This Article lists 22 stats that supposedly demonstrate the destruction of the middle class;

finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/the-u.s.-middle-class-is-being-wiped-out-heres-the-stats-to-prove-it-520657.html

The Statistics from the Link;

• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
• A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
• 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
• Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
• For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
• In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
• The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
• In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.
• More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
• or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
• This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
• The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.


My Opinion;

It is a favorite method of those on the right to dismiss the incompetent ramblings of democrats and those on the left as "class warfare" and as attempts by jealous socialists to take money from those who have earned it via the sweat on their brow and redistribute to undeserving sloths; whether it be through a confiscatory tax code or punitive, anti-capitalist labor laws.

But class warfare is not merely a pejorative term for left-wing rhetoric but a reality. Aristotle's politics was a rejection of Plato's favoring of leaving the power in the hands of the elites and an appeal to the aristocracy to empower the masses and encourage a strong, non-degraded and educated middle class with whom they would share power. The mindless groaning between Fox News and MSNBC is nothing new, but Plato v. Aristotle all over again. The conservatives in their words and rhetoric think and seem like they agree with Aristotle, but their policy arguments in fact would be a Platonic wet dream.

It's my opinion that those on the right have been had, scammed and tricked. The average republican I know, loves America, watches football on the weekends, enjoys the satisfaction of cashing a check earned with hard work, takes pride in seeing his children adopt his values and graciously waves an American Flag. These good folks have been tricked into supporting policies that have allowed a few, who aren't patriots and don't see nations, nor flags nor fellow country men but only quarterly profits, to send their jobs to Indians, lower their salaries and reduce their quality of life.

Good Americans on the right have been so caught up with protecting their middle class from ravenous, bleeding heart democrats taking this and giving it to the poor and undeserving that they have missed their entire middle class being stripped away and swallowed up by the very top. Words like "freedom" and "liberty" and "small government" have been perverted and used to hide this war.

Class warfare is real and as Warren Buffet has said; the rich are winning.

Since the 80's, tax rates have been lower than before the tax code was a "mass tax", interest rates have been low and the workforce has had more education than ever but the jobs and careers have continued to disappear.

Being lucky enough to have a job, every day I'm faced with a new task to generate foreign tax credits for someone working for some corporation that does not see Americans, neighbors, nations, ideologies....and I'm generally left with the job of advising people how to move their operations off-shore and generate more foreign-source income in their companies general limitation basket for their FTC's which, along with other reasons grounded in the realities of free trade will cost more hard-working republican white americans jobs. That pretty much sums up most of my days. I help rich people rape white middle class americans and then I watch the news or message boards and I listen to the raped defend their rapists; battered women defending their abusive husbands. Now don't get me wrong; I know I'm just one small schmuck in a big world...I'm perfectly well-aware of how unimportant I am and that I could go work at Arby's and stop being a self-righteous douche if I don't like the moral outcomes of my daily work; but the point remains that this is reality. I'm not a good person and take no moral high ground and admit that I'll play my part in pillage and plunder for a wage in these times where jobs are hard to come by and I lack real marketable talent. But it seems, People like Tony Heyward, yachting as the world burns and the blood's on their hands with no true awareness of the harm or pain...lost in perpetual motion on the hedonic treadmill. Real people with emotions and families and conscious awareness of the world who feel pain and sadness are just numbers on a piece of paper. Indifferent to suffering, insensitive to joy...all of life reduced to the common rubble of banality. They are madness and I know well-meaning Republicans are not like this and they will refuse to die with them...not while they can still feel pleasure and pain and love.

The sloth without a job collecting unemployment while not sincerely seeking a job and living hand to mouth is the least of your worries. A Union guy who goes home at 5 o'clock and doesn't treat the job with the same care as a small business owner does, is not the thorn in your side. The hippie who cries for the blood of animals and works at starbucks and can't get a decent house, an education, a modest car and health insurance all at once is not the banshee in the night dragging on the economy. You are on the same team. You have been had. You have been tricked into believing that those at the top who have been hoarding away the economic growth for the last twenty-some years won't plow that extra money into India or bangladesh and will open a factory here in the U.S. of A. You've been swindled to believe that if you think a powerful corporation ought to have to pay decent wages, be patriotic, pay taxes on income earned under the protection of the American Military and at the benefit of our regulated capitalistic system; that it sounds like you're talking like Karl Marx and that you must be some kind of communist.

