Rolling US Economy Into The Shitbin Thread

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

here we go guys

El Tomboto, Thursday, 18 October 2007 23:44 (7 years ago) Permalink

personally I'm applying for a civil servant position ASAP

El Tomboto, Thursday, 18 October 2007 23:45 (7 years ago) Permalink

Just FYI, during the 1930s depression, many civil servants were paid with vouchers rather than cash, because local governments were unable to collect property taxes and their receipts fell into the shitbin.

Aimless, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:12 (7 years ago) Permalink

Economy's doing poorly enough as it stands, why do we deliberately want to roll it into the shitbin?

Abbott, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:14 (7 years ago) Permalink

Because that way Hillary can rescue us all.

Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:17 (7 years ago) Permalink

lol property taxes

El Tomboto, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:18 (7 years ago) Permalink

shitbin's a great word, BTW.

Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:20 (7 years ago) Permalink

you been loving my thread titles lately

El Tomboto, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:26 (7 years ago) Permalink

i came to this country some time ago with little more than a crippling debt burden in GB Pounds and the shirt on my back. i used to have to send back $1,200 each month to pay off my UK debt, and now I'm sending back over $1,400 to cover the same amount of debt repayment. that's two and a half thousand dollars disappearing from my tiny disposable income every year, for no explicable reason. i *heart* the decline of the US economy.

Roberto Spiralli, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:27 (7 years ago) Permalink

anyway why start this thread now because the bit where ritholtz points out that domino's pizza can't print new menus fast enough to keep up with inflation was pretty fucking amazing

I wish rasheed wallace was still around to show us the latest and greatest exploding bubble blogs

El Tomboto, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:28 (7 years ago) Permalink

wow Roberto that was some shitty timing, that sucks

El Tomboto, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:29 (7 years ago) Permalink

This was in the paper today:

Mortgage defaults

Hit an annual rate of 1.5 million in September. That compares with 900,000 last year from fewer than 800,000 in 2005. At the current rate, more than one million Americans will lose their homes to foreclosure, making this the worst housing recession since the Second World War.

Housing starts

Sank to a 14-year low of 1.19 million in September. Starts are a vital economic engine, creating jobs and growth as people stuff their homes with sofas and TVs. Starts peaked at 2.3 million in early 2006, and the decline will be a drag on the rest of the economy until the slide stops.

Mortgages

A quarter of the roughly 50 million U.S. home mortgages are subprime. That's seven times the number of high-risk mortgages there were in 2001. That means that many more marginal homeowners have mortgages, making it far more likely they'll wind up in default.

House prices

Fell 3.2 per cent in the second quarter. Prices are falling faster and more broadly than they have in decades, according to the closely watched Case-Shiller index.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071018.IBUSECONOMY18/TPStory/Business

everything, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:29 (7 years ago) Permalink

In regard to inflation, in the USA during the past three years inflation has been soaring - but almost entirely in the housing sector. The fact that people are encouraged to see their houses as investments rather than as expenses doesn't mean that skyrocketing housing costs weren't inflationary. They were.

As the bubble market bursts, I predict a recession with an extra added bonus of inflation running close to 10% - before the end of 2008. As it has for the past 30 years, the official CPI will understate the real inflation rate. It was rigged under Reagan so that government entitlement programs indexed to the CPI would not increase at the true pace of inflation.

If Bush continues to shovel shit on the dollar right up to the end of his term in January 2009, the inflation rate could hit 15%-20% by 2010.

Aimless, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:55 (7 years ago) Permalink

There are some good economics articles put up here as well:
http://www.VoxEU.org

stet, Friday, 19 October 2007 01:02 (7 years ago) Permalink

Which shit on the dollar are you referring to?

Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 19 October 2007 01:02 (7 years ago) Permalink

As the bubble market bursts, I predict a recession with an extra added bonus of inflation running close to 10% - before the end of 2008.

lol

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Friday, 19 October 2007 06:11 (7 years ago) Permalink

this is why i live in canada!

J0rdan S., Friday, 19 October 2007 06:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

oh wait.

J0rdan S., Friday, 19 October 2007 06:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

Guys, this is a good time stay in academia right?

Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃, Friday, 19 October 2007 11:51 (7 years ago) Permalink

It's a good time to learn a European language.

