The economy is better just before the election ... Again


Good news!

The average family income is up after seven years of stagnation. Fewer people are in poverty too.

All of this just in time for the presidential election just like it was in 2012. That year the unemployment suddenly fell for the November election. Then months later after Obama was re-elected, the government admitted that the numbers they reported were overly optimistic.

Now we we have some more good news for the election. Are you skeptical? I am. Too much of the government bureaucracy is committed to Democratic Party, from the FBI and the Justice Department to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.


The median household income in 2015 rose to $56,500 … So what?

What they failed to tell you is that in 2007 the household median income was $57,357 and in 1999 was $57,843.

Since 1999 household average income has declined 2.3% or one fifth of one per center per year.
Household income is flat and stagnant.


Household income isn’t a useful metric, as households have become smaller over time.

Thomas Sowell has been talking about this issue for decades, rebuffing advances by the left through people like Robert Reich, who advocate this very thing.

Economists like Sowell know better. As do others.


Not sure this is right. The number of people working per household hasn’t gone down.


The point is the number of children in the average family has gone down since the 1950s and '60 was I was young.


…which has WHAT to do with “household income?”


This is SOP for the far left, lie, cheat, steal all is justified as long as your man wins…the MEANS justify the ENDS, that is how they see it.


More people out of work, more people depending on relatives to sustain them and savings accounts becoming nonexistent, homes being lost, tent cities rising, taxes going up, and yet we hear about how well we are doing for a nation sinking into a third world country.


More people out of the work force than at any time in history, real UE 6 rate is 9.7% which is true UE. We are $20 TRILLION in short term debt, inner city UE runs to as high as almost 50%, more people on means tested benefits than at anytime in our history.

Yea, BUT you washed your hair on Thursday, things are great!


The only way to really tell if government numbers are correct is to write them down & then compare them in a year (looking back).


U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven


Games are ALWAYS played with the stats being cited thus far in the thread/discussion.

However, IMHO, there is one figure that trumps/ influences virtually every other piece of economic data presented and spun by the politicos: Gross Domestic Product, GDP.

For nearly a decade now, our GDP has increased an average of roughly 2% per year. After 7.5 years of our so-called “economic recovery” our last quarter GDP was 1.2% - that is on the heals of a near-recessive 1st quarter GDP. That is historically pathetic and does not support the available workforce or the numbers of folks entering the workforce each year or wage increases. It is why hiring is anemic and full-time jobs are not being produced at the rate necessary to propel wages upward to any real extent. For several years now the labor participation rate has held steady at historic lows.

During this “lost decade” the Federal Reserve has artificially held interest rates at historical lows - the only real gains that have been made as a result, is a pouring of money into the equity markets (stocks). That is just as one would expect - stocks have been the only place people have been able to put their cash and get a return. Without this unprecedented artificial manipulation of interest rates God only knows where the equity markets would be. However, we can get an idea of what would happen - anytime investors get the slightest whiff that the Fed might raise interest rates the markets head sharply downward. But, it is important to keep in mind, the stock market is NOT the economy.

Everything I stated above is factual. How much good economic news do you see contained in these facts?


I think the biggest problem with the economy is that we’ve become technologically stagnant. Aside from smart phones(which are basically just highly portable computers), what major new tech has come out in the last decade? None. And the only one I mentioned, seems to make people less productive - not more.

What truly drives GDP growth is rapidly advancing technologies, and we simply aren’t investing in R&D. That’s not just an American problem. Every developed country has this same issue. Poor countries can still experience rapid growth because they’re 30+ years behind us in infrastructure.

But if things don’t change, there won’t really be poor and rich countries in 50 years. Everybody is basically going to look exactly like we do now. I’m not seeing a lot of signs that anyone is interested in investing in innovation. Until that changes, there won’t be a lot of growth. Doesn’t matter who the president is.


I think there is a much better chance in 50 years we look more like they do now and not the other way around as you suggest above.

To your point of stagnation due to a lack of innovation - I completely disagree. The stagnation has come about because companies are reluctant to move their huge piles of capital off the sidelines and into an uncertain, regulatory laden business environment in which no/slow growth is currently accepted, even touted, as the “new normal”.

Also hindering growth in the US is the uncertainty regarding the lack of economic/financial stability in Europe due largely to the miserable centralized planning by the EU and lack of effective leadership by many European governments. If we continue along our current path we’ll end up in the same foxhole.


