- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why GDP growth isn't even relevant (anymore) to 90% of the population
Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:14 pm
Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:14 pm
12
Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:30 pm to SpidermanTUba
There are structural reasons for this.
Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:31 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Yeah - "structural" reasons.Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:31 pm to SpidermanTUba
So you're finally saying it went to shite since Obama took office??
Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:31 pm to SpidermanTUba
Wow. 
Look at the disparity that's happened under Obama. It's the worst.
From Huffington Post:
LINK
Look at the disparity that's happened under Obama. It's the worst. From Huffington Post:
quote:
Income inequality worse under Obama than George W. Bush
LINK
Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:34 pm to SpidermanTUba
Why do you think this is the case?
Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:36 pm to SpidermanTUba
Wow, SpidermanTUba just stumbled into being right. Good for you, man. You're still technically wrong, but good for you.
Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:37 pm to Al Dante
It appeared to be headed that way. Looks like under Bill Clinton, the trend was reversed, and then plummeted under Bush.
The crash of 2008 is no doubt a big reflection under Obama
The crash of 2008 is no doubt a big reflection under Obama
Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:39 pm to SpidermanTUba
dat stimulus doe
thanks obama
in seriousness, more background on all of that would be interesting. i'd really like to see that same type of breakdown by income class on shares of income contraction during recessions
and btw, regarding the title:
more than 10% of the population has been in the top 10% at some point or will be in their lifetime. so GDP will matter to more than 10%, obv
thanks obama
in seriousness, more background on all of that would be interesting. i'd really like to see that same type of breakdown by income class on shares of income contraction during recessions
and btw, regarding the title:
quote:
to 90% of the population
more than 10% of the population has been in the top 10% at some point or will be in their lifetime. so GDP will matter to more than 10%, obv
Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:41 pm to 90proofprofessional
I think the more damning stat is that even during the healthy economic years of the 80s and 90s, the growth wasn't widespread.
Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:44 pm to EthanL
quote:'08 wasn't Obama's fault, dude. It was Clinton's and Bush's. It started when Clinton had Janet Reno coerce the banks that belonged to the Federal Reserve into lowering their standards on mortgage loans for political purposes. Bush continued this as it was political gold, and eventually when these loans weren't paid back and the banks started foreclosing the houses, the housing industry came to a disastrous crash. Then lending went down by a fricking ton, and understandably so. Now, Bush, Obama, and the 2006-2010 congress can be blamed for the vast majority of the awful "recovery" policies that have been put in place. These things left us with a much weaker currency, an unsustainable amount of people leaving the work force in favor of Government payouts, and an amount of debt that has Ray Charles flinching.
The crash of 2008 is no doubt a big reflection under Obama
Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:44 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
I don't know how "damning" it can be. Then again, I've believed for a long time that our mid-century prosperity was a fluke.
Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:48 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Yes, "structural".
Yeah - "structural" reasons.
"Structural" . . . as in 1 of 4 Americans age 25-54y/o not working during this """expansion""".
Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:50 pm to SpidermanTUba
If you are saying that it's better for most people to starve than for some to get fat then you are an envious monster. If you are saying economic growth isn't important then you are more anti-science than a creationist.
Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:51 pm to 90proofprofessional
In a way, that's true. It makes sense that the United States became an immediate economic power as soon as every other economic power on Earth (or at least the ones interested in actual commerce) had been destroyed. However, the conditions of this can be recreated without the destruction of war, as evidenced by the economic success of the 1980's, and to some extent the 1990's. (Although the tail-end of the success of the 90's was a bit of foreshadowing to the housing crisis when the dot-com bubble burst.)
Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:53 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:That logic truly sucks.I shouldn't even call it logic.
more than 10% of the population has been in the top 10% at some point or will be in their lifetime. so GDP will matter to more than 10%, obv
Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:56 pm to mmcgrath
It's true actually. If you've ever owned a home, you've been in at least the top 20%.
Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:59 pm to Al Dante
quote:
Wow. Look at the disparity that's happened under Obama. It's the worst.
Clearly it must be his fault. The graph indicates a clear upward trend for the bottom 90% - until Obama. Econ 101.
"Income inequality - frick you, it doesn't matter - but just in case it does - its OBAMA'S fault" - Every Right Winger
This post was edited on 9/26/14 at 11:00 pm
Posted on 9/26/14 at 11:00 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
That logic truly sucks.I shouldn't even call it logic.
Individuals move in & out of income deciles like crazy when you're talking about spans as large as a lifetime. That logic is motherfricking airtight. frick off.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News