Nubbelverbrennung, Friday, 19 October 2007 13:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

Prime shit examples:

When Bush was elected in 2000, the federal budget was in surplus and the national debt was being paid down. Had this state of affairs continued, as projected, it would have led both to lower interest rates and a strong dollar, together. Instead, Bush submitted a series of enormous tax cuts to the Republican-controlled Congress and lobbied them through. Immediately, the CBO's projected budget surpluses turned to projected deficits for the next decade.

Bush also initiated a war of choice, not necessity, in Iraq. This war has already cost well over $700 billion. Yet, Bush insisted on making his tax cuts permanent. Overall, the national debt has increased under Bush by about $2 trillion in seven years. This represents a difference of about $3 trillion of debt from what was projected at the start of his first term.

Because, due to Bush's tax cuts and other policies, the Federal government was in a far weaker position to stimulate the economy when the recession started after 9/11, almost the entire stimulus was delivered via lower interest rates. Because these rate cuts were artificial, and not based on a stronger dollar, this stimulus not only inflated the current housing bubble, but it also undercut the dollar even more than the ballooning national debt did.

Now the dollar is at an all-time low against the euro and the canadian dollar. However, the incomes of the top 10% of American households have increased at a good clip, while the lower 50% of households have seen a decrease in income after inflation. This is largely thanks to Bush's shitty policies. I expect more of the same mismanagement until he is gone.

Aimless, Saturday, 20 October 2007 18:36 (7 years ago) Permalink

I agree with everything you've just said. You're predictions still seem a tad extreme on the downside though, if I may so.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Saturday, 20 October 2007 18:50 (7 years ago) Permalink

i wonder if income inequality will ever arrive as a political issue in this country. americans tend to not begrudge the rich - so it'll have to be more of a "for everyone's good" type of angle. no?

jhøshea, Saturday, 20 October 2007 18:54 (7 years ago) Permalink

I remember the 1970s and early 80s quite well. Back then people couldn't belileve it, either. Bush has done a bangup job of recreating many of the same policy errors under Johnson and Nixon that led to raging stagflation back then, except the underlying economy is now weaker than it was in the 1970s and the oil shocks we are likely to get are not political, as when OPEC was formed, but structural.

Oil will exceed $100/barrel some time this winter. The ever-weakening dollar will lead to smaller profit margins and rising retail prices on all imported goods (which means almost everything we buy in the USA). Transport costs will rise with pil prices. Stock prices will erode along with profits. With so many savings tied up in stocks and home equity, consumer spending will be crunched, and personal debt and bancruptcies will rise like a tide. Businesses will retrench and unemployment will rise. No end in sight.

I hope I am wrong.

Aimless, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:07 (7 years ago) Permalink

Anyone want to join my modern-day James Gang? We shall ride across the lower Midwest, robbing and pillaging.

milo z, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:09 (7 years ago) Permalink

sounds fun

jhøshea, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

Sorry, I don't want to relocate. But this scheme sounds ripe for franchising.

Aimless, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:14 (7 years ago) Permalink

Oil will exceed $100/barrel some time this winter. The ever-weakening dollar will lead to smaller profit margins and rising retail prices on all imported goods (which means almost everything we buy in the USA). Transport costs will rise with pil prices. Stock prices will erode along with profits. With so many savings tied up in stocks and home equity, consumer spending will be crunched, and personal debt and bancruptcies will rise like a tide. Businesses will retrench and unemployment will rise. No end in sight.

I hope I am wrong.

-- Aimless, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:07 (14 minutes ago) Link

The coming of $100/barrel oil is not Bush's fault. It's yours and mine and everyone else's for using too damned much energy. I agree Bush could and should have done a lot more with policy to encourage energy efficiency, but there's little he could have done to stop oil's eventual rise to that price level.

Hurting 2, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:26 (7 years ago) Permalink

Part of the pricing of oil represents the weakness of the dollar. This hurts the USA more than it does other countries. US citizens are paid in dollars and the US government collects revenue in dollars, so they are stuck. EU countries can use euros to buy increasingly cheap dollars, so they don't see the same rise in prices as we do. The weakness of the dollar is mainly Bush's fault.

Aimless, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:31 (7 years ago) Permalink

The US also uses way more oil than other countries.