I'm sure you will say I'm just showing my true socialist and marxist colors; that I've bought fully into the inefficient dream world of welfare economics...that I'm just another liberal who fails to understand economic fundamentals...but I think normal Americans like the average flag waving republican are being screwed and they're being pawned into asking to hold the screw themselves and shove it up their own ass. Liberty, Justice, democracy....these words have real and true meaning to you....but not to these people....they are tools to be used to loot the American Coffers where there aren't nations....where there's only IBM, Exxon, BP, Arkelor-Mittal, etc. Don't let your true appreciation of a smaller government, of more individual liberty and your belief in faith, hope and charity allow for 20 more years of ass rape.

But, what do I know? Just my two cents. Should probably spend less time by myself on the boat on the weekends thinking such things.

He doesn't mess around, does he? His very first sentence is a blatant, baldfaced lie. While some of the statistics may tend to support the concept of a shrinking middle class, several do nothing of the sort.

"83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people. "

He does this several times. No inference of value can be made without context when statistics like these are presented. Assume for the moment that 25 years ago, that same stat was 87 percent. In that case, the opposite would be true. His "proof" is to toss out a large number that again, has no meaning whatsoever without context.

"A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement."

While it's true that this somewhat supports the writer's claim, it's equally true that it appears that the wounds are in some significant part self-inflicted.

"Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009."

So part of the "problem" is that people are leaving the middle class - by entering the upper class. The absolute silliness of such an argument in and of itself should earn the writer asshat status.

Talk about starting with a conclusion, and misshaping, and flat out making up arguments to support it. Pathetic.

queencitybuckeye;433102 wrote:He doesn't mess around, does he? His very first sentence is a blatant, baldfaced lie. While some of the statistics may tend to support the concept of a shrinking middle class, several do nothing of the sort.

"83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people. "

He does this several times. No inference of value can be made without context when statistics like these are presented. Assume for the moment that 25 years ago, that same stat was 87 percent. In that case, the opposite would be true. His "proof" is to toss out a large number that again, has no meaning whatsoever without context.

"A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement."

While it's true that this somewhat supports the writer's claim, it's equally true that it appears that the wounds are in some significant part self-inflicted.

"Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009."

So part of the "problem" is that people are leaving the middle class - by entering the upper class. The absolute silliness of such an argument in and of itself should earn the writer asshat status.

Talk about starting with a conclusion, and misshaping, and flat out making up arguments to support it. Pathetic.

So you're OK with America turning into a 2 class society? Most Americans don't want a 2 class society. Marx predicted this...looks like he was right.

You're whole post just sounds like jealousy of the upper class. They worked there way to the top, and who is to say what they should do with there money. I will give you that Corporate America does not care about the little guy (but who does), but that sloth collecting unemployment, the hippies wanting redistribution of wealth, cap n trade, etc. are not on my "team".

iclfan2;433161 wrote:You're whole post just sounds like jealousy of the upper class. They worked there way to the top, and who is to say what they should do with there money. I will give you that Corporate America does not care about the little guy (but who does), but that sloth collecting unemployment, the hippies wanting redistribution of wealth, cap n trade, etc. are not on my "team".

So you're OK with the US becoming a 2 class society too? You sound like a Marx sympathizer to me. As to Boat Shoes, pretty solid post. If you work for corporate America, then you are part of the anti America crowd. But because you have mouths to feed, you are forced to suck corporate cock, as they steal all the wealth of the middle class.

Too many conservatives are too fucking stupid to see what's really happening here.

Ha I don't care how many classes there are. That doesn't affect me. As long as I have a job, (because I got good grades in HS and College), and can support myself I'm cool. I don't go around hating rich people for working their ass off. I work for Corporate America and I don't love it or hate it. It is what it is, without it, I'd have no job. And what are conservatives too stupid to see? All I see is a bunch of people bitching about the success of other people and wanting a piece of THEIR pie. Explain why people should hate the rich... Also, I don't even know what you mean by MArx Sympathizer.

I agree with many of the points made in the original post, but in my opinion the reasons for the eroding of the middle class are not what you will hear many people suggest. Tax rates have very little to do with it. A more progressive tax structure would accomplish almost nothing in solving the problem. Also, protectionist trade policies will not solve the problem. It might make things seem like they are getting better for a while until we realize that no one can afford the new products being made here.

