANDARD OF LIVING IS WORSE NOW THAN IN THE 70'S? HONESTLY? DO YOU REALLY LIVE IN AMERICA (OR PERHAPS SOME BIZARRO AMERICA)? I LIVE AND GREW UP IN APPALACHIA WHERE SOME OF THE POOREST IN AMERICA LIVE, AND I CAN TELL YOU THIS, EVEN THE POOREST IN AMERICA, MANY OF THEM ATLEAST HAVE COLOR TELEVISIONS, CEL-PHONES, USUALLY MORE THAN ONE VEHICLE (ALTHOUGH AROUND HERE SOMETIMES ONE VEHICLE IS SITTING ON BLOCKS IN THE FRONT YEARD),NOT TO MENTION A PLAYSTATION X-BOX, OR GAMECUBE OR TWO OR ALLOF THEM. IN THE EARLY 70'S WE HAD NO INDOOR PLUMBING, NO HEAT BUT A WOOD/COAL BURNING STOVE, TRAIN TRACKS RUNNING THROUGH OUR FRONT YARD, AND A BLACK AND WHITE TV (I THOUGHT REDD FOXX WAS WHITE FOR THE LONGEST TIME AS A CHILD AND WONDERED WHY HIS SON WAS BLACK ON SANFORD AND SON, BEING ABOUT 4 YEARS OLD AND KNOWING LITTLE ABOUT RACE.)YOU EVER USE AN OUTHOUSE AT NIGHT IN THE WINTER?

>>DO YOU REALLY THING THAT THE AMERICAN STANDARD OF LIVING IS WORSE NOW THAN IN THE 70'S? HONESTLY? DO YOU REALLY LIVE IN AMERICA

For 60%+ of Americans, when factored in for inflation/cost-of-living, it is a true statement. Perhaps not for your unique situation, but remember, in the 1960s/early 1970s, most families had only 1 parent working and even an unskilled worker income was enough to pay for house, car, 3+ kids, full health benefits & superior retirement/pension plan. I realize their were pockets where this wasn't the case, like Appalachia or locales in the deep south. But you can look it up, it's true.

Cellphones/computers/cars/TVs etc. are not necessarily indicators of wealth - in fact, it can be argued that the necessity (to get a better job/improve yourself, forgetting video games & TVs which are the cheapest priced of these) of having these is a greater strain. Bottom line is, in 1972, the average american salary bought MORE house and MORE car. That is fact - you can look it up:

http://concentrationofwealt...

Cars

In 1971, the average cost of a car in the U.S. was $3,430.

In 2000, the average cost of a car in the U.S. was $24,730.
(this article is the source of this data. Its source is the National Automobile dealers' Association.)

Adjusted for inflation to the year 2000 (using this calculator), the car in 1971 cost about $14,700.

So the price of the average car in 2000 is 7.2 times greater than the
price of the average car in 1971 in absolute dollars, and about 1.7
times greater in inflation-adjusted dollars.

There are two ways to look at what has happened to wages.
In 1971, the minimum wage was $1.60. In 2000 it was $5.15. So it rose
by a factor of 3.2 in absolute dollars. In inflation-adjusted dollars,
the minimum wage actually fell. Since the minimum wage acts as the foundation of the wage scale for the 80% of Americans who work in non-supervisory jobs, this is important. If the minimum wage is not rising, chances are that their wages are not rising either.

If you look at the "Average hours and earnings of U.S. production workers" in the World Almanac (whose data came from the U.S. Dept. of Labor), the average wage of a production worker was $127.31 per week in 1971, and $456.78 in 1999. In absolute dollars it rose by 3.58 times (roughly the same as minimum wage), but in inflation-adjusted dollars it also fell.
If you multiply $127 by 52 to get an annual wage in 1971, an average worker in 1971 made $6,620, or roughly two average cars per year.

If you multiply $456 by 52 to get an annual wage in 2000, a worker in
2000 made $23,750, or roughly one average car per year.