There’s really no historical precedence for that. Centuries of stagnation(Rome, China, Japan, India), yes. But active and rapid deterioration from within? No.
Even the Dark Ages came about due to a more primitive people conquering a more advanced people. The people living in the dark age of Europe were more advanced than their barbarian conquerers had been. I can see how Europe runs this risk if they don’t get a hold on immigration. But that’s a problem of conquest, not economic deterioration.

Economic regulations haven’t changed all that much since the 1970s, and to what extent they have, they’ve favored big businesses. Small businesses often run into a bunch of red tape, but larger companies rarely do. They have lawyers to allow them to skirt the law. R&D has almost nothing to do with government regulations. Most government regulations deal with labor, zoning, and pollution. None of those things are factors in investing in research.


They have:

The biggest changes to Finance alone came about in the 2000s, with laws like Sarbanes-Oxley, the PATRIOT act, and DODD-Frank.

> and to what extent they have, they’ve favored big businesses. Small businesses often run into a bunch of red tape, but larger companies rarely do. They have lawyers to allow them to skirt the law. R&D has almost nothing to do with government regulations.

Biomed research, or even more specifically, trying to make a competitor to the epipen. Or the blocking of molecular medicine, as this guy will angrily tell you.


That chart wouldn’t really explain a lack of R&D, that’s really been going on for more than a decade. There has been no spike to cause it. And medical advances tend to make us less productive, not more. They tend to keep sick people hanging around, sucking resources out of the system. Medical advances don’t make for a more efficient economy. Healthcare, especially caring for the elderly is the single biggest economic waste we experience at the moment.


What MUST be remembered is THIS:



Regulations do; if you have to spend billions just to make it to FDA trials for a product, that is a serious bottleneck on the incentive to do research in the first place.

> And medical advances tend to make us less productive, not more.

Have to disagree. Medical advances equally apply to the young-sick; people who could be productive, if only their condition was manageable.

Advances also lower the labor and time necessary to treat them; what before could only be treated by surgeries, could later be treated by drugs or one-off injections.

There’s also nootropics to think about; drugs that enhance mental functionality, along with other drugs that enhance focus. This has lead to some nay-sayers like Francis Fukuyama to exclaim “Oh noes! We’re re-conditioning human nature with drugs to make them into the perfect worker!”

If a disproportionate amount of resources go to the elderly ( and hey, why not also talk about how medical advances have prolonged not just lives, but useful lifespan?), that’s only because birthrates themselves have fallen. People are having less kids, which has little to do with medical advances, and far more to do with overall prosperity.


Again, you’re going back to medicine. What makes us more productive are things like transportation, internet technology, advances in mechanics and hydraulics.

A tiny fraction of young people ever suffer from a problem that would prevent them from working. Probably less than 2%. On the flip side, it keeps a whole host of 70+ people around who will never again do more than shuffle around a nursing home until they die in another decade.

People take far more time off work now, due to medical “problems” than they ever did 50+ years ago. The more medical advances we make, the softer everyone gets. I know a woman who refuses to work because she says she has gout. Yeah, I really imagine that one flying in 1960.

Yeah, I know some people who decided to mess around with noots. They’re mostly bald, despite being around 30, look about ten years older than they are, and have very unusually high incidences of anxiety and depression. I’ll pass on noots, even the mild stuff like Piracetam and Kratom. Much less stuff like Modafinil.

> and hey, why not also talk about how medical advances have prolonged not just lives, but useful lifespan
They do not appear to have done so. I’m 30, and remember some badass old dudes 80+ (who would be over 100 now) who were virtually all quite active. They’d mow their own lawns, take care of their livestock, etc. Most of them died in their homes, if not out working in their yards. Rarely in a hospital bed. If they did go to a hospital, they’d leave first thing they were strong enough to get themselves out of bed.

70+ year old men today are mostly whiny and weak. They complain non-stop, and are completely useless in most cases. Even a few decades ago, old people actually had some pride and drive. Recently, most old people are useless sacks of moaning flesh. They contribute nothing useful and just rot for a couple of decades.

Medical advances have made people’s useful lifespan shrink, not expand. Fewer people may have made it to 85, but they were a quality, worthwhile person right up until they dropped dead at 75. Now that same person sticks around for another decade, and becomes useless by age 65. So ten years less productivity and twenty additional years of being a leech. Medical advances and procedures have absolutely ruined this generation of elderly people.