Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 17 2016, @02:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 17 2016, @02:35PM (#403137)

    CEOs and their boards are obsessed with keeping quarterly earnings on a nice upward trend for the Street. They'll merge, divest, close plants, send jobs offshore, cut benefits for their employees, drop product lines, or do whatever it takes based on three weeks study with the assistance of MBA consultants from Bain or McKinsey, to try to get there. Do anything, that is, except reduce the 8-figure USD compensation for senior management because that represents a "drop in the bucket" and "false economy" in view of the high leverage in the hands of those in power.

    I'm convinced that this financially oriented, winner-take-all mentality is tied to the income tax cuts, which disproportionately reward the high income brackets, which are invariably one of the first actions of a Republican Presidential administration. Reagan did it, and the result was the S&L scandal of the late '80s and the recession of 1990-1993. And incidentally, the management fad of "re-engineering the corporation" (mass layoffs) became in vogue at that time. George W Bush did it, and the result was the home mortgage bubble of the '00s and the Crash of '08.

    Some, but not all, of the Bush tax cuts have since been repealed.

    HRC will raise taxes on the 1 percent. I think that's important not because the Federal government needs more money, or even as a way of reducing economic inequality. Rather, it's a signal to the corporate world that this isn't about finding superstars of short-term balance sheet and P&L manipulation. You guys, instead, need to find managers who will build long term value (think: Jeff Bezos instead of Meg Whitman for example).

    BTW Trump has promised to do the opposite. He'll bring back the Bush tax cuts, only on steroids so Wall Street and corporate America will be off to the races again.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 17 2016, @04:00PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 17 2016, @04:00PM (#403158) Journal

    So, you think Hillary is going to increase taxes on herself? You DO realize that she was born into wealth, and that she has been pretty damned rich all her life. That bullshit about being flat broke when she and Bill left the White House? Tell me that you didn't fall for that one.

    Hillary is part of the Ruling Class, and she isn't about to spoil the little party which she hopes to host.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 17 2016, @04:39PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 17 2016, @04:39PM (#403170)

      > So, you think Hillary is going to increase taxes on herself?

      Yes. They already pay a significantly higher effective tax rate [cnbc.com] than most rich people - 43.2%

      • (Score: 2) by tibman on Sunday September 18 2016, @03:45AM

        by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 18 2016, @03:45AM (#403285)

        The headline of that article says 34% in 2015. The 2015 tax bracket from the IRS website says 34% if for people making less than 411,000$: https://www.irs.com/articles/2015-federal-tax-rates-personal-exemptions-and-standard-deductions [irs.com]

        --
        SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2016, @05:36PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2016, @05:36PM (#403446)

          Did you seriously decide to write a post instead of read the entire article? It isn't that long.

          • (Score: 2) by tibman on Sunday September 18 2016, @10:03PM

            by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 18 2016, @10:03PM (#403528)

            Bad assumption. I had read it entirely before posting.

            --
            SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 17 2016, @07:30PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 17 2016, @07:30PM (#403201)

      > So, you think Hillary is going to increase taxes on herself?

      Bill raised them from Reagan's top rate of 28% to 39%.
      Why would Hillary be any different?

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Saturday September 17 2016, @04:50PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Saturday September 17 2016, @04:50PM (#403175) Journal

    HRC will raise taxes on the 1 percent. I think that's important not because the Federal government needs more money, or even as a way of reducing economic inequality.

    I accept that a man might vote for Hillary because he fears Trump, but actually buying into the lies she's peddling is a bridge too far. Hillary will not raise taxes on the 1 percent. The only thing she might be interested in is concocting some kind of scheme to blow smoke up everyone's ass, pretending to reduce economic inequality, while actually ramping up by several orders of magnitude because she is corrupt and evil. She did not get those speaking fees from Goldman Sachs because she is going to take them to the cleaners.

    I understand that the economy is bad, but don't take their dirty money to shill for them like this. Once you sell your soul you never get it back.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 17 2016, @04:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 17 2016, @04:59PM (#403178)

      What makes your theories any more believable than her "lies?"

      As far as I can tell your post is just angry feels.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Saturday September 17 2016, @05:50PM

      by hemocyanin (186) on Saturday September 17 2016, @05:50PM (#403184) Journal

      This is a Clinton we're talking about where honesty and lies commingle in strangely honest ways. HRC could very well increase "income" tax on the extremely wealthy and live up to her promise while cutting taxes for the 1%. Remember how Steve Jobs paid himself $1/yr wages? She could raise taxes to 90% and he wouldn't care because he didn't get rich via "income" as that word is used by the IRS.

      You can never take anything a Clinton says at face value because while it may be true, it will totally fuck the average person.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 17 2016, @07:38PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 17 2016, @07:38PM (#403202)

        Your entire theory is premised on the idea that all Clinton has is face value. She's the most wonkish candidate for president that the country has ever had. The exact details for her tax increase are on her website. Here's a summary of her plan for capital gains taxes and unsurprisingly it is exactly what the OP suggested:

        "Rather, it's a signal to the corporate world that this isn't about finding superstars of short-term balance sheet and P&L manipulation. You guys, instead, need to find managers who will build long term value (think: Jeff Bezos instead of Meg Whitman for example)."

        Currently, profits on the sale of an asset held for one year or less are considered short-term and are taxed at ordinary income tax rates up to a maximum of 43.4 percent (the 39.6 percent statutory rate plus the 3.8 percent net investment income surtax). Gains on an asset held longer than one year are considered long-term and are taxed at top rate of 23.8 percent (a preferential 20 percent rate plus the surtax). Clinton proposes to double the short-term holding period to two years, taxing any gains at ordinary rates, and then to reduce the tax rate roughly 4 percentage points for each additional year an investment is held. After six years, gains would be taxed at the current 23.8 percent top rate on long-term gains.

        The tax change is not intended to add revenue (it would only contribute $84 billion of Clinton’s $1 trillion in new taxes over 10 years) but rather to change behavior. The hope is that the higher rates will give investors an incentive to hold assets longer, and that firms would use that capital to grow and create new jobs.
        http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2016/0726/Clinton-wants-to-change-capital-gains-taxes [csmonitor.com]

        So, my question for you is why do you assume some simplistic evil plan from clinton without even bothering to check? Is it just because it gives you good feels and you don't actually care about policy or governance?

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2016, @12:13AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2016, @12:13AM (#403250)

          So, my question for you is why do you assume some simplistic evil plan from clinton without even bothering to check?

          Uh... because she has constantly flip-flopped on her positions in the past, and supported the TPP, mass surveillance, and countless other horrendous laws, treaties, and policies? What's this nonsense about "good feels"? Since when is it a good idea to believe what a known liar says (and pretty much all politicians are known liars)?

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2016, @02:26AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2016, @02:26AM (#403272)

            Because "liar" isn't binary.

            She supported the TPP, while that was the official policy of her boss, because its not all bad. There are definitely bad parts and reasonable people can disagree about whether it is a net bad. Her being convinced that it is net bad instead of a net good isn't flip-flopping, its being convinced by a good argument. FWLIW my personal opinion of the TPP is that if they dropped the IP and corporate sovereignty parts I'd consider it a net good. What parts of it do you object to?

            What other treaties and horrendous laws do you object to? Or is that just another generic, unresearched claim that gives you good feels?