In other words, if cars are the measure, an average worker in 2000 can
buy only one half of what an average worker in 1971 could, in terms of
cars.

If cars are the measure, the standard of living of a typical American worker -- 80% of the population -- fell by 50%.

Houses

By looking at this report from the census bureau(page 720) and this report, you can see that the median sales price of a home in 1971 was $24,800. The average annual wage in 1971 was $6,620 (see previous section). So it took 3.74 years of labor for the average worker in 1971 to buy the average home.

The median sales price of a house in 1999 was $133,300. The average annual wage in 1999 was $23,750. So it took 5.61 years of labor for the average worker in 1999 to buy the average home.

The amount of house that a worker can buy with his/her labor is falling, not rising. The standard of living in America, in terms of housing, is also falling by this measure.

A bit more distressing is the fact that median home prices in 2003 had moved up to $169,900. In other words, between 1999 and 2003, prices rose by 27%. Wages for the average worker certainly did not rise by 27% during the same period -- in June they actually fell.

So the "average worker" is able to buy less and less house as time goes by, and home prices are rising quickly right now. Things seem to be getting worse for the average worker today when compared to 1970, not better.

When Alan Greenspan says that there has been a "very significant increase in the standards of living of the average American," what is he talking about? Over the last 30 years, it appears that the standard of living for average Americans has fallen significantly in terms of housing and transportation.

like everyting else i guess it really comes down to perspective the left says one thing the right another, it comes down to which side you are more inclined to believe and support:

"…millions of low wage American workers are earning less in real, inflation-accounted for dollars today than they earned in the 1970s."
-- Vermont Congressman Bernie Sanders

Today, there are two Americas. One America agrees with Congressman Sanders and Senator John Edwards that life is getting harder for working Americans, that things have been going down hill for thirty years, and that our only hope is bigger government. The other America realizes that it is nonsense to suggest that the middle class is disappearing and that the standard of living is eroding for working Americans.

This essay consists mostly of a deluge of statistics. But before I get to that, let me just ask you to consider what you can see with your own eyes. Is your family worse off than it was in the 1970's? Are many of the families that you know worse off? Do the people that you see in shopping malls, on vacation, on the highway, or in restaurants look like they are worse off than they were thirty years ago?

In the 1970's, ordinary working people drove Vegas and Pintos. They did not eat out much. They rarely traveled by airplane. Many of their jobs were dangerous. Do you really think that there are many working Americans today who would trade places with their 1970's counterparts?

The Disappearing Lower Class

What disappeared between 1970 and today was not the middle class but the lower class. The table below shows the percentage of households without certain basic middle-class necessities in 1970 vs. today.

Item
Percent Lacking in 19701
Percent Lacking Now2,3

telephone
13.0 %
2.4 %

complete plumbing
6.9 %
0.6 %

refrigerator
17 %
0.1 %

Stove
13 %
0.3 %

color television
66.0 %
1.1 %

Vehicle
20.4 %
10.3 %

Today, 68.6 percent of households own their own homes. This is an all-time record, four percentage points higher than in the 1970's.

Next, consider some items that would have been viewed as luxuries in 1970. The table below compares the prevalence of these goods in the average household in 1970 with their prevalence in 2001 in households with incomes less than $15,000.

Item
Percent of All Households
Owning in 19701
Percent of Poor Households
Owning in 2001 3

Dishwasher
26 %
18 %

Clothes Washer
62 %
57 %

Clothes Dryer
45 %
45 %

Cell Phone
0 %
23 %

Large-screen TV
0 %
25 %

Answering Machine
0 %
37 %

Cable or Satellite TV hookup
0 %
64 %

VCR
0 %
74 %

Microwave Oven
0 %
75 %

Economic historian and Nobel Laureate Robert Fogel considers statistics like these and concludes4 (p.71):
"Indeed, we have become so rich that we are approaching saturation in the consumption not only of necessities, but also of goods recently thought to be luxuries...Virtually everyone who is old enough and well enough to drive a car has one. In the case of television, there are 0.8 sets per person (2.2 per household)...The level of saturation for many consumer durables is so high that even the poorest fifth of households are well endowed with them."
Given these statistics, what explains the fact that, adjusted for inflation, the pay of the lowest-wage workers has not increased much over the past thirty years? There are a number of factors involved, but I suspect that the largest component of the explanation is a shift in the composition of the low-wage work force. In the 1970's, many of the people at the bottom of the wage scale were heads of households. Today, many low-wage workers are providing second or third incomes to families.

