|
Post by jeffolie on Aug 22, 2012 17:37:14 GMT -6
America is a superpower in decline domestically and internationally. The lack of a new rising superpower leaves disorder and regional powers to expand influence with older more brutual techniques. Domestically, America is fading as did the EU and Japan into a declining birthrate whose impact is obvious: "... The vast majority of home buyers already own a home... Fewer home buyers are first-timers ..." demand for single family houses decline: Fewer US Babies Limits Consumer Spending Family formations decline, births decline, demand for single family houses decline, plus in another thread the median income of the middle class has been declining since 2000 ... the stressed middle class compares unfavorably to the comfortable middle class ... I predict this will get worse into a bottom area in 2016."... Americans have had fewer babies each year since the 2008 financial meltdown, with births falling to a 12-year low in 2011, ... “To the degree that family formation is being suppressed, we should be concerned,” said Neal Soss, chief economist at Credit Suisse in New York. “That holds back housing. It holds back all the spending associated with housing. Family formation is a very important motivator of economic growth.”...Census data show. The number of marriages dropped to 6.8 per 1,000 people in 2010 from 7.6 in 2005, ... " " ... The Great Depression serves as a precedent. The number of children per family fell to 2.3 on average in 1933 from 3.5 in 1900, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It rebounded to as many as 3.7 in the 1950s, then began to decline again with the advent of modern contraceptives, stabilizing at about two children in 1972, government data show. ... " Read more: www.unlawflcombatnt.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=11266&page=1#ixzz24JvDhwek================================== Aug. 22, 2012 Fewer home buyers are first-timers The vast majority of home buyers already own a home. Despite low interest rates, low prices and slowly rising sales, first-time homeowners accounted for just 34% of all buyers in July, according to data released Wednesday by the National Association of Realtors. While that figure has inched up slightly from the month and year prior, the association says first-time home buyers account for 40% of purchasers under normal conditions. The reluctance of newcomers to enter the market may be further adding to housing’s woes. After all, first-time buyers are vital to boosting sales, especially during downturns, since when they buy a home, they aren’t also selling a previous home to finance the purchase. Their recent absence is largely due to the current challenges of saving up enough for a down payment: In a survey released in June by Trulia, an online real estate marketplace, 47% of all adults who aren’t homeowners and who wish to buy a home said that the down payment is the biggest obstacle to entering the housing market. Most mortgages require at least a 10% down payment, and in some pricey markets, like New York and San Francisco, coming up with that cash can take years, says Jed Kolko, chief economist at Trulia. A poor credit history, which makes it difficult to qualify for a mortgage, was the second most common issue holding back would-be first timers, according to Trulia’s survey. Many potential buyers are also facing higher unemployment rates than other groups. The unemployment rate among 25- to 34-year-olds stood at 8.2% in July, compared with 6.9% for 35- to 44-year-olds and 6.5% for 45- to 54-year-olds, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Separately, first-time buyers are competing against investors—who tend to have all-cash offers and who go after the same, lower-price homes, says Leonard Baron, real estate lecturer at San Diego State University. Sellers who are eager to unload their homes are more willing to work with investors, since the sale doesn’t hinge on a bank’s decision to approve them for a mortgage. More recently, experts say, tight inventory has made it even harder for first timers to compete. In the past, government intervention encouraged more first timers to buy a home. They accounted for nearly half of all purchases during the first half of 2009 through spring 2010, according to the NAR. That spike was partly attributable to the federal government’s $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers. But there was also a larger supply of homes to choose from at that point, says Walter Molony, a spokesman for the NAR. Going forward, experts say, a larger economic recovery will have to occur in order for more lifelong renters to become home buyers. And more lower-price-range homes—in particular, foreclosures and other distressed properties now being held off the market—need to go on sale, says Molony. www.marketwatch.com/story/fewer-home-buyers-are-first-timers-2012-08-22
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Aug 22, 2012 17:58:12 GMT -6
America is a superpower in decline domestically and internationally.
INTERNATIONALLY IN DECLINE
America is withdrawing from Afghanistan after leaving Iraq. America essentially ignores the rebellion in Syria by deferring to UN vetoes of China and Russia making Iran more influential after Assad crushes the rebellion in exactly the same manner as his father. Obama had been absent in Iran's Arab Spring rebellion leaving the clerics to crush its rebellion to the dismay of the Saudis and others.
Obama was caught flat footed by the Arab Spring. America came late to assisting the EU in ousting Libya's Muammar Gaddafi.
Financially, America will most likely fall behind China's GDP within 5 years if the world's economy does not implode first. Now, the world's biggest debtor, the US continues add to the over $5 Trillion of external debt to finance it domestic deficits. America is fading although the EU is fading faster along starting to run trade deficits in Japan.
Militarially, no other country approaches America's peaking and stagnating ability to project power. This will decline because already agreed to budget cuts has the Pentagon planning reductions.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Aug 22, 2012 22:38:20 GMT -6
America is a superpower in decline domestically and internationally. The lack of a new rising superpower leaves disorder and regional powers to expand influence with older more brutual techniques. Domestically, America is fading as did the EU and Japan into a declining birthrate whose impact is obvious: "... The vast majority of home buyers already own a home... Fewer home buyers are first-timers ..." demand for single family houses decline: Fewer US Babies Limits Consumer SpendingNo, it does not. It has nothing to do with it. What limits consumer spending is aggregate consumer income, and maldistribution of income upwards--where a lower fraction of that income is actually spent. The total number of consumers has nothing whatsoever to do with consumer spending. That's the same fairy tale perpetuated by the Clinton Administration when they touted "opening up" the consumer markets in China to American sellers. Impoverished consumers contribute nothing to consumer spending. It's the buying power of the individual consumers, not the number, that matters. In fact, the opposite is true when consumers are also considered workers. More workers drive wages down, reducing the individual wages and buying power of consumers, and ultimately reducing the aggregate buying power of consumers, by redistributing lost wage income upwards to management/ownership. Owners & management make more money and workers make less when the supply of workers rises. At the same time, demand for labor does not increase any, since consumer buying power hasn't increased any. Thus, the end result of more workers is lower aggregate wages and buying power since labor supply increases without a demand increase. More workers ALWAYS = less worker-consumer buying power for this reason.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Aug 24, 2012 11:15:16 GMT -6
America is a superpower in decline domestically and internationally. The lack of a new rising superpower leaves disorder and regional powers to expand influence with older more brutual techniques. Domestically, America is fading as did the EU and Japan into a declining birthrate whose impact is obvious: "... The vast majority of home buyers already own a home... Fewer home buyers are first-timers ..." demand for single family houses decline: Fewer US Babies Limits Consumer SpendingNo, it does not. It has nothing to do with it. What limits consumer spending is aggregate consumer income, and maldistribution of income upwards--where a lower fraction of that income is actually spent. The total number of consumers has nothing whatsoever to do with consumer spending. That's the same fairy tale perpetuated by the Clinton Administration when they touted "opening up" the consumer markets in China to American sellers. Impoverished consumer contribute nothing to consumer spending. It's the buying power of the individual consumers, not the number, that matters. In fact, the opposite is true when consumers are also considered workers. More workers drive wages down, reducing the individual wages and buying power of consumers, and ultimately reducing the aggregate buying power of consumers, by redistributing lost wage income upwards to management/ownership. Owners & management make more money and workers make less when the supply of workers rises. At the same time, demand for labor does not increase any, since consumer