The 2000s= Worst decade in American History?

sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
From Monday's Wall Street Journal:
Change in Personal Income
1950s= 28%
1960s= 36%
1970s= 17%
1980s= 23%
1990s= 18%
2000s= 5%
Change in Net Worth
1950s= 26%
1960s= 25%
1970s= 12%
1980s= 35%
1990s= 44%
2000s= -14%
Change in Employment
1950s= 24%
1960s= 31%
1970s= 27%
1980s= 20%
1990s= 20%
2000s= 0.5%
Depressing....
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Don't forget the coming "change" in taxes.
Pretty soon I will be working more hours for the gov't than myself. now, THAT'S depressing.
 
kjr_trig

kjr_trig

Active Member
It is depressing, not going to get any better if we keep sending idiots to Washington. I truly believe our congress this decade could not be more worthless.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3195111
Don't forget the coming "change" in taxes.
Pretty soon I will be working more hours for the gov't than myself. now, THAT'S depressing.
Oddly, for most of those years the taxes were much, much higher and things (according to these stats anyway) were better.
A change in taxes happened in the beginning of the 2000s but as you can see, didn't do much...
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by kjr_trig
http:///forum/post/3195113
It is depressing, not going to get any better if we keep sending idiots to Washington. I truly believe our current congress could not be in more worthless.
We need to fire them all and start from scratch, I'm convinced of that.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
I suffered through the 70's. This is a cake walk. Try unemployment on top of double digit inflation and interest rates.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3195362
I wouldn't what the numbers would do if you threw out 2009...
I thought the same thing, but looking at BEA data for personal income, it doesn't look like it took much of a hit in 2009, it stayed pretty much even (in real dollars anyway). But, to be honest, I can't seem to find this 5% increase, the least I found was 14%. Wish I would have kept that article, but I'm not gonna dig through my recycle bin.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3196357
I thought the same thing, but looking at BEA data for personal income, it doesn't look like it took much of a hit in 2009, it stayed pretty much even (in real dollars anyway). But, to be honest, I can't seem to find this 5% increase, the least I found was 14%. Wish I would have kept that article, but I'm not gonna dig through my recycle bin.
you can go to the BEA's website, and build just about any kind of graph you want too. If you really want to do some research, it is pretty interesting stuff.
 
srfisher17

srfisher17

Active Member
I'm no economist, but I think personal income and net worth numbers are only significant when inflation is factored in. Also, as the baby boomers age, I would expect total employment to have limited growth. The unemployment rate, however is a vital statistic.
I'm always an optimist when it comes to our Country. Right now, the worst thing that could happen would be a 3rd party really taking off---splitting the sanity vote and assuring little change in 2010.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by srfisher17
http:///forum/post/3196978
I'm no economist, but I think personal income and net worth numbers are only significant when inflation is factored in. Also, as the baby boomers age, I would expect total employment to have limited growth. The unemployment rate, however is a vital statistic.
I'm always an optimist when it comes to our Country. Right now, the worst thing that could happen would be a 3rd party really taking off---splitting the sanity vote and assuring little change in 2010.
For the most part, you can assume those number's are ajusted for inflation. Especially when they use dollar amounts. You'll see it say "Real" which means adjusted for inflation. "Nominal" means actual numbers (not ajusted for inflation). Although you do need to check when they're using percentages. That isn't as sure of a bet. Anytime you see numbers quoted in editorials, or from say the huffington post type websites. I'd check it.
 
srfisher17

srfisher17

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3197040
For the most part, you can assume those number's are ajusted for inflation. Especially when they use dollar amounts. You'll see it say "Real" which means adjusted for inflation. "Nominal" means actual numbers (not ajusted for inflation). Although you do need to check when they're using percentages. That isn't as sure of a bet. Anytime you see numbers quoted in editorials, or from say the huffington post type websites. I'd check it.
Yeah., the percentage factor made me assume no inflation adjustment.I have a filter that blocks anything from Arianna Huffington.... remember when she was a conservative?
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3196889
you can go to the BEA's website, and build just about any kind of graph you want too. If you really want to do some research, it is pretty interesting stuff.
That's what I was doing. I was bored, and being an economist nerd, I started looking at data. By the way, have you thought of going to grad school? I start here in January.
Originally Posted by srfisher17
http:///forum/post/3196978
I'm no economist, but I think personal income and net worth numbers are only significant when inflation is factored in. Also, as the baby boomers age, I would expect total employment to have limited growth. The unemployment rate, however is a vital statistic.
I was looking at chained 2005 dollars, so yeah inflation was factored in. I still couldn't find the low number that the WSJ was showing though...
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3197537
That's what I was doing. I was bored, and being an economist nerd, I started looking at data. By the way, have you thought of going to grad school? I start here in January.
I was looking at chained 2005 dollars, so yeah inflation was factored in. I still couldn't find the low number that the WSJ was showing though...
They didn't list the study they pulled it from? Not even the WSJ does their own research.
Not really, I don't have the math, what I'm really thinking about doing is going back and getting another bachelors in engineering (and do a mathematics minor. So I can go back and get a masters for entertainment) Much higher earning potential with an engineering degree. Then see where life goes from there.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3197572
They didn't list the study they pulled it from? Not even the WSJ does their own research.
Not really, I don't have the math, what I'm really thinking about doing is going back and getting another bachelors in engineering (and do a mathematics minor. So I can go back and get a masters for entertainment) Much higher earning potential with an engineering degree. Then see where life goes from there.
It just said it was from BEA data.
leaving the economics realm, heh? I understand, I have to do some remedial math but it is included as "electives."
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3197631
It just said it was from BEA data.
leaving the economics realm, heh? I understand, I have to do some remedial math but it is included as "electives."
Not really leaving per say. Supplimenting. IMO the eventual goal would be to do the business side of a start up... While knowing enough to offer a service too.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3198370
Ok, I should have read that all the way through first, I didn't realize it was such an Opinion column when I only read the first couple paragraphs. I apologize. But the number they use are basically the same.
Sometimes, editorials have better news than the news. I was reading an editorial the other day that came out when Clinton passed legislation expanding the roll of fanny and freddy. And this dude went on to say you know if we have a downturn in the economy What fanny and freddy are doing will be really damaging to the economy. Sure enough 15 years later it happened...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top