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: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday September 17 2016, @09:15PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 17 2016, @09:15PM (#403228) Journal

    Would you have preferred Fox?
    (FAIR == Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting)
    Breitbart? Really?

    If only there were other news sources than Fox and the World Socialist Web. Well, there's Breitbart too, so I guess we're good. I don't mind that you use this particular news source (well, aside from the risk of repetitive motion injuries from all the eye rolling that goes on). But to claim that it's that or a couple of rightwing sites, strikes me as a massive case of of the false dilemma fallacy.

    For me, the real problem here is that these shenanigans are pretty much an ongoing thing. The only time they'll ever risk portraying the economy as worse than it actually is, is when they can't hide some massive disaster and instead lump every other problem onto the disaster. Companies do that all the time when they have massive failures. Suddenly every failure becomes part of that one and they get to shove all their crap into one convenient blame dump.

    So the question isn't whether the economic data is rosier than it should be because it almost always is, but rather are they stepping up on the exaggerations or making more tenuous exaggerations compared to the recent past? That is the implication here in the reported story, but I don't see the evidence to back it up.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2