Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 9 submissions in the queue.
posted by cmn32480 on Saturday September 17 2016, @11:28AM   Printer-friendly
from the where's-my-trickle-down? dept.

The World Socialist Web Site reports

The Obama administration, the Democratic Party, and their allies in the corporate-controlled media have hailed the Census Bureau report released [September 13], claiming it demonstrates that the US economy has "turned the corner" and that the supposed "economic recovery" is now providing big dividends for working people and even for the poor.

[...] A careful examination of the figures presented in the Current Population Survey (CPS), the formal name of the study, suggests that the hosannas by Obama and the media are premature. The statistical data is not fabricated, but it has been packaged in the light most favorable to the Democrats in the final two months of a hotly contested presidential election.

[...] Many workers who were limited to part-time work in 2014, or were unemployed entirely, went back to work or worked longer hours in 2015. This does not mean they got a raise. A minimum-wage worker who went from 15 hours of work a week in 2014 to 30 hours of work a week in 2015 would see a doubling in his or her income, a 100 percent increase, entirely from longer hours, even as their pay remained abysmally low.

[...] Most new jobs taken by previously unemployed workers were in the low-pay service sectors, like healthcare, restaurants and bars, nursing homes, retail outlets, etc.

[Continues...]

[...] The only section of the population which saw an outright decline in median household income were people living in rural areas, already lower paid on average than people living in cities or suburbs. Their median household income fell 2 percent, to $44,657 annually, more than $15,000 a year behind people living in metropolitan areas (combining cities and suburbs). During the presidential primaries, these areas saw some of the largest votes for Trump, as well as for Sanders.

[...] Obama and the media also hailed the reported drop in the poverty rate.

[...] If one adds up those excluded from the survey--2.3 million prisoners, 1.4 million nursing home residents, 1.2 million in hospices, and 1.1 million in other long-term care settings--that means that some 6 million people are left out.

In addition, as the Census report explains, "Since the CPS is a household survey, people who are homeless and not living in shelters are not included in the sample." Again, a large group of people, at least half a million and perhaps many more, who are all living in poverty, but not counted in the Census report. [...] [If those folks were added in,] the total number of people living in poverty [would be] closer to 50 million Americans.

[...] "During the 4-year period from 2009 to 2012, 34.5 percent of the population had at least one spell of poverty lasting 2 or more months." The number is staggering: about 110 million people. The official poverty line is absurdly low, set now at $24,250 for a family of four, or $11,770 for an individual. But more than one-third of all Americans fell below that abysmal marker for a significant period of time.

An interviewer on my Pacifica Radio affiliate suggested another reason why the *household* income numbers seemed to go up a bit: Adult children moving back in with their parents and adding their part-time poverty-wage income to the total.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 17 2016, @02:33PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday September 17 2016, @02:33PM (#403135) Homepage Journal

    The only section of the population which saw an outright decline in median household income were people living in rural areas, already lower paid on average than people living in cities or suburbs. Their median household income fell 2 percent, to $44,657 annually, more than $15,000 a year behind people living in metropolitan areas (combining cities and suburbs). During the presidential primaries, these areas saw some of the largest votes for Trump, as well as for Sanders.

    No shit? That might be because their cost of living is a hell of a lot less than that of living in any significant city/suburb. Minimum wage is in fact a living wage in most rural areas. Someone making $45k in a rural area can afford a new car, a car they've had a few years, a 3-4 bedroom house payment, a couple of kids, whatever gadgets strike their fancy, and probably a nice bass boat if they otherwise watch their pennies.

    Include objective standard of living when you're making comparisons like that or they're straight-up lying by numbers.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Sunday September 18 2016, @03:40PM

    by Hyperturtle (2824) on Sunday September 18 2016, @03:40PM (#403409)

    You know the saying. Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

  • (Score: 2) by darnkitten on Monday September 19 2016, @01:39AM

    by darnkitten (1912) on Monday September 19 2016, @01:39AM (#403577)

    Minimum wage is in fact a living wage in most rural areas

    In my rural area, minimum won't pay rent plus power, and 45k is two and two-thirds minimum wage incomes, pre-tax.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 19 2016, @01:51AM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday September 19 2016, @01:51AM (#403582) Homepage Journal

      This makes me question exactly wtf kind of place you're expecting to live in on minimum wage.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by darnkitten on Monday September 19 2016, @02:27AM

        by darnkitten (1912) on Monday September 19 2016, @02:27AM (#403595)

        This makes me question exactly wtf kind of place you're expecting to live in on minimum wage.

        That's the question, isn't it?

        It's a seller's market, and even crap trailers rent for more than a decent apartment in the closest city (90 minutes away, over a mountain pass); meanwhile, the construction companies are erecting vacation homes and McMansions that stand empty in uninhabited subdivisions in anticipation of the economy suddenly turning around.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 19 2016, @10:10AM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday September 19 2016, @10:10AM (#403663) Homepage Journal

          Must be a regional thing. It's currently a buyers' market in the areas I can speak to. There's been no housing recovery since the big crash and previously $100K homes are easily had for $60K any day of the week. Rent? You can be in a three bedroom home in either OK or TN for $400/mo unless you're looking to live in a neighborhood beyond your means.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.