The important point to bear in mind is that "the bottom fifth of the wage distribution" does not represent some permanent group of people. Instead, it signifies the earnings of workers who at that time have the lowest levels of skills and experience. My college-age daughters, doing temporary clerical work, are in the bottom fifth. But even if the income of the bottom fifth were to stagnate over the next twenty years, my daughters will earn higher incomes as they acquire valuable knowledge.

Fogel tracks economic progress over long periods. One of the most important trends of the past century is the reduction in the average work week. Contrary to another popular myth, Americans are working much less than they used to. Fogel writes4 (p. 66):

"in 1890, retirement was a rare phenomenon. Virtually all workers died while still in the labor force. Today, half of those in the labor force, supported by generous pensions, retire in their fifties."

Furthermore, Americans work many fewer days than they did a century ago. Using as a benchmark a 365 day work-year, Fogel calculates4 (p. 68) that in 1880 on average male household head worked 8.5 hours per day, but only 4.7 hours per day in 1995. With less time spent working and somewhat better health, total leisure available has more than tripled, from 1.8 hours per day to 5.8 hours per day.

Fogel's most interesting table4 (p. 89) is abbreviated and put into a chart format below. Fogel folds leisure into total consumption and then compares the shares of consumption in 1875 and 1995.

http://www.techcentralstati...

http://www.techcentralstati...

1875, roughly 3/4 of consumption was on basic necessities -- food (49 percent), clothing (12 percent) and housing plus consumer durables (12 percent). By 1995, these necessities accounted for only 13 percent of consumption. Able to acquire the basic necessities with less than one-third of the labor formerly required4 (p. 72), households have dramatically increased leisure. In addition, the share of consumption of services has gone up, including education (from 1 percent in 1875 to 5 percent in 1995) and health care (from 1 percent to 9 percent).

We Are Healthier

The increased share of spending on health care is often given a negative spin by journalists and politicians. We hear that "health care is too expensive."

In some ways, my personal experience typifies the trend in expenditures. Our family is spending much more on health care than my parents did thirty years ago.

On the other hand, I am reluctant to conclude that health care has become too expensive. My wife's cancer was detected early and treated effectively. My mother's cancer killed her in 1976, at age 53. If you ask me, the 1970's were no golden age of medical care.

Fogel's data supports the view that our health is improving. Again, taking the long view, he writes4 (p. 21):

"technopysio evolution...has enabled Home Sapiens to increase its average body size by over 50 percent and its average longevity by more than 100 percent since 1800."

Quality of life is improving at least as dramatically as longevity. Fogel reports4 (p. 91) that the average number of chronic conditions per U.S. male aged 60-64 fell from 5.6 in 1900 to 1.6 in the mid 1990's. This represents an average annual drop of 1.3 percent. The rate of decline reached 1.7 percent per year from 1982-1999, and Fogel notes4 (p. 84) that some evidence suggests that even within that timespan the improvement was greatest in the most recent years.

The reality is that neither the rise in health care expenditures nor the standard of living of working Americans represents a problem. The false portrayal of these issues by the Left is more likely to provoke a crisis than to solve one.

Sources

1W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm, Myths of Rich & Poor

2Census Data Sample in 2000

3Department of Energy Appliance Survey in 2001

4Robert William Fogel, The Escape from Hunger and Premature Death, 1700-2100

http://www.techcentralstati...