buying power hasn't increased any. Thus, the end result of more workers is lower aggregate wages and buying power since labor supply increases without a demand increase. More workers ALWAYS = less worker-consumer buying power for this reason. I agree ... the nominal count of consumers does not take into account their buying power. I respectfully disagree that the number of consumers is not important. Like a simple formula, the number multiplied by the buying power results in the total potential buying power. This simply approach functions adequately if all thing are equal, which they never are as important and significant trends continue to result in change. So, I acknowledge what you are stating is true howerver I continue with the importance of the number of consumers as one of many important variables. As proof please consider the below piece which highlights shifting economic impacts in the current economics of various states where the number of consumers has noticeably changed by both those increasing and those losing populution now that the POPULATION GROWTH HAS STAGNATED or at least slowed to a very low level. The shifting consumers from state to state accounts for shifting economics. ===================================== USA sees 'flattest' growth in population since 1940sUSA TODAY 12/22/2011 The recession may be officially over, but its impact continues to reverberate as the nation experiences its most sluggish population growth since the 1940s. Arizona has seen a big decline from its annual growth of 3.3% before the recession. It grew only 1.1% to 6.5 million in the year that ended July 1. The U.S. population grew 0.7% to 311.6 million in the year that ended July 1, even slower than at the height of the recession when the population grew 0.9%, according to new Census estimates. "The nation's overall growth rate is now at its lowest point since before the Baby Boom,'' Census Bureau Director Robert Groves said. INTERACTIVE: State-by-state population, rank STORY: U.S. marriage rate at a record low Many Sun Belt states that were hit hard by the housing collapse have not regained their footing — except for Florida, which is showing glimmers of a recovery. For the first time since the mid-2000s, the state is gaining more people from other states than it is losing. The state grew 1.2% to 19.1 million. "Florida is growing as much as it had in 2005-06," said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution. The Census estimates are more than double what Florida demographers had estimated, based on electrical hook-ups. "It could be that people are filling up vacant units that had electric hook-ups already," said Scott Cody, demographer with the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research. The discrepancy could also mean that more people are living under one roof and therefore not in need of new power connections. "It could be that people come down and are moving in to an existing household," Cody said. The uptick in net migration gains has less to do with more people coming to the state than fewer people leaving, said Kenneth Johnson, demographer at the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute. "I would guess that all the construction workers who were going to get out of the state may have been gone by the latest Census data," he said. Texas, now with a population of 25.7 million, had the largest gains, but its growth rate slowed to 1.7%. Nevada had its lowest growth ever — 0.7% to 2.7 million. Arizona, another highflier before the economic downturn, grew only 1.1% to 6.5 million, a big decline from its annual growth of 3.3% before the recession. "They have the lowest in-migration they've seen," Frey said. The state gained a net 7,000 people from other states, a huge drop from the 133,000 it netted from 2005 to 2006. Even states such as North Carolina, which had maintained a steady growth even during bad times, are experiencing drops in new migrants. The state gained a net 32,000 people from other states, the lowest increase in the past decade. "The pain is being felt, and it's actually expanding to more parts," Frey said. "The latest Census numbers tell us more of the same." Michigan is losing fewer people and its growth is almost flat, largely because people who wanted to leave have already left, he said. Among other states: •North Dakota's oil boom is fueling growth not seen in decades — up 1.4% to 684,000. The state's gains since 2010 are almost one-third as great as growth experienced during the entire decade, Johnson said. • States in the Northeast that were losing to the Sun Belt enjoyed faster growth largely because people are not moving and, therefore, not leaving. New York is growing almost three times as fast now as it was in the mid-2000s. Massachusetts is growing faster than during most of the last decade. New Hampshire is on the flip side of the equation: It grew only 0.1% to 1.3 million, largely because fewer people are moving from Massachusetts. Maine suffered from the slowdown in migration even more. It gained only 800 people and births now barely outnumber deaths (by 180). • Puerto Rico continued to lose people, dropping 0.4% from 2010 to 3.7 million. It has lost 120,000 people, or more than 3%, since its population peaked in 2004. • No state changed ranks since 2010. California remains the most populous with 37.7 million. Frey said the nation experienced the lowest rate of immigration since at least 2000. www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-21/usa-population-sluggish/52138024/1
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Aug 28, 2012 17:12:27 GMT -6
The wasting away, shrinking Middle Class or Type 2 consumer has been most impacted by the declining wealth effect of crashing home prices.
America is in decline as proven by the declining lifestyles of the Middle Class and growing poverty as proven by Food Stamps and Disability Income. The lack of recovery in the housing market in part reflects the lack of income and mental or attitude change in society forced to live more in the moment because long term employment and relationships have declined.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Sept 8, 2012 9:54:25 GMT -6
I continue to call the American economy a "regular depression" for the most common American which represent the Type 2 consumer or 80% of incomes/wealth compared to the upper 20% who buy new cars. "... bart, "My U7b unemployment rate went up to 22.8% from 22.6%. ==================================== Labor-Force Participation Rate at 31-Year Low as 368,000 People Quit Seeking Work Friday, 07 Sep 2012 U.S. jobs growth slowed sharply in August, setting the stage for the Federal Reserve to pump additional money into the sluggish economy next week and dealing a blow to President Barack Obama as he seeks re-election. Nonfarm payrolls increased only 96,000 last month, the Labor Department said on Friday. While the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1 percent from 8.3 percent in July, that was because so many Americans gave up the hunt for work. The survey of households from which the jobless rate is derived actually showed a drop in employment. Meanwhile, the labor-force participation rate, or the percentage of Americans who either have a job or are looking for one, has plunged to 63.5 percent — the lowest since September 1981. A total of 368,000 people gave up looking for work in August. "This weak employment report, in jobs, wages, hours worked and participation is probably the last piece the Fed needs before launching another round of quantitative easing next week," said Joseph Trevisani, chief market strategist at Worldwide Markets in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey. The lackluster report piled pressure on Obama ahead of the November vote in which the health of the economy looms large. "This report underscores President Obama's failed promises to get our economy moving again," House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, said in a statement. "Wages are stagnant, gas prices and healthcare costs are up, our national debt has surpassed $16 trillion, and millions of Americans remain out of work or underemployed." The data dampened spirits in U.S. stock markets, which opened marginally higher. Treasury debt prices rallied and the dollar slipped against the euro to its lowest in nearly four months as traders increased bets the Fed would launch a third round of bond buying at a meeting next Wednesday and Thursday. Economists polled by Reuters had expected payrolls to rise 125,000 last month, but some had pushed their forecasts higher after upbeat data on Thursday. LOOKING FOR A SILVER LINING Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last week said the labor market's stagnation was a "grave concern," a comment that raised expectations for a further easing of monetary policy. The economy has experienced three years of growth since the 2007-09 recession, but the expansion has been grudging and the jobless rate has held above 8 percent for 43 straight months — the longest stretch since the Great Depression. The jobless rate peaked at 10 percent in October 2009, but progress reducing it stalled this year, threatening Obama's bid for a second term. An online Reuters/Ipsos poll on Thursday gave Republican Challenger Mitt Romney a 1-point edge on Obama, 45 percent to 44 percent. Republicans were quick to seize on the fact that the unemployment rate has held above 8 percent for essentially Obama's entire term. Democrats sought to find a silver lining. "Today we learned that the economy added 96,000 jobs in