Like it was said earlier in the thread, numbers are fun and fine and dandy, but in our Michigan slice of paradise, the economy blows. It’s absurdly obvious.
One more time, on this aging of the population thing that keeps getting asserted without proof: we are not yet at the point where people are dipping into their retirement savings.
The percentage of the population aged 45 to 54 grew from 13.46% of the population in 2000 to 14.33% of the population in 2005, according to the last projection done by the Census.
The percentage of the population aged 55 to 64 grew from 8.65% of the population in 2000 to 10.24% of the population in 2005, according to the last projection done by the Census.
In other words, the percentage of the population in the 45 to 54 bracket was higher in 2000, and remains higher today, than that of the 55 to 64 bracket.
Why does this matter? Because the 45 to 54 group has the highest median income of any other group in the population, at 42,079 dollars. These people would, therefore, be people you’d expect to see save more. They are not yet at the point where they’re dipping into savings to fund retirement. Rather, they are at the point where they would be saving the most of any other group for that retirement.
So, at this stage, given the demographics of the population, you would expect to see savings at a higher rate than average. Instead, it’s negative and accelerating to the downside.
I hope that finally puts a stake in that argument.
Stats calculated or just plain quoted from the Statistical Abstract, table 11, Resident Population by Age and Sex, and table 683, Money Income of People - Selected Characteristics. PDF in 2006, Excel in the latest version. At The 2007 Statistical Abstract.
Sam used 1999 and 2004 to make a point? In which post #?
He was using 401ks to make a point. Here is his exact quote:
I showed that that worked no better than the shit you keep tossing out in this thread.
By the way, do you actually want a debate? If so, I have a simple question. Is your position that the economy is doing great, or that it is better than the wallowing turd of an economy known as 2002? If the former, you’ve shown not one iota of evidence to back up the assertion, even including your regurgitated talking points. If the latter, you’ll have a really hard time finding anyone who doesn’t agree.
I read post #80 again, and I still don’t get it. I ask about 1999 and 2004…You say “Because Sam was using it…” and suddenly “it” refers to 401k plans. Never mind.
But I’m willing to treat you politely here. What would you consider evidence that an economy is doing great? I aways thought the three most important indicators were inflation, unemployment and stock market. Tell me what you think is more important and why and maybe we can debate.
BTW, do you really think that the economy in 2002 was a “wallowing turd”? Even after 9/11 and the letdown of the 2000 stock market crash, this was still a relatively very properous place to be.
If you think the economy works, ask someone who doesn’t.
Also you forget that all this deficit spending on the military provides little economic benefit whilst racking up a massive debt that has to be paid. How’s that debt going to be paid when persoanl consumer debt is very high and there are negative savings rates?
It’s like you are mortgaged to the hilt on a giant house and keep getting a new credit card and maxing out the limit so you can live like a king. Well, either your income has to go up substantially or it’s all going to crash like the house of cards it is.
So, is the opposite also true? If you think the economy doesn’t work, ask someone who does. Sounds like Russia is working great since Putin and his billionaire cronies are employed. Same for Castro and his inner circle in Cuba. Sorry I don’t have more examples but with the fall of communism we’re running out of bad examples.
While no fan of deficit spending, this sort of doomsaying is grossly exaggerating. The estimate for the 2007 deficit is now 172 billion dollars. 2007 GDP is forecast to be about 13.75 trillion, putting the deficit at 1.2% of GDP.
That is a very low number - about half of the 40 year average. Only about 10 years since 1965 have had lower deficits as a percentage of GDP. Five of Clinton’s 8 years in office had higher deficits.
The total U.S. public debt is hoving just below the debt limit for European countries according to the Maastrict treaty - and France and Germany have already violated those. The difference is that the U.S. economy is growing much faster than France or Germany’s, and therefore the U.S. can ‘afford’ its debt much more.
How will the U.S. pay it off? Well, it could be done by holding the line at spending and growing out of it. With the U.S. economy growing at 3% per year, if the deficit rises no further than it is now the total public debt as a percentage of GDP will start to decline rapidly.
You guys are playing around and not paying attention to some obvious facts. One is that our industrial base is disappearing . Our engineering is being outsourced. Computer programming and IT are being shipped out. The positions that require training or schooling are moving out. We are getting Walmart jobs to replace them . We no longer are a competitive machine builder or industrial manufacturer. how does that bode for Americas future?. If you are making profits off a corp that has cut its costs to a fraction ,you are doing great. But eventually you will require customers with the money to buy. It has an end point.
Bankruptcy’s are not growing as fast as they were due to the legislation our Repubs passed making it more difficult to obtain.
What about when the Military Industrial Complex runs out of wars? A large part of our economy has been generated by our warring ways. Someday we will run out of enemies . Then we can rebuild this country.