A major improvement over the past thirty years has been the expansion of the investor class, an expansion partly the result of the defined-contribution plans, IRAs, 401(K)s, and so on, that began in the '70's. At the end of the '70's, less than one in five Americans owned stock, today more than half own stock. This change has enormous implications. People have more control over retirement and leisure and greater interest in economic issues and results.

I guess it is safe to say we can agree to disagree on this issue?

>>like everyting else i guess it really comes down to perspective the left says one thing the right another, it comes down to which side you are more inclined to believe and support:

First, the sources I cited are not "left/right" axis related - they're official numbes, not propaganistic think tanks, paid to spew dogma, like TechCentralStation. The facts I cited were from a NC professor (who is no liberal) but the numbers themselves were objective statistics. So please back away from the right/left labeling, it's a cheap ass ploy that bears nothing out in this example.

Second, the fact that more people own stock, which I don't deny, means jack-squat in the big picture. The vast majority of those "investor class" you cite, own holdings that are irrelevant in size (< 30K) and nowhere near enough to meet costs of living over a period > 6 months.

Third it's well documented that health care in this country trails just about every other industrialized country. Even if you focus on raw statistics like life expectancy and infant mortality, there a couple dozen nations ahead of us.

I will give you that conditions for most Americans are better now than 100 years ago, before the progressive movement and FDR fixed an ailing capitalism model. But not 40 years ago, if we examine the average American, who had more opportunity, worked less, and enjoyed a greater standard of living. I already posted the numbers that show the average American worked less and got more house/car for their dollar than they do today.

Finally, like I stated, some things you claim are "luxuries" like cell phones and computers, I would argue are not in this era – that to be economically viable, one must have access and some mastery of these tools, lest you deny yourself opportunity to make a decent standard of living.

And you'll really raise my ire if you continue to quote those bought and paid for lobbyist shill PR flacks (run by lobbyist James Glassman) interested only in fattening the corporate welfare pipe. See, professers and other independent sources don't get paid to share their analysis, and they publicly reveal where they're coming from, unlike the PR flacks llike Glassman that pose as "objective", but really are paid to present a particular viewpoint, and truth is not a major concern.

CONTINUALLY YOU ATTACK THE MESSENGER AND NOT THE MESSAGE; YOU DISPUTE "FACTS" AS BIASED, WHEN YOU CONTINUALLY "SPEW" PROPOGANDA FROM SOURCES LIKE "AIRAMERICARADIO". YOU DONT THINK CELL-PHONES AND COMPUTERS ARE LUXERIES???? I HAVE NEWS FOR YOU ANYTHING PEOPLE BUY THAT ISNT A NECESITY (FOOD, CLOTHING, SHELTER(AND EVEN THESE CAN BE LUXERIES,IF YOU SPEND MORE THAN AND AVERAGE PERSON MAKES A DAY ON A MEAL, OR AN AVERAGE AMERICANS MONTHLY SLARY ON A DRESS, OR LIVE IN A 20 ROOM HOUSE FOR TWO PEOPLE)) IS A LUXERY, A CAR IS A LUXERY, TELEVISION LUXERY, CELL-PHONE LUXERY, IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME GO TO SOUTH AMERICA, AFRICA, OR ASIA AND ASK THOSE PEOPLE LIVING IN SHACKS WASHING CLOTHES WITH THEIR HANDS IN RIVERS WHAT A LUXERY IS. ASK THE PEOPLE IN REFUGEE CAMPS AROUND THE WORLD WHAT A LUXERY IS. OR ALL THE HOMELESS PEOPLE IN AMERICA WHO SLEEP ON STREETS WHAT A LUXERY IS. YOU KNOW SOMETIMES I WONDER IF YOU ARE REALLY AS SMART AS YOU ARE DESPERATLY TRYING TO APPEAR TO BE.