August, marking 30 consecutive months of private sector job growth," Senator Bob Casey, the Democratic chairman of the congressional Joint Economic Committee said in a statement. The lack of headway putting Americans back to work has put the question of further monetary stimulus on the table at the Fed. The central bank has held interest rates close to zero for nearly four years and pumped about $2.3 trillion into the economy through two bouts of bond buying, or quantitative easing. "This is certainly a disappointing report and increases the odds for QE, which were already reasonably high," said David Sloan, an economist at 4CAST in New York. Economists said at the very least the Fed appeared set to push further into the future its conditional pledge to keep rates near zero through late 2014. Futures traders added to bets on Friday that the central bank would keep rates near zero until at least the second quarter of 2015. AMERICANS GIVE UP SEARCHING FOR WORK The weak tenor of the report was also emphasized by revisions to June and July data to show 41,000 fewer jobs created than previously reported.In addition, the labor-force participation rate, or the percentage of Americans who either have a job or are looking for one, fell to 63.5 percent — the lowest since September 1981. A total of 368,000 people gave up looking for work in August, the household survey showed. Since the beginning of the year, job growth has averaged 139,000 per month, compared with an average monthly gain of 153,000 in 2011. The latest gain left the economy 4.7 million jobs in the hole since a brutal recession struck in December 2007, and that does not take into account population growth, which would make the deficit even greater. Economists blame fears of the so-called U.S. fiscal cliff — the $500 billion or so in expiring tax cuts and government spending reductions set to take hold at the start of next year unless Congress acts — and Europe's long-running debt problems, for the slowdown in hiring. Job creation last month was weak across the board, with manufacturing payrolls falling 15,000, the first decline since September last year. Factory jobs were inflated in July because automobile manufacturers kept plants running when they would normally shut them for retooling. There was little improvement in construction employment, which added 1,000 jobs. Temporary hiring fell 4,900, declining for the first time since March. Utilities payrolls saw a snap back, adding 8,800 after being depressed by the strike of about 9,000 workers in July. Government payrolls declined 7,000, falling for a sixth straight month. Average hourly earnings fell one cent last month, highlighting the underlying weakness in the labor market. Earnings have risen 1.7 percent over the past 12 months.The average work week was steady at 34.4 hours in August. www.moneynews.com/Economy/Jobs-Obama-Fed-employment/2012/09/07/id/451114368,000 People Quit Seeking Work bart, "My U7b unemployment rate went up to 22.8% from 22.6%. U3 & U6 with an average participation rate: www.nowandfutures.com/images/u3_unemploy_corrected.pngwww.nowandfutures.com/images/u6_unemploy_corrected.png
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Sept 8, 2012 12:31:43 GMT -6
Again, the talk of QE3.
And again, how is this going to increase employment?
Unless it magically increases the buying power of non-affluent Americans, it won't increase demand for production or labor to provide production.
All that the previous QEs have done is further increase the ability of rich people to purchase still more NON-productive assets and commodities, and drive the prices of them up.
How's that going to help the economy?
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Sept 25, 2012 16:16:36 GMT -6
40yr low: SAT Reading Scores 43% college candidates ready America is a superpower in decline domestically and internationally. www.unlawflcombatnt.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=modifypost&thread=11267&post=36394Domestically, America is fading as did the EU and Japan into a declining birthrate whose impact is obvious " ... When less than half of kids who want to go to college are prepared to do so, that system is failing," " ... down one point from the previous year and 34 points since 1972 ... " "... SAT scores: Only 43% of high school seniors are college-ready ... " ====================================== SAT Reading Scores Are the Lowest They've Been in 40 Years Sep 24, 2012 Video: Some colleges in Maine are making the SATs optional Coming in with an average SAT reading score of 496, 2012's graduating seniors have the dubious distinction of having attained the worst reading score since 1972. (For those test-takers of a certain age and test-taking history, "reading" is actually that part we knew as "verbal.") Regardless of what you call(ed) it, "The average reading score for the Class of 2012 was 496, down one point from the previous year and 34 points since 1972," reports the Washington Post's Emma Brown, gleaning numbers from the College Board, the organization that administers the test. What's troubling beyond the low average score is that seniors' scores in "writing," a section related to "reading" and for most of us, life in some way or another, also dropped—to 488—a decrease of nine points since the College Board started testing for it in 2006. So what gives? Are future generations illiterate? Is the SAT too hard? As Po Bronson wrote for the Daily Beast in 2009, "It’s commonly said that the SAT, taken in a senior year of high school, has only about a 40% correlation with a student’s freshman year college GPA." That line of thinking implied by that statement is that numbers are just numbers, to some extent, and not predictors of future successes, necessarily. They are general predictors of who will get into which colleges, though, and Bronson goes on to defend the SAT, writing, "I’ve always had a skeptical feeling about the 40% correlation statistic, and so I’ve never relied on it or used it in print." Brown writes that the reading scores may have been affected by minority test takers, who came out and took the test in record numbers: "The declining national reading averages may in part reflect the ever-widening pool of students who take the SAT, first administered in 1926 to a few thousand college applicants." She continues, "More than 1.66 million graduating seniors last year took the test, the highest number in history. Nearly half were minorities and about a quarter reported that English was not exclusively their first language. More than a quarter of public school test-takers — 27 percent — had family income low enough to qualify for a fee waiver, and more than a third — 36 percent — reported that their parents had not gone to college." More kids taking the SAT is probably a good thing, though the sweeping assumption that minority test takers are naturally worse than their non-minority counterparts at the "reading" section doesn't tell the entire story, either. As Bronson wrote, "It’s still worthwhile to explore why people succeed, both at school and in real life." The reverse is true, too.more... [4 pages] news.yahoo.com/sat-reading-scores-lowest-theyve-40-years-204658542.html================================ SAT scores: Only 43% of high school seniors are college-ready September 24, 2012 Just slightly more than four of every 10 high school students taking the national SAT exams meet the standard indicating that they are prepared for their first year in college, the College Board announced Monday. In the latest findings from the College Board, which administers the exam, just 43% of the class of 2012 met the benchmark scores indicating that they could achieve a B-minus average in the first year of college. The SAT is the bane of high school students and a key barometer for college officials contemplating admissions. The number is the same as in 2011, but the College Board warned that the figure remains low. "When less than half of kids who want to go to college are prepared to do so, that system is failing," College Board President Gaston Caperton said in a statement accompanying the release of the data. "We must make education a national priority and deliver rigor to more students." The SATs have three parts -- mathematics, critical reading and writing -- and are graded with a maximum score of 800 for each part. Three hundred and sixty of the 1.66 million who took the tests in 2012 scored a perfect 2,400. According to the College Board's analysis, the national averages in critical reading and writing fell one point each, to 496 and 488, respectively, while mathematics scores remained constant at 514, when all schools' scores were compared with those of the previous year. Scores of public school students were slightly lower than the national average for all schools: 491 for critical reading, 505 for math and 481 for writing. www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-sat-reading-score-20120924,0,2438626.story
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Oct 3, 2012 12:14:48 GMT -6