Hurting 2, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

he could have done to stop oil's eventual rise to that price level.
Not starting a war in Iraq would definitely have helped here.

stet, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:57 (7 years ago) Permalink

El Tomboto, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:47 (7 years ago) Permalink

arrgh, if that won't work then
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2007/10/imf-mortgage-reset-chart.html

El Tomboto, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:47 (7 years ago) Permalink

tombot u r freakin me out

gff, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:50 (7 years ago) Permalink

i hope my small apartment + modest savings plan + job in "information services" is enough to weather the shitstorm, if it comes. i got myself out of credit card debt a few months ago, at least

gff, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:53 (7 years ago) Permalink

well if you can hold down a job and don't have to worry about an ARM reset you should be okay, it's the homeowner with kids and a subprime loan and two cars who ought to be shitting themselves

El Tomboto, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:58 (7 years ago) Permalink

apart from some student loans and binging on credit cards over a few years, i'm kind of debt phobic.

which has actually made me lose out over the past several years, i realize, since i pay for EVERYTHING with a debit/check card... i could have just paid that balance on a credit card with some rewards scheme and has some air miles or something

gff, Monday, 22 October 2007 18:00 (7 years ago) Permalink

rolling gff personal finances into the shitbin thread, ha

gff, Monday, 22 October 2007 18:01 (7 years ago) Permalink

This will give you a boner Tombot

http://nymag.com/guides/money/2007/39952/

Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 11:30 (7 years ago) Permalink

the economy increased by 3.9% this quarter! bull market forever, baby. economy's better than ever. golden age.

yet me and so many people I know are getting laid off next month. granted we're all in the writing/design field, but urhhhhh. gggg.

burt_stanton, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 14:58 (7 years ago) Permalink


^^^ lol

most of that guy's scenario is not really news to regular bigpicture/CR readers I don't think. But #5, the "we don't pay attention" thing, yeah, well, evidently the awareness campaign is underway, but hell if the big players are paying attention.

He also leaves out the approaching demographic catastrophe as millions of inexperienced thirtysomethings and even some late-twenties kids are forced to move into arguably tougher jobs that the boomers have been holding for two decades. Beyond the social security and healthcare costs associated with mass retirement, I don't really know if this generation has the work ethic and definitely not the rolodex to just start filling in and not fuck up royally. too busy updating their linkedin pages.

El Tomboto, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 15:11 (7 years ago) Permalink

can someone explain what "being upside down on your mortgage" means, in plain English?

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 16:14 (7 years ago) Permalink

essentially, owing more than your home is worth.

Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:10 (7 years ago) Permalink

also Tombot I'm not going to blame this generation as much as I blame their parents.

Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:11 (7 years ago) Permalink

isn't that the way people buy homes? by paying for the privilege of a loan?

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:12 (7 years ago) Permalink

When you enter into a contract with a bank for a mortgage, both you and the bank assume that the property value will not plummet. The bank doesn't want you to default any more than you want to default. But if for whatever reason you need to sell your home, and you can't get what you owe on it, then you will owe the difference to the bank. And the bank knows that when that happens, you probably will not have enough assets to cover the difference.

Predatory-type loans (which seems like a nebulous description to me) typically compound the problem because they have higher transaction rates (points, etc.)

Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:17 (7 years ago) Permalink

oh certainly! well played baby boom letting healthcare slide for the 20 years you've owned the electorate

El Tomboto, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:18 (7 years ago) Permalink

yeah Tracer it's also called "negative equity"

El Tomboto, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:19 (7 years ago) Permalink

I mean it seems like a confusing mixed message to me.

james franco tur(oll)ing test (Hurting 2), Friday, 28 February 2014 16:46 (8 months ago) Permalink

I see what you're saying -- and it's a fool's game to believe that Walmart and other low-wage employers would pay a nickel more if government assistance didn't exist -- but the argument I see generally isn't over that. It's over Walmart et al. paying so little on the one hand that their employees are forced to rely on government assistance; and on the other hand their CEOs and owners crying to Congress about their "high taxes" and the welfare state.

bi-polar uncle (its OK-he's dead) (Phil D.), Friday, 28 February 2014 16:51 (8 months ago) Permalink

It's subsidizing a low wage business model

anonanon, Friday, 28 February 2014 16:56 (8 months ago) Permalink

It's subsidizing a low wage business model

― anonanon, Friday, February 28, 2014 11:56 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Right, but that makes it sound like if you stopped subsidizing, the business model wouldn't work. Which is why the argument makes me a little uncomfortable. I support raising the minimum wage.

james franco tur(oll)ing test (Hurting 2), Friday, 28 February 2014 16:59 (8 months ago) Permalink

It's over Walmart et al. paying so little on the one hand that their employees are forced to rely on government assistance; and on the other hand their CEOs and owners crying to Congress about their "high taxes" and the welfare state.