"before the progressive movement and FDR fixed an ailing capitalism model" THIS STATEMENT ALONE BY ITSELF SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT WHERE YOUR WORLD VIEW COMES FROM, MAYBE YOU SPEND TO MUCH TIME AT THE LIBERAL-BRARY, AND NOT ENOUGH TIME OUT IN THE REAL WORLD?

"And you'll really raise my ire"
THEY HAVE STUFF AT THE PHARMACY FOR THAT I'M SURE.I CANT HELP BUT SEEING ELMER FUDD WHEN HE KILLED THE WABBIT....."THUNDER, WIGHTNING!"

1. Cell phones & computers are not luxuries if you want to stay economiclally viable in an advanced economy, especially where the social safety net has been stripped away. Old-timers will fill you in the details (and it's a big reason why elderly are so adamantly opposed to Bush's raping of social security despite the fact that their beneifts are promised safe).

2. Why do you think great strides were made by working folks and when did most people join the ranks of the middle class? From the period of the 1930s to the 1970s, which are the legacy of FDR, labor unions and progressives that preceded this era. Again, please dust off a library card and do some reading instead of falling into bargain store rhetoric.

3. All the homeless people in this nation came about through (1) Reagan era tossing out folks from institutions onto the street and (2) elimination of social safety net. One in three children in America grow up in poverty, and that's far below any other industrialized nation. It's a mark that our leaders and us in general should be livid over.

I'll say it again, despite the rhetoric and think tank propaganda, FDR saved capitalism. In the 1930s, one nation embarked on a nationalistic charge and excursions of liberation, the other laid a foundation that created the strongest nation in history.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

RIIIIIIIIGHT, "Cell phones & computers are not luxuries if you want to stay economiclally viable in an advanced economy" AN ADVANCED ECONOMY....BUT WHAT PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS ARE USING THEIR CELL-PHONES AND COMPUTERS TO "stay economiclally viable"? YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO THAT BOTH ARE MORE OFTEN USED TODAY FOR LEISURE ACTIVITIES. THE AVERAGE HOUSHOLD COMPUTER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BUSSINESS.

"especially where the social safety net has been stripped away" SOCIAL SAFETY NET???? TYPICAL LIBERAL JARGON, YOU KNOW I CANT THINK OF ONE INSTANT WHERE IF PEOPLE ARE IN NEED THEY CANT GO TO A LOCAL CHURCH FOR HELP REGUARDLESS OF RELIGEOUS VIEWS, I KNOW MANY DOCTORS WHO TREAT PATIENTS WITHOUT WORRYING ABOUT INSURANCE OR BEING PAID, THERE IS MORE HELP FOR POOR PEOPLE IN AMERICA TODAY THAN THERE HAS EVER BEEN AND THATS NOT COUNTING THE HANDOUTS THE GOVERNMENT GIVES, AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE ABLE THE OPERTUNITIES ARE THERE TO ADVANCE THEIR OWN STANDARD OF LIVING, KEEP THE PEOPLE DEPENDENT ON THE GOVERNMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT WILL ALWAYS HAVE A GRIP ON THEIR SHORTHAIRS. FOR SOMEONE SO AGAINST OUR GOVERNMENT YOU SURE WANT TO KEEP AMERICANS DEPENDENT ON THEM. TO YOU AMERICA IS GOING DOWN THE TOILET, AT LEAST THAT'S THE PICTURE YOU LIKE TO PORTRAY, MAKES IT EASIER TO DOUSE THOSE NEGATIVE FLAMES WITH FUEL.

"Why do you think great strides were made by working folks and when did most people join the ranks of the middle class? From the period of the 1930s to the 1970s"

SO DURING THE GREAT DEPRESION OF THE 30'S MORE PEOPLE JOINED THE RANKS OF THE MIDDLE CLASS, MAKES SENCE I GUESS IF YOU COIUNT ALL THE UPPERCLASS WHO BECAME MIDDLE CLASS.BUT OF COURSE AFTER THE CRASH THE ONLY WAY TO GO WAS UP.