US slowly dying, 1.9 birthrate America currently is slowly dying and propping up entrench banks while type 2 consumers, the lower 80% decline, put off having children, put off getting married, etc. If America fails to sweep away the entrench industries and fails to replace old technology with new production methods, then the doom will last 30 years as happened in 1870 to 1900 in America. An example of this currently is Japan's 23 and ongoing slowly dying culture and finances. my jeffolie view: the below replacement rate adds to my view of a 'regular depression' as this happened in the prior 4 US depressions/panics. Long term, after the doom and a popular war then a 30+ year growth period will happen with a higher than 2.0 replacement birthrate ... long term, after the doom my jeffolie view is optimistic. " ... A rate of a little more than 2 children per woman means each couple is helping keep the population stable. The U.S. rate last year was slightly below 1.9. ... Countries with rates close to 1 - such as Japan and Italy - face future labor shortages and eroding tax bases as they fail to reproduce enough to take care of their aging elders. =============================================== apnews.myway.com/image/20121002/BIRTH_RATES.sff_GFX719_20121002145244.html?date=20121003&docid=DA1LRMIG0Baby bust continues: US births down for 4th year Oct 3, 2012 NEW YORK (AP) - U.S. births fell for the fourth year in a row, the government reported Wednesday, with experts calling it more proof that the weak economy has continued to dampen enthusiasm for having children. But there may be a silver lining: The decline in 2011 was just 1 percent - not as sharp a fall-off as the 2 to 3 percent drop seen in other recent years. "It may be that the effect of the recession is slowly coming to an end," said Carl Haub, a senior demographer with the Population Reference Bureau, a Washington, D.C.-based research organization. Most striking in the new report were steep declines in Hispanic birth rates and a new low in teen births. Hispanics have been disproportionately affected by the flagging economy, experts say, and teen birth rates have been falling for 20 years. Falling births is a relatively new phenomenon in this country. Births had been on the rise since the late 1990s and hit an all-time high of more than 4.3 million in 2007. But fewer than 4 million births were counted last year - the lowest number since 1998. Among the people who study this sort of thing, the flagging economy has been seen as the primary explanation. The theory is that many women or couples who are out of work, underemployed or have other money problems feel they can't afford to start a family or add to it. The economy officially was in a recession from December 2007 until June 2009. But well into 2011, polls show most Americans remained gloomy, citing anemic hiring, a depressed housing market and other factors. The report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is a first glimpse at 2011 birth certificate data from state health departments. More analysis comes later but officials don't expect the numbers to change much. Early data for 2012 is not yet available, and it's too soon to guess whether the birth decline will change, said the CDC's Stephanie Ventura, one of the study's authors. Highlights of the report include: 1. The birth rate for single women fell for the third straight year, dropping by 3 percent from 2010 to 2011. The birth rate for married women, however, rose 1 percent. In most cases, married women are older and more financially secure. 2. The birth rate for Hispanic women dropped a whopping 6 percent. But it declined only 2 percent for black women, stayed the same for whites and actually rose a bit for Asian-American and Pacific Islanders. 3. Birth rates fell again for women in their early 20s, down 5 percent from 2010 - the lowest mark for women in that age group since 1940, when comprehensive national birth records were first compiled. For women in their late 20s, birth rates fell 1 percent. 4. But birth rates held steady for women in their early 30s, and rose for moms ages 35 and older. Experts say that's not surprising: Older women generally have better jobs or financial security, and are more sensitive to the ticking away of their biological clocks. 5. Birth rates for teen moms have been falling since 1991 and hit another historic low. The number of teen births last year - about 330,000 - was the fewest in one year since 1946. The teen birth rate fell 8 percent, and at 31 per 1,000 girls ages 15 through 19 was the lowest recorded in more than seven decades. " The continued decline in the teen birth rates is astounding," said John Santelli, a Columbia University professor of population and family health. Did the economy have anything to do with a drop in teen births? Yes, indirectly, Santelli said. Teenagers watch the struggles and decisions that older sisters and older girlfriends are making, and what they see influences their thinking about sex and birth control, he said. "Teens tend to emulate young adults," Santelli said. "They are less influenced directly by the economy than by people." Studies show that since 2007, larger percentages of sexually active teenage girls are using the pill and other effective birth control. Studies also show a small decline in the proportion of girls ages 15 through 17 who say they've had sex, Santelli noted. The new birth report also noted a fourth straight decline in a calculation of how many children women have over their lifetimes, based on the birth rates of a given year. A rate of a little more than 2 children per woman means each couple is helping keep the population stable. The U.S. rate last year was slightly below 1.9.Countries with rates close to 1 - such as Japan and Italy - face future labor shortages and eroding tax bases as they fail to reproduce enough to take care of their aging elders. Officials here aren't as worried. The U.S. replacement rate is still close to 2. And it has dropped in the past and then bounced back up again, said Ventura, an official at the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. "And we haven't seen any studies that show couples want to have fewer children or no children," she added. One more report highlight: The U.S. C-section rate may have finally peaked at just under 33 percent, the same level as last year. Cesarean deliveries are sometimes medically necessary. But health officials have worried that many C-sections are done out of convenience or unwarranted caution, and in the 1980s set a goal of keeping the national rate at 15 percent. The C-section rate had been rising steadily since 1996, until it dropped slightly in 2010. "It does suggest the upward trend may be halted," said Joyce Martin, a CDC epidemiologist who co-authored the new report. But CDC officials want a few more years of data before declaring victory, she added. apnews.myway.com/article/20121003/DA1LRMIG0.html
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Oct 3, 2012 15:58:43 GMT -6
New Baby Bust Today the National Center for Health Statistics released its preliminary report on births in 2011, confirming the big trend of this post-Great Recession era: a baby bust is in progress. If the government's writers were permitted to use exclamation marks in their reports, this particular report would be littered with them. Take a look... In 2011, there were 3,953,593 births in the United States. This was 1 percent fewer than the 3,999,386 final count for 2010 and 8 percent below the all-time high of 4,316,233 births in 2007. The 2011 fertility rate fell to an all-time low of 63.2 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44. Did you get that? All time low!The birth rate for women aged 20 to 24 is the lowest ever recorded--85.3 births per 1,000 women in the age group. Young adults are postponing childbearing as they struggle in the wake of the Great Recession. Among women aged 25 to 29, the birth rate fell to 107.2 births per 1,000 women in the age group--the lowest rate since 1976, a baby-bust year. By race and Hispanic origin, the birth rate dropped the most among Hispanics--down 6 percent between 2010 and 2011 to 75.7 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44. The rate fell 2 percent among black women to 65.5 and was unchanged among non-Hispanic white women at 58.8. Births to unmarried women fell between 2010 and 2011, but the percentage of births to unmarried women remains above 40 percent. Teenagers accounted for only 18 percent of births to unmarried women in 2011, the smallest percentage ever recorded and down from 50 percent in 1970. The first-birth rate fell to an all-time low in 2011 as young women postponed motherhood. The second-birth rate fell to the lowest level since 1940. Bottom line: demographers will tell you that postponed childbearing means less childbearing--fewer lifetime births, smaller families, and the arrival of another baby-bust generation. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Births: Preliminary Data for 2011 www.cdc.gov/nchs/births.htm demomemo.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Oct 3, 2012 23:04:50 GMT -6
