May 31, 2006

ABCNews: "Economy Roars, Why Don't Americans Feel It?"
— Ace

Ummm, gee, that's a tough one.

Gas prices, ABCNews' expert suggests.

Here's another theory: everyone's perception of the economy is made up of two inputs: 1, how I'm doing, and 2, how other people are doing.

People get almost all of their information about 2 from the media. Sure, people know a few dozen people, but their overal take on how the other three hundred million Americans are doing comes from the media.

And the media keeps telling them everyone else is out of work.

The media considers it one of its most important jobs to correct public misimpressions as regards matters of political import. They made sure everyone knew Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11; they even made sure every knew the "fact" that Saddam had "nothing" to do with Al Qaeda. Which wasn't true, but they felt the public wasn't well-enough informed on the issue, so they had to "over-represent the truth" on the question, as Al Gore might say.

So-- why no media effort to educate the public on how the economy's actually doing? No teachable moment here, huh?

Thanks to Allah.


Posted by: Ace at 07:06 AM | Comments (45)
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.

1 That is a puzzler.

Posted by: Rube at May 31, 2006 07:12 AM (aAA6M)

2 I don't need a roaring economy. I just need to flash a nice smile, and pretty soon you're cooking the dinner.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 31, 2006 07:14 AM (KWDEp)

3 Lets just face it? The left and the Media HATE Bruce Dickinson and Blue Oyster Cult.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 31, 2006 07:24 AM (QTv8u)

4 Hmmm... the economy?
Who cares when there are really big questions like:

Where's Osama?

Posted by: xanthrope at May 31, 2006 07:32 AM (XbWqG)

5 How does a raging economy translate into increased captial for the employed? Businessess may be doing great but my COL is going up higher than my wages.

Posted by: shawn at May 31, 2006 07:43 AM (lw1AE)

6 Unemployment numbers are so low only because people stopped looking for work.

Same thing with MI:3.

Posted by: tachyonshuggy at May 31, 2006 07:56 AM (w0dpL)

7 The economy always "roars" when you fire Americans and hire sterilized chinese kids to do build cars.

It's basic good business. Hire cheap workers. Convince people to buy really expensive things on credit. And just watch the money roll in.

If you don't like it... Move to another country... Like China... And sell your kids to a sweatshop.

Or start buying stocks and fire everyone American you possibly can. And watch your stocks soar!

It's great for me. I was able to buy a house from some poor old fart who got canned and the bank repoed his house. Now he mows my lawn and cleans the pool that he once enjoyed. When the President signs the amnesty, however, I'll probably can him and hire someone who can work cheaper. This strong economy is great if you know how to take advantage of it.

Posted by: at May 31, 2006 08:40 AM (dlqQt)

8 Expanding on Shawn's post with data, see:

http://www.bopnews.com/archives/006431.html#6431

Specifically:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage of production workers was $14.70 in November 2001 and $16.61 in April 2006 for an increase of 13%. Over the same period of time, the inflation index increased from 177.4 to 201.5 for an increase of 13.58%. Therefore, since the recession officially ended (as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research), wages have decreased .5%.

Compared to the 90's

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the hourly pay for non-supervisory workers increased from $10.63 in January of 1993 to $14.26 in December 2000 for an increase of 34.14%. Over the same period, the inflation measure increased from 138.1 to 174 for an increase of 25.99%. Therefore, the inflation adjusted hourly wage increased 8.15%.

The rich are getting richer even faster, but the majority of the people are losing ground. Yup, it sure is a puzzler that this might happen under a Republican admin.

Posted by: Larry the U at May 31, 2006 08:41 AM (Lpswv)

9 Also, considering the dropping DOW lately, is there sucha thing as an "anti-Cowbell"?

Posted by: Larry the U at May 31, 2006 08:44 AM (Lpswv)

10 Quick, who gets to point out the glaring illogic in Larry the turd's latest seisure of stupidity?

Posted by: bbeck at May 31, 2006 08:46 AM (qF8q3)

11 This is a good contemporary illustration of history's selective memory, in action. And hopefully will become less and less the norm as blogs take a larger role in the news biz.

Posted by: Scott at May 31, 2006 09:01 AM (f8958)

12 Quick, who gets to point out the glaring illogic in Larry the turd's latest seisure of stupidity?

Would that by any chance be that rises and dips happen in all economies and that taken singularly they represent nothing?

Posted by: Scott at May 31, 2006 09:04 AM (f8958)

13 bbeck,

Well, it really is no challenge to take on Larry, but I'll take a crack.