This is a nice way of putting it, ty.

james franco tur(oll)ing test (Hurting 2), Friday, 28 February 2014 16:59 (8 months ago) Permalink

xp It is, but removing the "subsidy" will not change the business model.

xxp What he said. Both a higher minimum wage and a guaranteed minimum income.

bi-polar uncle (its OK-he's dead) (Phil D.), Friday, 28 February 2014 17:00 (8 months ago) Permalink

On a different but related subject--

I've skimmed a couple articles lately on the Earned Income Tax Credit as a few conservatives are now pushing this as a better way to help the folks who they say do work and need help rather than increasing the minimum wage (which they insist largely helps middle and upper class high schoolers working after school, and not the working poor and middle class trying to survive). But its not clear enough conservatives want to expand the use of the credit. In fact, that Republican Dave Camp tax reform package reduces the amount of folks eligible for the EITC

curmudgeon, Friday, 28 February 2014 17:00 (8 months ago) Permalink

walmart will pay low wages whether or not anyone is getting welfare because they can

Brian Eno's Mother (Latham Green), Friday, 28 February 2014 17:02 (8 months ago) Permalink

Also the first day at work after you watch an orientation video they tell you to snoop on any of your fellow employees who start talking about unions. Or at least they did when I worked there when I was 18 (10+ years ago).

Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 28 February 2014 17:40 (8 months ago) Permalink

mixed myself up I agree gov is not an enabler bc walmart wouldnt raise pay if SNAP didn't exist

anonanon, Friday, 28 February 2014 17:50 (8 months ago) Permalink

seems fair enough to raise the minimum wage in response to a large proportion of gainfully employed people having to rely on SNAP.

i ain't allergic i just sneeze a lot (Hunt3r), Friday, 28 February 2014 18:04 (8 months ago) Permalink

not necessarily a large proportion. let's say significant number of people.

i ain't allergic i just sneeze a lot (Hunt3r), Friday, 28 February 2014 18:05 (8 months ago) Permalink

allowing Walmart to employ people even full time without meeting their cost of living, with government forced to pick up the difference makes the current min wage law itself a subsidy (kinda analogizing to "tax expenditure" concept here)

anonanon, Friday, 28 February 2014 18:07 (8 months ago) Permalink

raise the minimum wage

Yes. As soon as possible. This is would help millions of working poor, not just WalMart employees. I'd say $10/hr. should be the lowest amount even considered as proper compensation for any paid work of any description.

Aimless, Friday, 28 February 2014 19:08 (8 months ago) Permalink

I question the logic in this guest editorial:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/02/28/maybe-raising-the-minimum-wage-isnt-such-a-good-idea-after-all/

curmudgeon, Friday, 28 February 2014 20:15 (8 months ago) Permalink

Wow, the number of elisions (e.g. not mentioning that Douglas Holtz-Eakin was the head economic advisor for the McCain campaign and heads some right wing think tank), omissions (a single unlinked Texas A&M study that contradicts nearly all other available research on the minimum wage) and bad-faith logical fallacies (it's not the best way so let's not use it at all/it doesn't help everyone so we shouldn't help anyone) in that article are staggering.

bi-polar uncle (its OK-he's dead) (Phil D.), Friday, 28 February 2014 20:21 (8 months ago) Permalink

"Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who is a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, doesn’t think so. In fact, he doesn’t think the federal government should have a minimum wage at all."

I mean do you need to read any further

anonanon, Friday, 28 February 2014 20:23 (8 months ago) Permalink

a single unlinked Texas A&M study

it's MOUNTING EVIDENCE, dude. totally mounting.

i ain't allergic i just sneeze a lot (Hunt3r), Friday, 28 February 2014 20:26 (8 months ago) Permalink

No minimum wage is a deeply randian opinion. So is eating babies.