I am willing to bet that if we could see a breakdown of those statistics, the wealthiest of the wealthy are the executives of the many monopolies and oligopolies that our economy runs on and has for many decades. Banks, pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, car companies. All of these industries are dominated by a small number of government supported giant companies. By being too big to fail or outright backed by the government, it gives these companies license to fleece consumers and customers, either with high prices or risky investments or taking our tax money, because these companies have no fear of ever going out of business. The money flies right out of our pockets and into theirs.

Break up these companies and you have competition, lower prices, and no reason for the government to back a company that is small enough to fail without a huge impact on the economy. Do this in every industry and prices come down for everything. That's more money in our pockets and less in the executive's account. I've said it too many times before, and it will never happen, but it is the only sustainable solution.

Cleveland Buck;433270 wrote:I agree with many of the points made in the original post, but in my opinion the reasons for the eroding of the middle class are not what you will hear many people suggest. Tax rates have very little to do with it. A more progressive tax structure would accomplish almost nothing in solving the problem. Also, protectionist trade policies will not solve the problem. It might make things seem like they are getting better for a while until we realize that no one can afford the new products being made here.

I am willing to bet that if we could see a breakdown of those statistics, the wealthiest of the wealthy are the executives of the many monopolies and oligopolies that our economy runs on and has for many decades. Banks, pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, car companies. All of these industries are dominated by a small number of government supported giant companies. By being too big to fail or outright backed by the government, it gives these companies license to fleece consumers and customers, either with high prices or risky investments or taking our tax money, because these companies have no fear of ever going out of business. The money flies right out of our pockets and into theirs.

Break up these companies and you have competition, lower prices, and no reason for the government to back a company that is small enough to fail without a huge impact on the economy. Do this in every industry and prices come down for everything. That's more money in our pockets and less in the executive's account. I've said it too many times before, and it will never happen, but it is the only sustainable solution.

In other words...a true free market system that Adam Smith, the recognized father of free markets dictating prices...as opposed to the plutocracy that the US has become.

Footwedge;433277 wrote:In other words...a true free market system that Adam Smith, the recognized father of free markets dictating prices...as opposed to the plutocracy that the US has become.

It's a ridiculous idea, I know.

iclfan2;433234 wrote:Ha I don't care how many classes there are. That doesn't affect me. As long as I have a job, (because I got good grades in HS and College), and can support myself I'm cool. I don't go around hating rich people for working their ass off. I work for Corporate America and I don't love it or hate it. It is what it is, without it, I'd have no job. And what are conservatives too stupid to see? All I see is a bunch of people bitching about the success of other people and wanting a piece of THEIR pie. Explain why people should hate the rich... Also, I don't even know what you mean by MArx Sympathizer.

Hard working conservatives can't seem to understand....they adulate the corporate welfarists and smile as they take it up the ass. That huge sucking sound is really the collective oligarchs grabbing it all. They'll eventually get it all....your 401K and the phony paper IOU's of the social security fund (sic).

The American plutocracy that hard working conservatives fail to recognize.

http://ecolocalizer.com/2010/04/12/plutocracy-reborn-wealth-inequality-gap-largest-since-1928/

A large part of the problem is that the rich no longer have to invest in the real economy in order expand their wealth. In the good old days you needed to create something if you wanted to get rich for the most part. Starting and growing a business was the path to prosperity. In turn Wallstreet at one point had as many as 8 major investment banks that funded business expansion and capital allocation in the real economy.

Now a days though the wealthy need not bother dealing with the real economy. They can make money hand over fist through any of the thousands of investment vehicles (hedge funds and so forth) that have become prevalent the past 25 years and account for a larger and larger percent of this country's GDP. Any and all wealth created is on paper, and is a result of merely moving paper around. It's largely why trickle down economics hasn't really seen the wealth trickle down, because nothing is really being created.

The "jobless recovery" phenomenon of the past 15-20 years is a new idea because never before in the country's history could we have a recovery without jobs, people working, and things being created. Now though all of that is bypassed by through the wonder of financial wizardry and outsourcing.