US slowly dying, 1.9 birthrate America currently is slowly dying and propping up entrench banks while type 2 consumers, the lower 80% decline, put off having children, put off getting married, etc. If America fails to sweep away the entrench industries and fails to replace old technology with new production methods, then the doom will last 30 years as happened in 1870 to 1900 in America. An example of this currently is Japan's 23 and ongoing slowly dying culture and finances. No, I don't agree. Current technology is more than adequate to keep up with everything. Furthermore, those "dying" industries are not dying at all. They're being sent overseas to be performed by impoverished semi-slave labor that works for a fraction of what Americans make. You've bought into the popular myth that the American economy is sinking because of lack of skills and lack of innovation and reliance on "old" industries. Again, this is complete nonsense. Americans still buy all of the products of the "old" industries, and in the same amounts and proportions they did 30 years ago. It's just that our small and large appliances--our telephones, TVs, washing machines, dryers, air conditioners, power tools, cars, car parts, record-player equivalents (i.e. CD & DVD players,), ships, hand tools, office equipment, and damn near everything else are being made by cheap non-American labor. These are NOT dying industries. These are industries whose labor has been moved overseas--and have thus been forced into senescence by Global Feudalistic Corporate America. All of these industries are alive and well. But their production is occurring overseas (while the sale of their product is still occurring in the domestic American market to exactly the same degree and market share it was occurring at 30 years earlier. This does not indicating "dying" industries. It indicates stolen industries--industries stolen from American workers by the very Corporate American parasites who profiteer by shipping their jobs overseas. Our population is being replaced at far HIGHER rate than necessary to keep up with labor demand. We need less labor supply (i.e., a LOWER rate of replacement) and more labor demand. We now have over 101 million Americans over age 16 who are not working. We do not need to increase that number.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Oct 4, 2012 10:17:33 GMT -6
US slowly dying, 1.9 birthrate America currently is slowly dying and propping up entrench banks while type 2 consumers, the lower 80% decline, put off having children, put off getting married, etc. If America fails to sweep away the entrench industries and fails to replace old technology with new production methods, then the doom will last 30 years as happened in 1870 to 1900 in America. An example of this currently is Japan's 23 and ongoing slowly dying culture and finances. No, I don't agree. Current technology is more than adequate to keep up with everything. Furthermore, those "dying" industries are not dying at all. They're being sent overseas to be performed by impoverished semi-slave labor that works for a fraction of what Americans make. You've bought into the popular myth that the American economy is sinking because of lack of skills and lack of innovation and reliance on "old" industries. Again, this is complete nonsense. Americans still buy all of the products of the "old" industries, and in the same amounts and proportions they did 30 years ago. It's just that our small and large appliances--our telephones, TVs, washing machines, dryers, air conditioners, power tools, cars, car parts, record-player equivalents (i.e. CD & DVD players,), ships, hand tools, office equipment, and damn near everything else are being made by cheap non-American labor. These are NOT dying industries. These are industries whose labor has been moved overseas--and have thus been forced into senescence by Global Feudalistic Corporate America. All of these industries are alive and well. But their production is occurring overseas (while the sale of their product is still occurring in the domestic American market to exactly the same degree and market share it was occurring at 30 years earlier. This does not indicating "dying" industries. It indicates stolen industries--industries stolen from American workers by the very Corporate American parasites who profiteer by shipping their jobs overseas. Our population is being replaced at far HIGHER rate than necessary to keep up with labor demand. We need less labor supply (i.e., a LOWER rate of replacement) and more labor demand. We now have over 101 million Americans over age 16 who are not working. We do not need to increase that number. Here we have a disagreement. Obsolete methods of production and technology will be replaced by new and better methods of production and tech over the decades. If America can not keep up and better yet be the best, then over time America will not likely also keep up and be the best in most areas of commerce and defense. I continue to expect that America will burn the old ties to entrenched political industries such as banking to allow new industries and tech to arise from the competition after enough doom and downfall convinces the voters to select better politicans. I do oppose free trade as now practiced and approve of tariffs. If another country had labor laws and evirnonmental laws equal to ours, then I would consider lowering tariffs for that country alone.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Oct 4, 2012 11:52:06 GMT -6
No, I don't agree. Current technology is more than adequate to keep up with everything. Furthermore, those "dying" industries are not dying at all. They're being sent overseas to be performed by impoverished semi-slave labor that works for a fraction of what Americans make. You've bought into the popular myth that the American economy is sinking because of lack of skills and lack of innovation and reliance on "old" industries. Again, this is complete nonsense. Americans still buy all of the products of the "old" industries, and in the same amounts and proportions they did 30 years ago. It's just that our small and large appliances--our telephones, TVs, washing machines, dryers, air conditioners, power tools, cars, car parts, record-player equivalents (i.e. CD & DVD players,), ships, hand tools, office equipment, and damn near everything else are being made by cheap non-American labor. These are NOT dying industries. These are industries whose labor has been moved overseas--and have thus been forced into senescence by Global Feudalistic Corporate America. All of these industries are alive and well. But their production is occurring overseas (while the sale of their product is still occurring in the domestic American market to exactly the same degree and market share it was occurring at 30 years earlier. This does not indicating "dying" industries. It indicates stolen industries--industries stolen from American workers by the very Corporate American parasites who profiteer by shipping their jobs overseas. Our population is being replaced at far HIGHER rate than necessary to keep up with labor demand. We need less labor supply (i.e., a LOWER rate of replacement) and more labor demand. We now have over 101 million Americans over age 16 who are not working. We do not need to increase that number. Here we have a disagreement. Obsolete methods of production and technology will be replaced by new and better methods of production and tech over the decades. Obsolete "methods" yes. But Obsolete industries, no. The hue-and-cry from the media is that we don't need all these "old" industries. But we still buy and use all the products of these "old" industries. America has no problem keeping up with latest production methods for goods and services. The problem is that the latest production methods are being employed overseas to produce the goods that all these "old" industries produced here. "New" technology produces all of our computers and electronic gadgetry. And ALL of it used to be produced here, and with the latest technology--most of which was developed here. But that latest technology has all been shipped overseas by America's Global Feudalists to exploit cheap labor, and further drive down wages of American workers by reducing demand for said workers. We don't have any technological deficiency whatsoever. What we have is a "deficiency" in our willingness to protect American-invented technology, and a deficiency in protecting those state-of-the-art technology jobs from competition with low-waged foreign workers. We have a deficiency in TARIFFS, not Technology. America workers ARE keeping up and still ARE the best in the world. They're just not the cheapest--and that's what really counts to the Plutocrats of the Un-American New World Order.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Oct 4, 2012 12:21:26 GMT -6
Here we have a disagreement. Obsolete methods of production and technology will be replaced by new and better methods of production and tech over the decades. Obsolete "methods" yes. But Obsolete industries, no. The hue-and-cry from the media is that we don't need all these "old" industries. But we still buy and use all the products of these "old" industries. America has no problem keeping up with latest production methods for goods and services. The problem is that the latest production methods are being employed overseas to produce the goods that all these "old" industries produced here. "New" technology produces all of our computers and electronic gadgetry. And ALL of it used to be produced here, and with the latest technology--most of which was developed here. But that latest technology has all been shipped overseas by America's Global Feudalists to exploit cheap labor, and further drive down wages of American workers by reducing demand for said workers. We don't have any technological deficiency whatsoever. What we have is a "deficiency" in our willingness to protect American-invented technology, and a deficiency in protecting those state-of-the-art technology jobs from competition with low-waged foreign workers. We have a deficiency in TARIFFS, not Technology. America workers ARE keeping up and still ARE the best in the world. They're just not the cheapest--and that's what really counts to the Plutocrats of the Un-American New World Order. Yes, I agree .... we now are on the same page. My fear in the low probability area remains that America will not severe the entrenched banks, corporations from political power. I fear the Plutocrats will remain if