First of all, Larry's figures ignore a significant portion of the workforce because they don't include
government workers, the self-employed, and the managerial class. Secondly, they don't include non-wage benefits such as health care, 401k, pension...etc. Last but not least, these class warfare "wage gap" arguments always ignore class mobility. The fact of the matter is that people tend to move up and down through various income brackets over the course of their lives. I was once in the lowest quintile, too. Most of us started there.

That's just off the top of my head. I'm no economist, but I did once intern for the Joint Economic Committee. Also, I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.

A quick google provides some sources that argue the same thing.

Link
&
Link

Posted by: The Warden at May 31, 2006 09:04 AM (rZ5uY)

14 If the dems were running things, I would be paying higher taxes and higher costs for all the services that I myself can't partake in. No, thanks.

Posted by: shawn at May 31, 2006 09:07 AM (lw1AE)

15 THE RICH are getting richer by stealing money from THE POOR!

I'm really much smarter than you are, you realize that, don't you?

Posted by: Larry the Unintelligent at May 31, 2006 09:12 AM (mA9tr)

16 Perhaps the biggest flaw in Larry's argument is that it doesn't take immigration into account.

Posted by: sandy burger at May 31, 2006 09:14 AM (ePQxy)

17 Because I'm self-employed and live in Southern California, my insurance premiums are outrageous. Also, housing including rental is extremely high because of full occupancy. Both increased costs of health care and housing is due to illegal immigration.

Posted by: shawn at May 31, 2006 09:26 AM (lw1AE)

18 So-- why no media effort to educate the public on how the economy's actually doing? No teachable moment here, huh?

Because then the media would have to explain why, at the same time that we have millions of people flooding over the border to do the jobs no one wants to do, every third schlepp on the street is supposedly unemployed.

Posted by: Alice H at May 31, 2006 09:39 AM (jRtPb)

19 Well, when you import droves of low wage illegals it stands to reason they tend to drag the averages down on the low end.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 31, 2006 09:45 AM (gf5iT)

20 Warden, scott, sandy: commendable efforts all of you. And in some instances there would be a grain of truth in each point you folks made.

But in this instance, another macro factor is at work here. And I say this as someone well-schooled in economics and immersed in the dismal science daily. This time the flaw in LtU's post is that Larry is a freakin' douchebag.

Douchebag + statistics = Alway Wrong.

Posted by: spongeworthy at May 31, 2006 09:45 AM (uSomN)

21 In related news (and following Larry the U's logic).

This month ice cream sales increased to an all time high, also we saw a sharp spike upward in heart attacks.

Clearly, ice cream causes heart attacks.

Posted by: Brad at May 31, 2006 09:53 AM (1F8YK)

22 Re gas prices, I'm averaging about seven dollars more per full fill-up than, say, six months ago. I fill my tank about three times a month. Using my patented Starbuxx Espresso Grand Unified Theory (TM), each fill-up "costs" me two caramel macchiados or six per month.

So...if gas prices are so onerous, why are my local coffeehouses, haunts of the hip, wired and tattooed always packed when I pop in for my espresso?

Or put in terms that Larry the U might grasp, how bad can the economy be when everyone freely spends three and a half bucks for a latte?

Posted by: kelly at May 31, 2006 10:09 AM (wOrpg)

23 Who let all the moonbats out of their cages?

Posted by: T. at May 31, 2006 10:09 AM (+z7jR)

24 Hmmm, warden's rebuttal is basically a rehash of the links he supplied from....wait for it....townhall and heritage.org.

How original.

Posted by: Larry the U at May 31, 2006 10:27 AM (Lpswv)

25 Also, let's say my data is a little wonky. It's the same data source for both periods, and the workforce hasn't changed that much, so at least we can say it's consistent and represents the trend for the workers. Also, whether it's 62 percent or 80 percent, it's still a majority of americans.

Also, the "wage mobility" comment? WTF does that have to do witht he price of tea in china? Some people move up and others move down, yeah so what? The question is, if the economy is roaring, why do so many americans not feel it? Answer is that the economy and people are different and gross macro indicators may not mean shit to the average pocket book, especially when you consider things like gas prices.

Oh, I see, the liberal media has everyone fooled about how much thier dollar buys. Talk about conspiracy theories.

Someone give that nice doggie, bbeck, a bone.

Posted by: Larry the U at May 31, 2006 10:38 AM (Lpswv)

26 Also, whether it's 62 percent or 80 percent, it's still a majority of americans.

Well, which is it, Larry? How convinced do you expect us to be by data which you yourself don't even know how to interpret?