I don't know what the answer is really, because never in history has it been as easy to make such huge amounts money without ever contributing anything tangible to the economy. We masked the lack of job growth and stagnant wages for the past 20 years by borrowing to fill the gap, but as everyone but the top few percent become tapped out and unable to fuel the bubble any longer, it presents a time of peril never really encountered by this country before.

Footwedge;433156 wrote:So you're OK with America turning into a 2 class society? Most Americans don't want a 2 class society. Marx predicted this...looks like he was right.

What I'm saying is his "facts" don't support that conclusion. Of course, you won't let that stop you from hijacking the thread to go on your "evil corporation rant" for the 1,478th time.

I'm a firm "believer" in the old cliche' "what goes around, comes around."

As I conservative, I'm not going to deny nor ignore many of the points listed in Boatshoes' original rant. In fact I can relate to some of those points on a personal level. The crazy thing is I do not blame the rich for my relationship to many of those issues. Most of them were caused by by own poor life choices and unforeseen circumstances.

This incessant class warfare thing is bullshit. When things are great, nobody seems to care that the rich are, well, rich. But when things get tough jealousy and envy kick in.

I have this funny, perhaps naive, outlook on the American people. You guys all sniffle and lament over the current economic malaise but I rarely hear you admit that this nation has endured worse crises in the past and we have always pulled out of them...usually for the better.

I do not loathe the rich like some of you. There will always be wealthy in any society. Even the great socialist experiment formerly known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had its own "rich" or elites. These were the inner-circle commies who were taking their families on lavish vacations while the rest of the people were standing in long lines for bread, milk, and cheese.

Like it or not the shuffling of "paper wealth" among rich corporatist/individuals is nothing new. We can all sit around and demand that the Feds pass "fair" trade protectionist laws, or regulate the financial industry, etc., etc. but at the end of the day the rich call the shots, pay the bulk of taxes,........and control the government.

I like to think these eeeeevil rich people are smart enough to realize that sooner or later they need to feed the millions of middle class Americans who still live in millions of nice pink houses in nice neighborhoods that make middle class Americans appear "rich" to billions of other humans around the globe. If they don't come through in the end things could get ugly even for the paper pushing rich.

Cliche': Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

I don't think it is necessarily a rich people are evil, get the pitchforks out problem we are dealing with.

The thing I find troubling when you just objectively look at the data is that excessive wealth concentration seems to bread economic collapses. Over the past 100 years, the 2 worst economic crashes we've seen have occurred in lock step with excessive wealth concentration among a very small group. Stating the fact doesn't make one a socialist or class warfare advocate.

What I am interested in is why does America seem to go into economic collapse when wealth is concentrated and taxes are low?

If I knew the answer I wouldn't be here, but putting aside political ideology I think we would all have to admit that it can't just be coincidence that the conditions are so eerily similar right as the bottom fell out of the economy in the 2 worst crisis's we have seen the past century.

"The Statistics from the Link; "

None of which are supported by sources or references. That link has been out for several days and has been heavily criticized for just throwing out numbers.

The thread should have ended with QCB's post. If you can't support your stats, they are worthless.

queencitybuckeye;433351 wrote:What I'm saying is his "facts" don't support that conclusion. Of course, you won't let that stop you from hijacking the thread to go on your "evil corporation rant" for the 1,478th time.

And for the 1,479th time, he appears to confuse the private sector with the goverment.

Its funny to watch the conservatives bash the article because it goes against their beliefs. But reality is the numbers are often cited in other sources and have been found accurate to demonstrate what has been going on. Had a college prof who used to explain the system by using the Game of Monopoly. Pointed out all the ills and wrongs of unbridled capitalism without oversite and rules & regs. Of course, the game ( as in real capitalism) produces a winner and everyone else loses.

The point of the article is lost on conservatives -- the middle class is being murdered, and people will only tolerate the obvious for so long. Lots of folks are well educated, good workers and supporting families but , through no fault of their own, unemployed. Millions & millions & millions of people. Theres a tidal wave coming. Those numbers are translated into real life reality. If you want to know where the masses will line up on the issues, read up on the French Revolution again. Conservatives never get the point.

It is bashed because there are no references. It doesn't matter if you are a conservative, liberal, libertarian or populist. It was a lousy article.

If you have stats with references, feel free to post them. If a tidal wave is coming, to keep it political who is in charge now? Last time I checked it is a DEM senate, a DEM house and a DEM POTUS.