the politics remain as they are now. So, in a horrible, preverse way I hope that if the economy implodes as I predict the voters will oust the establishment politicans and replace the politics with freedom loving anti globalist politicans. Just as the redwood trees require a forest fire to clear out the small and choking vegitation inorder to sucessfully have its seedling grow so too our capitalism needs a better environment for reform unchallenged by full strength politically entrenched banks and corporations to trick voters into choices such as either Romney or Obama which crush growth of professionals and small businesses. Neither can avoid our now embedded competitive challenges with their current political/economic announced policies. Both will result in the coming bottom estimated at 2016 economically. Anther path which I fear is a longer 'regular depression' of 30 years such as the gradual screwflation or deflation of 1879 to 1900. If America can not select to remove the burden of entrenched banks and corporations, the current status quo would just extend longer into a longer 'regular depression' where the masses ignore the politics with disgust and without revolt such as happen in Great Britain post WWII and Japan from 1989 to now. Bottom line: I remain optimistic that over time America will again regain a sustain growth period of 30+years ... the timing most likely would be after a popular war about 2023 roughly.www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/fire-economy.jpgwww.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/6a00d83452403c69e201157024e8b8970c-pi.jpg
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Oct 4, 2012 23:32:10 GMT -6
Obsolete "methods" yes. But Obsolete industries, no. The hue-and-cry from the media is that we don't need all these "old" industries. But we still buy and use all the products of these "old" industries. America has no problem keeping up with latest production methods for goods and services. The problem is that the latest production methods are being employed overseas to produce the goods that all these "old" industries produced here. "New" technology produces all of our computers and electronic gadgetry. And ALL of it used to be produced here, and with the latest technology--most of which was developed here. But that latest technology has all been shipped overseas by America's Global Feudalists to exploit cheap labor, and further drive down wages of American workers by reducing demand for said workers. We don't have any technological deficiency whatsoever. What we have is a "deficiency" in our willingness to protect American-invented technology, and a deficiency in protecting those state-of-the-art technology jobs from competition with low-waged foreign workers. We have a deficiency in TARIFFS, not Technology. America workers ARE keeping up and still ARE the best in the world. They're just not the cheapest--and that's what really counts to the Plutocrats of the Un-American New World Order. Yes, I agree .... we now are on the same page. Yes, we certainly are on the same page. VERY well said--especially the forest fire analogy. That's exactly what I'm worried about as well. Will politicians succeed in placating the general public like the Morlocks did with the Eloi in the movie Time Machine? Will they continue to deceive Americans into believing that recovery is right around the corner, and that happy days are almost here again? We need that 'forest fire' to clear away the deadwood and the other decaying vegetation.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Nov 29, 2012 10:28:45 GMT -6
Yes, I agree .... we now are on the same page. Yes, we certainly are on the same page. VERY well said--especially the forest fire analogy. That's exactly what I'm worried about as well. Will politicians succeed in placating the general public like the Morlocks did with the Eloi in the movie Time Machine? Will they continue to deceive Americans into believing that recovery is right around the corner, and that happy days are almost here again? We need that 'forest fire' to clear away the deadwood and the other decaying vegetation. America's growth ended about 1999, Japan peaked earlier about 1989, the "West" ended its growth. Why? Because the Kondratieff theory explains that excessive entrenched govt and corporate relationships stiffled or stopped the destruction of older industries and tech by substituting a corrupt and manipulative FIRE Economy of traders, financiers, etc. The slow platue or topping period has be about as previously experienced with a top in commodities and decline in commodities without leading into hyperinflation ... again Japan demonstrated the path to zero interest rates, bouts of deflation, avoiding destruction of corporate & banking entrenched FIRE industries ... followed by the same path in the EU & America. www.caseyresearch.com/gsd/sites/default/files/Steve%201.pngWhy there are there no political revolutions in the West? Because as ancient Rome provided a solution to ease through the decline: "Bread & Circuses". Govts accross the world provided 'support' to avoid food riots and political riots with free entertainment and free food. Those lesser sophisticate nations across the world unwilling or unable to provide "Bread & Circuses" had revolutions such as the sweeping 'Arab Spring' in Northern Africa and the Middle East. www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2012/11-2/20121127_LostDecade.png
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Nov 29, 2012 10:58:59 GMT -6
More and more now rent including in the above "unaffordable" rental states ... how?
Because govt helps pay the rent with various methods: rent control, govt limits including Section 8 payments, tax credits, interest deductions with accelerated depreciation, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Nov 30, 2012 9:59:51 GMT -6
Demographers, sociologists, pyschologists, politicans all recognize the simple categories of the rich, the middle class, the lower class. My jeffolie view: the most common American, average person suffers from higher expenses while also suffering from declining value of their assets and savings especially adjusted for the changing HOUSEHOLD to under 50% married creating drastic lifestyle changes to CHILDREN who rarely grow to 18 with their biological father as still married to their biological mother... America's slowly dying as Japan has a 10 year headstart plus the EU rather than slowly, now the EU quickly is dying.========================================= " ...from a November 26th article by Doug Short over at the advisorperspectives.com Internet site. The article [with lots of other excellent charts] is headlined Median Household Incomes: The "Real" Story...and I found it in yesterday's edition of the King Report. The link is here. advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Median-Household-Income-Update.phpwww.caseyresearch.com/gsd/sites/default/files/Real%20Median%20Household%20Income.gif[my jeffolie footnotes to the Doug Short chart...please note that 1. Doug Short's inflation adjustment comes only from the govt's manipulative, lying, understated numbers 2. the collapse of middle class and lower class wealth DOES NOT APPEAR in median incomes adjusted for inflation 3. the collapse from 'married' to not married DOES NOT APPEAR THUS IGNORING CHILDREN]
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 30, 2012 23:21:03 GMT -6
Why there are there no political revolutions in the West? Because as ancient Rome provided a solution to ease through the decline: "Bread & Circuses". Govts accross the world provided 'support' to avoid food riots and political riots with free entertainment and free food. Those lesser sophisticate nations across the world unwilling or unable to provide "Bread & Circuses" had revolutions such as the sweeping 'Arab Spring' in Northern Africa and the Middle East. You really nailed it here. Americans have been "entertained" into ignoring their declining living standards and their future economic prospects. Americans are now perpetually enamored and preoccupied with their essentially worthless new electronic gadgetry, like Iphones and Ipads, which both distract them from their downward spiral, and delude them into thinking that they now possess some new, productive, "advanced" technology. But they don't. What they have is a devious, counter-productive toy that reduces productivity and the ability to think independently. Americans of yesteryear understood that independent thinking--free from distractions and outside input from other sources--had real value. But no more. Now every half-wit thought is immediately regurgitated to all of a person's twit-brained pseudo-friends, with instantaneous (and worthless) feedback. Good and creative ideas aren't originated through "group-think" or herd mentality. They're originated by the singular thought of a single individual sitting down and giving a problem, or a new concept, some independent analysis. The new anti-innovative I-tard contraptions prevent that, by encouraging instantaneous contact and feedback on every half-baked idea that comes into the head of a distracted I-tard contraption user. I-tard devices are the real "bread-and-circuses" of today. But unlike the government financing of bread-and-circuses of Roman times, today's I-tard mania equivalent puts money in the hands of private entities. These are the very same private entities that have shipped American jobs overseas and and are consequently destroying our industrial base and pushing American workers into poverty.