Aimless, Friday, 28 February 2014 20:31 (8 months ago) Permalink

I'd be down w questioning the value of the minimum wage if we weren't living in an age of all-time high corporate profits and stock markets. But we are.

Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 28 February 2014 20:33 (8 months ago) Permalink

how does this apply to amazon mechanical turk!

Brian Eno's Mother (Latham Green), Friday, 28 February 2014 20:52 (8 months ago) Permalink

Right, but that makes it sound like if you stopped subsidizing, the business model wouldn't work. Which is why the argument makes me a little uncomfortable. I support raising the minimum wage.

It does seem plausible that without government benefits Walmart would be forced to pay slightly higher wages. Same probably goes for other big companies that rely on minimum wage labor (such as the fast food industry). But it's hard to say because reducing government benefits would have lots of indirect effects on demand and such. In any case, the way I see it, that's not an argument for reducing benefits, but rather for raising the minimum wage.

o. nate, Monday, 3 March 2014 16:13 (7 months ago) Permalink

My life as a retail worker, written by a former political journalist.

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 12 March 2014 18:24 (7 months ago) Permalink

After recently having one of those bougie "honey I don't know if we're saving enough for retirement" conversations, this was sobering to read:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/

james franco tur(oll)ing test (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 12 March 2014 18:32 (7 months ago) Permalink

Savings account?

"Six months of living expenses" is a good lol to all "middle-class" New Yorkers.

images of war violence and historical smoking (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 12 March 2014 18:43 (7 months ago) Permalink

Financial advisors have a vested interest in convincing as many people as possible that "good financial management" requires meeting a variety of difficult to meet goals through strategies that are more complicated than people would construct on their own. Basically, the hordes of financial 'advisors' out there are peddling watered down, simple-minded versions of how the wealthy manage much larger trusts and estates. In order to make enough work for the ever-increasing numbers of these parasites, these strategies are being pushed at people ever further down the income scale. It is an industry and they sell fear, uncertainty and doubt. Don't buy it.

Aimless, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 18:54 (7 months ago) Permalink

I think the six months' savings things makes a lot of sense if you have a family. Maybe less so if you're single and can easily move to a cheaper rental or crash on a friend's couch or whatever. I agree that a lot of other stuff financial planner types tell you is just ludicrous and beyond imagination, like the amount you're supposed to save for your kids college, the amount you're supposed to save for retirement, etc.

james franco tur(oll)ing test (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 12 March 2014 19:02 (7 months ago) Permalink

Just having a savings account with as much money as you can wangle into it doesn't require a financial advisor to figure out. Stating flatly that it should contain "six months of living expenses" is more confusing than enlightening.

Very few people can tell you what "one month of living expenses" amounts to. I happen to keep detailed records of what we spend each month, going back to 2008, and the amounts vary so widely I'd have to massage the numbers quite a bit to come up with a number that even vaguely fits "six months of living expenses". As advice, this sounds simple, but as soon as you seriously try to put it to use, it becomes very, very nebulous and more likely to inspire fretting than guide action.

By way of contrast, saying "six months of your rent or mortgage payments" would at least allow a person to quickly and easily calculate a number so they can see what the goal is.

Aimless, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 19:25 (7 months ago) Permalink

I inherited "a little money" from my mom two years ago, i.e. six months of my rent, pretty much. And rather than keep that as my emergency fund, I'm going to Europe this year.

images of war violence and historical smoking (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 12 March 2014 19:29 (7 months ago) Permalink

I hear there's an old saying, "see Naples and die". Have a good time.

Aimless, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 19:36 (7 months ago) Permalink

xp IDK, it seems kind of intuitive to me that "six months of living expenses" means six months of the things you couldn't or wouldn't want to cut even in an emergency -- food, rent/mortgage, basic utilities, etc.

james franco tur(oll)ing test (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 12 March 2014 20:27 (7 months ago) Permalink

student loans - the new burden of failure

Brian Eno's Mother (Latham Green), Thursday, 13 March 2014 15:51 (7 months ago) Permalink

student loans - the price of growing up in america without family money

reggie (qualmsley), Thursday, 13 March 2014 16:55 (7 months ago) Permalink

student loans = graduate groans!