As has been said repeatedly, I question whether some of these numbers are accurate, though, on the whole, I think they're likely in the right ballpark. But they're also being used in misleading fashion by largely focusing on relative wealth rather than absolute (e.g., by saying that the poor are worse off now than they were at time X because their ratio of wealth has gone down, even if their absolute standard of living has drastically increased).

• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.

This isn't so much an indictment of class warfare as much as it is an indictment of the inability of Americans to create emergency funds. Whether this many people are forced to live paycheck to paycheck is different than whether that many people do. In the midst of a recession, I would anticipate that the percentage would go up, so this is meaningless without additional context.

A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.

43% of Americans? If he actually means what he says, that number is including kids and people who aren't working. I would hope that most 7 year olds don't have money saved for retirement. Or does he mean 43% of people over 18? Or 43% of people over 18 who are not currently in college? Or 43% of people over 18 who are not in college and have been in the workforce for a certain period of time? How does this number compare historically? It could be a cause for concern, sure, but without additional info it's tough to draw many conclusions from it.

24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.

I'm not sure why this is an issue re the shrinking middle class. Most people should be postponing retirement and retiring later--unlike 1880, when people did hard manual labor and physically broke down by their 50s and 60s, many people today can work well into their 70s and live into their 80s/90s. Why not retire older?

For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but doesn't this mean that more people have bought homes in the last X years than at any other time in history? The residential housing net worth owned by banks is probably strongly correlated with the recency of the mortgage and general increase in appraisal values. If we think many people bought homes in the last decade (which they did) and that home values have fallen (which they have), which would expect to get this result. We could have avoided this result by not letting people buy homes, but is that really a better solution?

In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.

This is, of course, a cause for concern. But this is an indictment of the welfare state, not the "corporatist" state, as footwedge would put it.

More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.

Would doctors and lawyers fit in the "service job" category? Or bankers? Or hedge fund managers? Certainly fewer people are working on factory lines doing monotonous, hard work, but is this a reason to be upset? Or a reason to celebrate that now intellectual capital and ingenuity are more important than physical strength? I'm glad we're creating more Bill Gates/Steve Jobs sort of "service job" people--we need to do this to compete with the world. It's tough to outperform poorer countries at manual labor, as they're going to do roughly the same thing for cheaper. To stay ahead of the rest of the world, we need to move more toward highly skilled technical and service jobs that leverage our technological advantages. I fail to see why this statistic is a big deal, unless I'm missing something here.

This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.

See above. This is why manual labor and manufacturing jobs are going to have a hard time competing--we can't leverage physical strength enough to give a good standard of living. Our garment workers can't be 100 times more efficient than Cambodians, so competing on price/productivity is a losing battle. The only way we can continue to compete in a global economy and enjoy our standard of living is to be innovative and rely on minds/machines, which provide the only way to maintain the ratios we need.

Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.

As was mentioned earlier, this is a good thing--if the middle class shrinks because people grow out of it, we should celebrate, not panic.

Obviously, some of these statistics are troubling, and it'd be helpful if there were more context and support for them. We have had a bad run over the last 2 years, and though things are picking up, they're taking awhile. I applaud Obama for not blaming the free market and turning protectionist (though there have been calls for it, he has done a pretty decent job fighting off trade barriers). Things will be fine--the sky is not falling--even if it means that certain habits will have to change (i.e. spending beyond one's means, getting a grande with whip double shot caramel light frappuccino every morning, buying a $40k SUV as soon as you finish college, etc.).

If all you libs are wondering why no new jobs are being created despite all this activity (porkulus, financial reform, health reform) the answer is simple: those in business and finances DO NOT TRUST THIS ADMINISTRATION ENOUGH TO INVEST.

The whole system is locked up right now because, rightfully so, business folks figure they have a huge target on their backs and they have no clue what ridiculous legislation will come next (cap and trade) that would tank investment capital used to create jobs. So, they hang on to it and wait, and wait, and wait -- hoping for a signal of something positive toward business from Obama & friends.

But nothing positive is coming, so the jobs aren't coming, either.

You watch: if the Republicans are able to take the House and/or enough seats in the Senate to stymie this crazy legislative agenda, things will start to pick up as investors begin to feel like they aren't going to be shot at (figuratively) by somebody from the government.