|
|
|
Post by spudbuddy on Dec 1, 2012 0:33:57 GMT -6
US slowly dying, 1.9 birthrate America currently is slowly dying and propping up entrench banks while type 2 consumers, the lower 80% decline, put off having children, put off getting married, etc. If America fails to sweep away the entrench industries and fails to replace old technology with new production methods, then the doom will last 30 years as happened in 1870 to 1900 in America. An example of this currently is Japan's 23 and ongoing slowly dying culture and finances. No, I don't agree. Current technology is more than adequate to keep up with everything. Furthermore, those "dying" industries are not dying at all. They're being sent overseas to be performed by impoverished semi-slave labor that works for a fraction of what Americans make. You've bought into the popular myth that the American economy is sinking because of lack of skills and lack of innovation and reliance on "old" industries. Again, this is complete nonsense. Americans still buy all of the products of the "old" industries, and in the same amounts and proportions they did 30 years ago. It's just that our small and large appliances--our telephones, TVs, washing machines, dryers, air conditioners, power tools, cars, car parts, record-player equivalents (i.e. CD & DVD players,), ships, hand tools, office equipment, and damn near everything else are being made by cheap non-American labor. These are NOT dying industries. These are industries whose labor has been moved overseas--and have thus been forced into senescence by Global Feudalistic Corporate America. All of these industries are alive and well. But their production is occurring overseas (while the sale of their product is still occurring in the domestic American market to exactly the same degree and market share it was occurring at 30 years earlier. This does not indicating "dying" industries. It indicates stolen industries--industries stolen from American workers by the very Corporate American parasites who profiteer by shipping their jobs overseas. Our population is being replaced at far HIGHER rate than necessary to keep up with labor demand. We need less labor supply (i.e., a LOWER rate of replacement) and more labor demand. We now have over 101 million Americans over age 16 who are not working. We do not need to increase that number. Aye - that's a good and tasy bone to chew. If all those products were still being manufactured in America by American workers, what would our unemployment rate look like? More important: the sustainability of this production - would it not promote sustainable employment? And if the products were good quality and sold well as a result, at good prices (not bargain-basement) would this not produce the kind of employment that provided living wages? And if this were so, how many young people whose college careers have been utter failures, would instead be in circumstances far different...as productive workers, citizens, raising families and consuming the products they make (and being able to afford to do so!) Somehow (somebody somewhere once thought) we were all supposed to acquire expensive educations, and sit around and provide "service" by fiddling with technological apps, tapping computer keys and, I dunno...just wear white shirts and blouses and keep our fingernails clean. Somebody goofed. And that bill of goods has cost an awful lot of grief. As society has become somehow, more and more relentlessly pornographic (in its intent) fewer babies are born. That's an interesting fact, isn't it? People aren't having kids one way or another, because basically they can't afford them - for all kinds of lousy reasons. A socio-economic infrastructure that works very well for high-income earners, but not well at all for anyone else - is ultimately a fool's game on a national scale. The coporatistas and all their attendent handmaidens and henchmen who dreamed this up are wrecking the world. America may be the greatest, fattest canary in the coalmine. One the world would do best to pay attention to. When that canary stops singing, better run fast.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Dec 1, 2012 12:41:24 GMT -6
Study: American Households Hit 43-Year Low In Net WorthNovember 30, 2012 According to a new NYU study, middle and lower-class household net worth has fallen to a 43-year low. WASHINGTON (CBS DC) The median net worth of American households has dropped to a 43-year low as the lower and middle classes appear poorer and less stable than they have been since 1969. According to a recent study by New York University economics professor Edward N. Wolff, median net worth is at the decades-low figure of $57,000 (in 2010 dollars). And as the numbers in his study reflect, the situation only appears worse when all the statistics are taken as a whole. According to Wolff, between 1983 and 2010, the percentage of households with less than $10,000 in assets (using constant 1995 dollars) rose from 29.7 percent to 37.1 percent. The less than $10,000 figure includes the numerous households that have no assets at all, or negative assets, which is otherwise known as debt. Over that same period of time, the wealthiest 1 percent of American households increased their average wealth by 71 percent. As noted by Daily Finance, from 1983 to 2010 the share of total wealth held by the richest 10 percent of American households increased from 68.2 percent to 76.7 percent. Meanwhile, all the rest of Americans lost financial ground. An August Pew Research Center study found that many in the middle-class are divided on how they believe his gap widened. Fully 85 percent of self-described middle-class adults say it is more difficult now than it was a decade ago for middle-class people to maintain their standard of living. Of those who feel this way, 62 percent say a lot of the blame lies with Congress, while 54 percent say the same about banks and financial institutions, 47 percent about large corporations, 44 percent about the Bush administration, 39 percent about foreign competition and 34 percent about the Obama administration. Just 8 percent put a lot of blame on the middle class itself. This downbeat take on their economic situation comes at the end of a decade in which, for the first time since the end of World War II, mean family incomes declined for Americans in all income tiers, the Pew Report stated. But the middle-income tier defined in this Pew Research analysis as all adults whose annual household income is two-thirds to double the national median is the only one that also shrunk in size, a trend that has continued over the past four decades. Wolff focus on total wealth not only measures how much money a household brings in, but also the amount it accumulates. This latter number is very significant economically secure households are generally more comfortable spending their disposable income, and are less likely to become a drag on the social safety net. washington.cbslocal.com/2012/11/30/study-american-households-hit-43-year-low-in-net-worth/
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Dec 1, 2012 14:03:55 GMT -6
HIGHER DEBTS, falling median incomes, no unions of size = continued trends for yearsBlame the FED if you want. Other countries such as Japan, the region of the EU, individual US States, Cities, Counties etc ran up debts and unseen obligations to pay .... without the FEDWhat happens when one does not pay ... deflation Inflation in the form of wage-push inflation can not happen as long as the chart below continues to show the red line "ratio of personal income to personal expenditures" long term declining ... simply put the most common American is broke, poorer, saves little Other kinds of inflation might happen or not ... the rhyme of history favors no hyperinflation and includes bouts of deflation coming to America just like Japan, Spain, Greece, Italy Obama favors supporting banks, corporations, raising taxes, more govt programs ... not increasing wagesmy jeffolie view: Over the Fiscal Cliff we will go because Obama can blame Republicans to get the tax increases he wants ... no hyperinflation seems likely from current Obama & Senate Politics in America. ====================================== www.financialarmageddon.com/2012/12/from-panzner-insights-the-downside-of-easy-money.htmlLeaving aside the question of whether correlation equals causation, there appears to be a strong link between the level of U.S. interest rates and the overall health of the U.S. economy. As the chart shows, the Federal Reserve-orchestrated slide in interest rates over the past three decades has been accompanied by a falling savings rate, a narrowing of the gap between personal income and expenditures, and a substantial increase in total credit market debt. While there may be more to it than that, including government policies that favor debt over equity and a deregulation trend that encouraged bad behavior by banks and other financial intermediaries, one could readily conclude that the Fed’s current aggressive monetary stance is doing little to return the economy to good health. panzner.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451591e69e2017c342baf20970b-pi
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 1, 2012 23:30:20 GMT -6
That's a really interesting connection between interest rates and the declining amount of US purchase that are financed through borrowing/credit, as opposed to wages.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Dec 2, 2012 12:41:44 GMT -6