"The Great Depression is probably one of the most misunderstood events in American history. It is routinely cited, as proof that unregulated capitalism is not the best in the world, and that only a massive welfare state, huge amounts of economic regulation, and other Interventions can save capitalism from itself. Among the many myths surrounding the Great Depression are that Herbert Hoover was a laissez faire president and that FDR brought us out of the depression. What caused the Great Depression? To get a handle on that, it's necessary to look at previous depressions and compare. The Great Depression was by no means the first depression this country ever had, but it was clearly the worst.What made it different than the rest? At the time of the Great Depression, government intervention in the economy was higher than it had ever been and a special government agency had been set up specifically to prevent depressions and their associated problems, such as bank panics.This agency was the Federal Reserve Board and it was to have been the loaner of last resorts for banks in order to prevent collapses as had happened during earlier depressions. But as America sees, there is good reason to believe that the Federal actions explain many of the problems that lead up to the stock market crash and the subsequent depression. "

"Herbert Hoover has been accused of being a do-nothing president who allowed the country to continue to slide into its worst depression ever. Some will grudgingly admit that Hoover did take some action, but that it was too little, too late. But the truth is far more complex. Hoover did intervene after the Stock Market crash, but the acts passed by Congress and signed by Hoover were the worst kind of intervention: they actually exacerbated the problem. The most famous of these interventions was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Raising tariffs was one of the worst things that could be done. Remember that both free markets advocate and Keynesians agree that lowering prices would cure a depression, it's just that the Keynesians believe government intervention is necessary. A tariff does exactly the wrong thing by raising prices. Thus Smoot-Hawley was guaranteed to worsen any depression, not improve it. Other acts passed during Hoover's administration had similar effects of either raising prices or keeping them artificially high when they should have been dropping. Thus, it's not that Hoover was a do-nothing president, it's that he intervened in exactly the wrong way."

"Ironically, FDR, the president who implemented so many government programs himself, was elected on a platform of a balanced budget and economic non-intervention. So what did he do upon getting into office? He promptly expanded on Hoover's programs. Some of these programs, the ones that increased spending, would get approval from Keynesians. Others, however, like the minimum wage and the Davis-Bacon Act, suffered from the same problems that Hoover's programs did: they reduced price flexibility, often setting a minimum and thus continued to exacerbate the Great Depression. FDR's policies seemed to work at first. The economy began to expand again in 1933 and continued to do so until May of 1937. At that point, a second depression began and lasted until June of 1938. "

"The United States entered World War II in December of 1941, the year generally considered to be the end of the Great Depression. Because of all the over production and people not at work, it hurdled us for WWII for we had the land and materials to go to the war and we had the people also. This Keynesian style boost to the economy seems to have brought the depression to an end."

AND SPEAKING OF THOSE GREAT BOOMING DAYS OF THE 70'S RECESSION, I HEAR LIBERAL AFTER LIBERAL SAY WE ARE HEADED FOR THE WORST RECESSION SINCE THE 70'S. SO IF WE ARE GOING DOWN THE TUBES AND WE HAVENT REACHED THE MARK WE WERE IN THE 70'S I SUGGEST THAT TO GO DOWN ONE MUST BE ABOVE THE POINT THEY MUST FALL TO. SO RATHER THAN CLIMBING TO THE LIVING STANDARDS OF THE 70'S IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO FALL TO GET TO THAT POINT, AT LEAST IF IT IS TRUE WE ARE HEADING DOWNWARD TO RECESSION.