Oh and as for all the stats that started this thread: the middle class isn't disappearing. The whole paradigm is shifting NORTH, and has been for 50 or more years. You are seeing more folks getting into the "rich" category, and those who used to be considered poor (under much more reasonable criteria) are now middle class.

If you own a big screen TV, car, cell phone and any number of other luxury items (yes, they are luxury items, for the most part) then YOU ARE NOT POOR. And choosing to live hand to mouth because you spend and don't save is no indication of people being poor or not middle class -- it just proves some people are very poor money managers and probably don't worry about the future -- because they expect the government will bail them out if they need it.

Business's aren't hiring right now not so much because of the administration, but because they don't have to. Earnings season has been great so far. We've had efficiency gains go through the roof during the recession, as businesses have learned to do more with less.

For all the spending that's gone on, the dirty little secret is we are in a virtual period of deflation right now. Businesses won't hire until there is demand, period. No amount of tax cuts, favorable legislation, or any other friendly measures one can think of will change that. Almost 9 million people have lost their job in the recession, and a good portion of those who haven't are tapped on credit. Wages will continue to stagnate as long as unemployment is high, and that only adds to the deflationary pressure. The CPI increased by .1% I think it was last year.

Deflation is great for those who have cash, but it also encourages businesses and people to keep sitting on their money because they know prices will come down in the future. Real Estate is that way right now, as there are plenty of people I suspect holding off on moving as we have not found the bottom of the housing market yet.

Inflation is a nightmare, but in an economy that is as highly levered and debt ridden as ours deflation is a disaster.

Businesses aren't going to hire until there is a demand for their products. The demand isn't going to be there until people are working again. It is a vicious cycle that just keeps spiraling down and does no good for anyone.

I am not sure really there is a blueprint out there to deal with the situation we are in. Quite frankly that kind of scares me a bit because with tax rates near historic lows, interest rates at 0%, and FED financial backstops in the trillions of dollars we should be creating jobs. The fact that 3 years into the recession we aren't, speaks of far bigger problems than Obama's healthcare plan, a 4% increase in taxes or some watered down new financial regulations.

I disagree, businesses don't like uncertainty, and this is the highest level of uncertainty in my lifetime. This administration has been terrible accepting the idea that if you take risks, you can reap the awards, to the point that if you take risks, the awards go back to the government.

There is plenty of demand, but there is no upside to risk, and it IS the current adminstration's fault.

So none of this uncertainty has anything to do with Bush's policies either?

Manhattan Buckeye;433548 wrote:I disagree, businesses don't like uncertainty, and this is the highest level of uncertainty in my lifetime. This administration has been terrible accepting the idea that if you take risks, you can reap the awards, to the point that if you take risks, the awards go back to the government.

There is plenty of demand, but there is no upside to risk, and it IS the current adminstration's fault.

I think the "uncertainty" argument has become a convenient scape goat for the fact that businesses have no intention of hiring in large numbers. It doesn't sell well to the public that corporate profits can be as good as they are, but they still won't hire. Europe is in the tank, and no amount of "certainty" in the U.S is going to fix that.

I just don't see where you see the demand out there. As I said, Europe is in the tank. The American consumer is tapped out, unemployment is at 10% and China is having inflation issues of their own right now that will to an extent put a lid on them growing at an outrageous clip.

Consumer Confidence dropped again to a God awful low number, New housing sales fell to the lowest since the 1960's, and people don't have jobs. In an economy that consists of 70% consumer spending, I can't see how that is a prescription for anything other than a demand problem. Until people believe in the recovery, it isn't going to happen no matter what the government does.

You really think CEO's are going to expand capacity without being able to show their shareholders that there is demand to justify the expansion? Not a chance in this environment.

That leaves us with the classic chicken and the egg problem. While you clearly believe otherwise, business is not going to significantly expand until there is a need to do so. Consumers aren't going to spend until they see jobs being created at livable wages. Both sides are waiting for the other to make the first move.

"While you clearly believe otherwise, business is not going to significantly expand until there is a need to do so."

I do, I see GOVCO as the problem. Steve Forbes agrees with me.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/21/fact-and-comment-opinions-steve-forbes.html?boxes=opinionschanneleditors

Obama has been a disaster. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he simply is incompetent or incapable of dealing with the private sector. Good luck to us all.