That's a really interesting connection between interest rates and the declining amount of US purchase that are financed through borrowing/credit, as opposed to wages. As the structure of American households became under 50% married down from 80% married, the single head of households more often became less credit worthy ... to the point that a noticeable fraction can not even qualify to open a checking account resulting in less credit available for the most common American.I witnessed an embrassing example: A person who has had a steady job for the last 3 years failled to be accepted by ING Direct for an Orange Electric CHECKING ACCOUNT because in 2008 he was late for 3 car payments. This person could not qualify for a simple checking account which had been offering a Black Friday deal including a bonus of $125 to open a no minimum, no fees checking account for which I had emailed him an offer link.The damage of the current societial decline remains www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/household-income-real-median-growth-since-2000.gif
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Dec 31, 2012 19:21:17 GMT -6
my jeffolie view: this " regular depression for the most common American" resembles the similar impact on the birthrate as the Great Depressions' also very low birthrate and low population growth. =============================================== U.S. on Pace for Slowest Decade of Population Growth Since 1930sDec 30, 2012 The US population is on track for its slowest decade of growth since the Great Depression. The Census Bureau estimates there will be 315.1 million people living in the country on New Year’s Day, a 0.73 percent rise from last year’s estimate and 2.05 percent more than the most recent census count in April 2010. At the current pace, the nation’s population will grow by 7.3 percent during the decade, the lowest level since the 7.25 percent increase recorded between 1930 and 1940, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The Census Bureau estimates there will be 315.1 million people living in the U.S. on New Year’s Day. The slow rate of growth during the first part of the decade indicates the U.S. continues to emerge slowly from the worst economic downturn since the 1930s. The nation’s birth rate and immigration fell in the aftermath of the 2007-09 recession. Between 2000 and 2010, the Census Bureau reported the nation’s population grew by 9.7 percent. William Frey, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program, said one bright spot is that mountain states in the West were among the fastest- growing places in the nation. “There are some signs of growth in Nevada and Arizona, states that were hit particularly hard by the recession,” he said. Dakota Leads North Dakota, propelled by an energy boom, registered a 2.2 percent population increase between 2011 and 2012, according to census figures released earlier this month. It was trailed by the District of Columbia, which reported a 2.15 percent growth rate to reach its highest population total since 1987. The nation’s capital has lost 20 percent of its population over the last half-century, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Five of the 10 fastest-growing states between 2011 and 2012 were in the West. Wyoming, the least-populous state in the nation, grew 1.6 percent to 576,412 people. Utah, Nevada and Colorado increased their population by about 1.4 percent, and Arizona gained 1.3 percent to 6.6 million residents. Two states lost population during the year. Vermont shed 0.1 percent of its residents to 626,011, and Rhode Island dipped 0.03 percent to 1.05 million people. West Virginia, which ranks No. 3 among states with the oldest median age of people, added 0.03 percent to its population, giving it almost exactly the same number of residents as it had in 1960. www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-31/u-s-on-pace-for-slowest-decade-of-population-growth-since-1930s.html
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 31, 2012 22:42:00 GMT -6
Slow population growth is EXACTLY what we need.
It will slow the growth (and supply) of the labor force, thus putting upward pressure on the "price" of labor--or at least offset some of the current downward pressure on the price of labor.
Slow population growth is a good thing for American labor and workers. Workers will be less plentiful, making them more scarce and thus more valuable individually to employers.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Jan 1, 2013 13:23:44 GMT -6
US DECLINING DOMESTICALLYThe lack of population growth ties to the lack of spending from residential building and related purchases for newborns. ... this creates a JAPAN like stall in housing and apparel, etc. Add in the reduced govt 'fiscal' spending' ontop of increased taxes, the result in a smaller amount of median income available to spend ... dooming the GDP to a lower govt number in 2013 than in 2012. JOBS STALLING" ... U.S. Job Openings as well as the Conference Board’s Employment Trends Index (shown advanced in the figure below) suggest payroll growth stalls beginning in December through June of next year. ... " Jobs related to the housing bounce are from rehabbing low end houses into rental income investments, not new family formations which often comes from men asking women to marry plus having newborns needing more 'rug room' for the rug roaming crawling children. DECLINING LABOR PARTICIPATIONThe young adults have been decimated when failing to get jobs while the 55+ generation have gained part time and full time work. The net result continues to be fewer private employees supporting ever increasing govt dependents such as food stamps and disability participants ontop of retiring boomers signing up for SS. ============================================ www.financialsense.com/sites/default/files/users/u163/images/2012/1228/03-jobs.jpg" ... the U.S. economy may hit a rough patch in Q1 as employment growth looks set to stall. U.S. Job Openings as well as the Conference Board’s Employment Trends Index (shown advanced in the figure below) suggest payroll growth stalls beginning in December through June of next year. The three-month moving average of monthly payroll gains has been 139K as of November, and a decline down to zero growth would certainly raise some eyebrows and elevate market tensions that the fiscal cliff drama is finally taking a toll on the economy. ... " www.financialsense.com/contributors/chris-puplava/stalling-job-growth-spell-trouble-2013
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Jan 1, 2013 13:58:27 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Jan 3, 2013 18:18:03 GMT -6
my jeffolie view: America remains in a secular bear market hurting the most common America. The trend is bad with the current pathetic recovery all due to borrowing without organic growth typical of a depression era most like the Longest Depression of 1870 to 1900 running 30 years. =============================================== Economic History and a Thoughtful Look at the Federal Reserve at 100 America’s Bubble Dependent Economy January 3rd, 2013 Interesting chart (which we marked up) from the JEC of the U.S. Congress illustrating household net worth as a percent personal income. If that doesn’t look like a head and shoulders formation in the making, nothing does! The second chart illustrates why the U.S. economy is so dependent on the wealth effect generated by asset bubbles. It’s stunning to think that average real earnings in the U.S. are almost 11 percent lower than where they were in 1973. Policymakers’ focus should be on increasing worker productivity through: 1) reforming the country’s education system; 2) unleashing entrepreneurship; and 3) in the words of ECB chief, Mario Draghi, “doing whatever it takes” to empower small businesses. This is tough political business, however, so we take the easy way out. The political pandering increases budget deficits, forcing the Fed to repress interest rates and print money to drive up asset prices. The boom side of the cycle is sustained longer than most expect because of the reserve currency status of the dollar. This temporarily generates artificially inflated demand (i.e, fake) through the wealth effect, which eventually collapses when asset markets crash. Wash, rinse, repeat. This is not a good long term economic strategy and sustainable path for permanent wealth creation, folks. It probably won’t change until it is forced upon us and then the adjustment will be more abrupt and disruptive than if policymakers were more pre-emptive. America needs Mario Monti! macromon.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/americas-bubble-dependent-economy/jan2_household-net-worth/macromon.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/americas-bubble-dependent-economy/jan2_real-wages/www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/01/americas-bubble-dependent-economy/
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 3, 2013 23:01:58 GMT -6
What complete and utter B.S.! America doesn't need to 'concentrate on increasing worker productivity.' It needs to 'concentrate' on making sure that American workers are PAID for their already increased productivity, along with ensuring that labor is not outsourced to less productive workers in other countries simply because their wages are lower. This "productivity fairy" needs to be purged from popular jargon. American workers are THE most productive in the world. It's just that their unit labor costs are higher, since less productive 3rd world workers will work for a fraction of what American workers work for, making their cost-per-unit-of-production lower. American workers cannot compete with workers making 1/10th as much, even if they are 5x as productive as those cheaper workers. That's the real problem. The overindulged, lazy-ass author of this article should be taken over to China and made to work in the slave-labor sweat shops that the Chinese workers work in--those same workers that 5x-more-productive Americans have to compete with.
|
|