Posted by: sandy burger at May 31, 2006 10:49 AM (Cpse7)

27 Townhall.com is not an impartial source, it's true. But you should still consider their arguments. The article warden linked to says:

"Average earnings" is an arithmetic average -- a mean not a median -- and it includes part-time jobs. As a result, taking part-timers and low-income workers off the payroll has the paradoxical effect of raising average earnings among the rest, though it surely doesn't make anyone better off. Average weekly earnings can therefore rise in hard times because many part-time and/or low-wage workers lose their jobs. And average weekly earnings can fall in recoveries because previously unemployed low-wage workers -- or a flood of unskilled immigrants -- find jobs.

Is this what happened? I don't know. The figures you've presented don't answer important questions like this. Those statistics just aren't meaningful, Larry.

Posted by: sandy burger at May 31, 2006 10:53 AM (ePQxy)

28 Someone give that nice doggie, bbeck, a bone.

I suspect that a number of the geeks who frequent this site would very much like to.

Posted by: sandy burger at May 31, 2006 10:56 AM (ePQxy)

29 Hmmm, warden's rebuttal is basically a rehash of the links he supplied from....wait for it....townhall and heritage.org.

How original.

How weak.

Yes, my links are partisan. As opposed to what, the unbiased links you provided to BOP NEWS? LMAO!

The onus is on you, Larry, to provide the numbers that support your case. So far you have not. Stamping your feet about my sources won't change that.

The funny thing is, I can't argue that real wages aren't down. I simply don't know because I can't find a reliable data set that addresses it. What I do know is that the data you provide is far from conclusive.

Posted by: The Warden at May 31, 2006 11:18 AM (mj/rC)

30 What the hell!? Why are you guys still arguing with Larry? Don't you know he's the one who's right, If you don't believe me, just read.

THE RICH are getting richer by stealing money from THE POOR!

I'm really much smarter than you are, you realize that, don't you?

Posted by Larry the Unintelligent at May 31, 2006 02:12 PM

If you don't believe him, just ask him.

He is not only able to prove his brilliance, but able to do so buy using the cliche' like "the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer" I'm sorry Larry, I can't be repetative and empty with nearly your eloquence.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 31, 2006 11:18 AM (QTv8u)

31 DAMN ME!!!!!

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 31, 2006 11:20 AM (QTv8u)

32 Someone give that nice doggie, bbeck, a bone.

But but what about federally dispensed COMPASSION?!?!?!?! Don't call me names! Whine whine whine...

Wait, that was Larry's last argument he ran from.

I suspect that a number of the geeks who frequent this site would very much like to.

I'm positive Larry the turd would love to. He's so lonely he has to hang out at a site where everyone makes fun of him just for a few instants of attention.

And thanks, guys, it was fun to see you flush Lar's silly "fact" disgorgement again. Well, if he could think for himself he wouldn't be a liberal.

Posted by: bbeck at May 31, 2006 12:38 PM (qF8q3)

33 bbeck: You are confusing "ran from" with "has a life". Wife, kids, work, activities, exercise, etc. Sorry I can't spend all my time justifying myself to you. Maybe if you treated people you disagree with with a modicum of respect, I might, but that time has passed.

I'll save my rebuttals for people who a) have something to say and b) can stay moderately civil. You'll go on pretending it's the overwhelming strength of your arguments that has made me cower in submission.

I'll not bother checking back for the tirade of insults, skewed statistics, and word salad, street corner psycho ranting that I'm sure will follow. I'll be weeping in frustration that my poor, week brain can't compete against your tower intellect and dialectical style.

Posted by: Larry the U at May 31, 2006 12:56 PM (Lpswv)

34 towering....shit!

Posted by: Larry the U at May 31, 2006 12:57 PM (Lpswv)

35 Larry the U,

An annualized 0.1% decrease in real wages could very easily be consistent with a real increase in total compensation due to increases in the costs of non-wage compensation, which very commonly account for upwards of 25% of total compensation (like employer subsidized health insurance, which has undergone nominal annual double-digit percentage increases for many employers in recent years). Also, the stats you introduced don't appear to take into account the tax cuts passed since September 2001, which probably result in a wash against the real wage decreases as far as take home pay goes. So, it isn't clear at all that a majority of Americans are losing ground.

Posted by: anotheranon at May 31, 2006 01:50 PM (lbmO+)

36 bbeck: You are confusing "ran from" with "has a life".

No I'm not. You have no life and you run all the time from everyone here the second your arguments are ripped open.

Wife, kids, work, activities, exercise, etc.

Don't drag your family through the mud to cover your cowardice. It's beyond pathetic.