Brian Eno's Mother (Latham Green), Thursday, 13 March 2014 20:59 (7 months ago) Permalink

student loan (interest) = yacht owner gas money!

reggie (qualmsley), Thursday, 13 March 2014 21:07 (7 months ago) Permalink

hahaha as soon as I got to the part with the Thomas Friedman quote I was like "say no more, I would like to sign up for your newsletter"

james franco tur(oll)ing test (Hurting 2), Monday, 24 March 2014 03:42 (7 months ago) Permalink

most terrifying part is buried way in

I'm essentially competing for every hour of my employment.

j., Monday, 24 March 2014 03:47 (7 months ago) Permalink

buried but kind of implied at other points I think. Chilling piece, yeah. Also dovetails nicely with an interview I listened to last night with Jennifer Silva
http://scholar.harvard.edu/jsilva

available here:

http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#S131121 (Nov 21)

more about the non-tech-savvy In This Economy but some of the themes overlap

james franco tur(oll)ing test (Hurting 2), Monday, 24 March 2014 03:56 (7 months ago) Permalink

the silver lining is that it starts to sound toward the end like these platforms are shitty business models that will either change or fail

james franco tur(oll)ing test (Hurting 2), Monday, 24 March 2014 04:09 (7 months ago) Permalink


3. Half of Americans are "Poor" or "Low-Income"

This is based on the Census Department's Relative Poverty Measure (Table 4), which is "most commonly used in developed countries to measure poverty." The Economic Policy Institute uses the term "economically vulnerable." With this standard, 18 percent of Americans are below the poverty threshold and 32 percent are below twice the threshold, putting them in the low-income category.

The official poverty rate increased by 25 percent between 2000 and 2011. Seniors and children feel the greatest impact, with 55 percent of the elderly and almost 60 percent of children classified as poor or low-income under the relative poverty measure. Wider Opportunities for Women reports that "60 percent of women age 65 and older who live alone or live with a spouse have incomes insufficient to cover basic, daily expenses."

4. It's Much Worse for Black Families

Incredibly, while America's total wealth has risen from $12 trillion to $77 trillion in 25 years, the median net worth for black households has GONE DOWN over approximately the same time, from $7,150 to $6,446, adjusted for inflation. State of Working America reports that almost half of black children under the age of six are living in poverty.

http://www.nationofchange.org/more-evidence-half-america-or-near-poverty-1395672039

images of war violence and historical smoking (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 2 April 2014 14:28 (6 months ago) Permalink

^^ worst part is how unsurprising it is.

Aimless, Wednesday, 2 April 2014 18:37 (6 months ago) Permalink

time to live in 5th element cubies

Brian Eno's Mother (Latham Green), Wednesday, 2 April 2014 20:03 (6 months ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/timothy-geithner-book-052914

charles pierce otm

reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 30 May 2014 17:45 (5 months ago) Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/05/upshot/how-the-recession-reshaped-the-economy-in-255-charts.html?hp

nail salons and dog groomers booming

j., Friday, 6 June 2014 00:23 (4 months ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

captain obvious: "a very ugly blame game going on that’s directed — is orchestrated — by people who are doing very nicely at the top to turn the sort of great middle class that itself is feeling squeezed against people at the bottom"

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/30/a_very_ugly_blame_game_how_great_recession_is_affecting_people_in_totally_unexpected_ways/

reggie (qualmsley), Monday, 30 June 2014 17:01 (4 months ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

I don't want most people to experience the misery of another bubble bursting but I feel like the post-recession gains in the economy have been accumulated by such a relatively small number of people that it wouldn't be as devastating.

Insane Prince of False Binaries (Gukbe), Friday, 18 July 2014 09:23 (3 months ago) Permalink

I could easily see stocks falling 10% on no news, but to get more than that, I think something would have to happen in the "real" economy.

o. nate, Friday, 18 July 2014 19:05 (3 months ago) Permalink

2 months pass...

on the bright side, enough americans now live in poverty that something/anything must be done (besides cut taxes / deregulate big finance)?

http://theweek.com/article/index/268053/the-american-middle-class-is-no-longer-safe-from-poverty-mdash-and-that-might-be-a-good-thing

reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 19 September 2014 18:39 (1 month ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.