"The 28 years following World War II were the greatest economic boom that America has ever known. Around 1973, however, the nation's economic engine inexplicably slipped into low gear, where it has remained stuck to this day. More specifically, individual worker productivity -- which is also how economists measure our standard of living -- grew nearly 3 percent a year in the postwar years. It fell to 1 percent after 1973, and not even the Reagan years revived it. No serious economist claims to know the answer to this mystery. Indeed, there is a Nobel Prize waiting for the first economist who does. Anyone who claims to have the secret to restoring growth is someone you can dismiss with perfect confidence -- especially if the claim comes from a non-economist, and even more so if it comes from a politician campaigning for office"

"Many conservatives claim that growing taxes were responsible. But a review of the statistics actually makes the opposite case! In the postwar years, the top tax rate was a confiscatory 88 percent. The rate started coming down in the early 70s, and by the end of the 80s it fell to 28 percent.2 And what about average tax rates? They have remained pretty much the same from the early 50s until today, fluctuating between 17 to 19 percent of the Gross Domestic Product.3 It would be difficult to maintain that the same general rate enjoyed by a booming economy for twenty years could somehow turn around and hobble it. Other conservatives point to the growing costs of regulation after 1973, but regulations were slashed along with taxes during the Reagan era, with no increase in individual worker productivity.

Economists consider two theories to be more plausible. Perhaps the more widely accepted is the technological explanation. World War II saw the sudden development of thousands of scientific and technological innovations. But it takes decades for a new technology to spread through and improve an economy - a good example is the rise of computers and the Internet. But once a new technology has finished spreading, the accompanying growth comes to an end. It's much like switching from hand-sewing to a sewing machine; you may increase the number of shirts you sew from one to five an hour, but the sewing machine's inherent limitations will never produce more than five. World War II introduced countless technologies all at once; one could expect them to play themselves out simultaneously as well."

"A second plausible explanation, favored by conservatives, is the sociological one. According to this theory, the 60s produced social decay that led to a decline of the American work ethic, and therefore productivity. Not only did many Americans become more anti-capitalist, but they also increased their drug use, television viewing, crime rates, divorce rates, single-parenting, women's participation in the workforce, and more. However, this correlation does not stand up under closer scrutiny. The height of social turbulence, riots and anti-capitalist fervor actually occurred in the 60s; by the 70s, social radicalism had fallen off, and by the 80s, Reagan had returned a strong pro-capitalist sentiment to America. Yet worker productivity fell, not increased, over this time. Also, the 60s brought many needed social reforms, not only granting minorities their civil and human rights, but also bringing such previously repressed and taboo subjects as rape, incest, harassment, addiction and other social ills into the national dialogue for recognition and treatment. And then there are the international examples: Communist China is experiencing phenomenal growth at the moment, yet it would be hard to find a society filled with more social decay than this one. At any rate, sociological explanations for the productivity slowdown are difficult to measure and open to debate."

"The business story of 2001 was the economic bust that wasn't. Sharp plunges in the manufacturing and technology sectors coupled with the events of September 11 seemed destined to sink and destroy an already floundering economy, but information released recently suggests otherwise."

""Slumps in the manufacturing and high-tech sectors and vanishing venture capital combined to send the US economy, and in turn the Canadian economy, into a downward spiral," said Anania.

However, figures released recently by both the Canadian and American governments offer a different perspective on 2001. The American economy actually grew by 0.1 percent last year, down from the 3 percent seen in both 1999 and 2000, but is certainly not indicative of full-blown recession."

"The economy grew at a solid 3.8 percent annual rate in the final quarter of 2004 – stronger than previously estimated- and an encouraging sign that the business expansion was firmly entrenched at the start of the new year.

The new reading on gross domestic product, released by the Commerce Department Friday, was better than the government’s initial calculation made a month ago. That estimate showed the economy growing at a 3.1 percent pace.

The improvement reflected more robust spending by businesses on capital equipment and to build up inventories of goods. The trade deficit also was less of a drag on fourth-quarter growth than initially thought."

Mondo, if you're going to cut & paste stuff, please (a) only include a paragraph (or up to 3-4 paragraphs), and (b) give attribution to the source where you pulled it…

And I will add that the greatest period of growth of middle class Americans was also the period in which taxes were at their highest rates. From 1930s to 1960s, the upper rate was the highest ever, as is mentioned in the text you pasted in. JFK term saw it lowered, but it still was double what it is now.