Sorry I can't spend all my time justifying myself to you.

Translation One: when the going gets tough, Larry gets out.

Maybe if you treated people you disagree with with a modicum of respect, I might, but that time has passed.

You're such a liar, Turd. That abortion thread had SEVERAL people talking to you as if you were human -- I know better -- and yet you STILL took off after whining about me and ignoring all the "civil" people you claim to desire.

I'll save my rebuttals for people who a) have something to say and b) can stay moderately civil.

See last statement, Liar.

You'll go on pretending it's the overwhelming strength of your arguments that has made me cower in submission.

It's not just the strength of MY arguments, it's the strength of everyone ELSE'S arguments that make you disappear. And the weakness of yours.

I'll not bother checking back for the tirade of insults, skewed statistics, and word salad, street corner psycho ranting that I'm sure will follow.


Translation Two: I AM GOING TO RUN!!! but first, I am DESPERATE to land the last blow in my mind...

I'll be weeping in frustration that my poor, week brain can't compete against your tower intellect and dialectical style.

...and he swings, he misses!

Posted by: bbeck at May 31, 2006 02:04 PM (qF8q3)

37 Also, the stats you introduced don't appear to take into account the tax cuts passed since September 2001,

This is a good point, and one that I never considered. I believe that when we talk about wages we are talking about gross, not net income. This ignores the effect a capital gains or income tax cut may have on an individual's bottom line.

Posted by: The Warden at May 31, 2006 02:19 PM (mj/rC)

38 Also, Larry U's data are not consistent, but use different dates for start and stop and one period is longer than the other in the comparison...I don't know why they would do that, but its' a great way to manipulate statistics.

Now, let's assume it's only the corporations making money and wages are just keeping up with inflation...

1. Well, so what you still have a job and your spending power is the same?

2. What percent of americans are now investors in said corporations? A helluva lot of workers are also owning shares via mutual funds, so it's not clear that good business earning don't come back later for the worker when they want to retire...

3. Might be good that wages are stagnant, because fast rising wages stoke inflation...coupled with oil prices, it could have meant sharp interest rate rises and possible dips back into recession.

Posted by: Aaron at May 31, 2006 05:48 PM (8xjNO)

39 TOTAL PRIVATE EMPLOYMENTSEASONALLY ADJUSTED
(IN THOUSANDS)


CARTERJAN 1977 65636
DEC 1980 74563
NET == + 8927


BUSH 2JAN 2001 111560
APR 2006 113164
NET == +1604

Posted by: Steve J. at May 31, 2006 09:02 PM (ekw6V)

40 Yes, Steve J. Carter was truly a great president for the economy - he somehow managed to preside over a substantial decrease in unemployment despite the fact that unemployment was in the very modest vicinity of 7.5% when he enterred office. Under, Bush, however, unemployment has risen from it's already tropospheric Pre-Bush level of 4.2% to a downright astronomical 4.7%. Does anyone out there still have a job?

(/sarcasm)

Posted by: anotheranon at June 01, 2006 04:09 AM (lbmO+)

41 Aaron, I think you are 0 for 4 there

0 (your first para): Time period doesn't matter as I was comparing rates not values.

1) But the dollar has dropped due to other currencies, so you actually have less spending power for foreign produced goods (which is quite a few things these days)

2) We're talking about working stiffs here, hourly pay guys. While they may have some investments, I'd wager it's not enough to make up for the zero growth.

3) Um, Interest rises ARE coming, due to inflationary pressures. But wages are still stagnant, or have been. And gas prices have far outstripped any wage increases.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060601/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy

Posted by: Larry the U at June 01, 2006 12:45 PM (Lpswv)

42 Larry, don't forget about your old pal Sandy. I'm gettin' lonely over here.

Posted by: sandy burger at June 01, 2006 01:21 PM (ePQxy)

43 Larry, have your wages been stagnant for the last 5 years?

Posted by: Bart at June 01, 2006 01:26 PM (F61HR)

44 Larry the U,

No "rebuttal" for my "moderately civil" post in which I "say something" about the impact of recent changes in non-wage compensation (like employer subsidized health care) and income taxes?


Posted by: anotheranon at June 01, 2006 01:47 PM (lbmO+)

45 Larry, have your wages been stagnant for the last 5 years?

Probably - the salary for a village idiot doesn't have a lot of upside to it.

On the other hand, there's probably free Cheetos and a lot of day old bread.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 01, 2006 03:57 PM (gf5iT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
97kb generated in CPU 0.13, elapsed 1.1774 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.1075 seconds, 281 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.