×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Economists: US Poverty On Track To Hit Highest Level Since 1960s

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the I-want-to-live-like-common-people dept.

The Almighty Buck 696

First time accepted submitter eentory writes "According to economists and other experts surveyed by the Associated Press, the U.S. poverty rate is on track to hit its highest level since the 1960s. The consensus among those surveyed is that 'the official poverty rate will rise from 15.1 percent in 2010, climbing as high as 15.7 percent.' Just a 0.1 percent increase would put the poverty rate at its highest since 1965."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

696 comments

Relevant (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736395)

http://i.imgur.com/olQxJ.jpg [imgur.com]

Says it all.

Re:Relevant (1, Offtopic)

broginator (1955750) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736441)

Why do I have the feeling this is NSFW?

Re:Relevant (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736497)

Only if you work with Republicans.

Re:Relevant (0, Flamebait)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736871)

Need I remind you that the last 3.5 years, a democrat was in charge. Democrats typically give money out to a mix of deserving and seriously undeserving poor people indiscriminately and Obama wasn't exactly a major exception so don't go blaming republicans.

Re:Relevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40737055)

And a (D) Congress to go with him

Which one is John Galt? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736445)

And what is he laughing about?

Poverty isn't what it used to be (4, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736811)

Says it all.

No, it doesn't say it all. It doesn't say that the poverty line is much higher today than in 1960, so implying that people are worse off is nonsense. It also doesn't say that our definition of "poverty" is silly: it only counts income, and ignores assets. I live in Silicon Valley in a nice neighborhood with a paid off mortgage, and my wife drives a snazzy BMW. I run my own company and usually make a solid six figure income. But in 2010, I had several employees in R&D mode, my net income was nearly zero, I fell below the poverty line. I actually qualified for some government handouts. That is seems absurd to me.

Re:Poverty isn't what it used to be (-1, Flamebait)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736919)

Yes. You are statistically typical of those in poverty - here in AmerCIA! This is the land of opportunity. Where once there was a chicken, in every pot, now every beggar drives a bimmer.

You really are a tit. Why not go volunteer some time in a shelter - or donate you time on bread lines at Glide or St Anthony's - before you open your arrogant gob.

Re:Poverty isn't what it used to be (4, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736931)

That is the institutional advantage richer people get. They can choose to take their income in many forms, defer it, hide it abroad, launder it through IRAs or partnerships, or insane insurance policies where the benefit is less than the premium. Poor sods who work for a living and get a W2, the government seems to go after them with vehemence. But their anger is very cleverly manipulated by the rich to get even more tax breaks for capital gains, retained interest, reciprocal tax treaties with foreign governments, etc etc.

We must save the American capitalism from these capitalists. I think a U Chicago economist wrote a book with a similar title. "save capitalism from capitalists".

Re:Poverty isn't what it used to be (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40737005)

I live in Silicon Valley in a nice neighborhood with a paid off mortgage, and my wife drives a snazzy BMW. I run my own company and usually make a solid six figure income.

BURN HIM!!!! /maniacal laugh

Money Does Trickle Down (3, Interesting)

geoffrobinson (109879) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736947)

The economy isn't a zero-sum game. If someone is doing well, they usually invest the money (hopefully being put to productive use) or they exchange their money for goods and services.

The problem is frankly monetary policy. I know, I know. I'm a crazy Ron Paul-type.

Here's what I think is going on. Since we left the gold standard, the amount of money has increased by a lot. Where newly printed money hits the system first (like Wall Street for example) those people get to use the money first and get a big benefit. By the time that money trickles down to the rest of society, all those newly printed dollars mean a loss of purchasing power and the overall value of each dollar.

Almost any chart I've seen about how workers are doing worse from a variety of different sources, the point in the chart where everything goes crazy is the early 70s. 10 years prior to Reagan, but the same time Nixon took America off the gold standard.

Re:Money Does Trickle Down (0)

abarrow (117740) | about a year and a half ago | (#40737079)

Where I come from, the word "trickle" is defined:
trickle (trkl)
v. trickled, trickling, trickles
v.intr.
1. To flow or fall in drops or in a thin stream.
2. To move or proceed slowly or bit by bit: The audience trickled in.
v.tr.
To cause to trickle.
n.
1. The act or condition of trickling.
2. A slow, small, or irregular quantity that moves, proceeds, or occurs intermittently.

So, yeah, what the wealthy are getting in waves, the rest of the economy is getting in drops. Boy, that'll stimulate things!

trickle down (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736399)

I thought the wealth was supposed to trickle down?

Re:trickle down (4, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736417)

No, this is a new system called Trickle Up Poverty. They found it reaches the middle class faster if it goes up.

Re:trickle down (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736437)

goddamn greedy teachers with their gold-plated Celicas.

Re:trickle down (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40737049)

It's not the Celicas we are worried about. It's the 40-year defined benefit pensions that are worth way more than the 20- to 30-year teaching career. You have teachers retiring in their mid-50s living on pensions for 35 years that are much better than those of other taxpayers and citizens that must foot the bill. In many places you have teachers getting benefits based on their salary on the last year worked rather than based on average lifetime earnings which is what everyone else in the private sector contends with. At the same time you have politicians granting these huge perks to get elected, knowing they won't be in office when the bill comes due.

Re:trickle down (2, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736603)

Trickle Up Poverty is the likely objective, considering that the federal government is trying to persuade people to go on food stamps even if they think they don't need to.

Re:trickle down (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736729)

I'm not sure your post makes sense. No matter what income level you happen to be, adding food stamps won't increase poverty, it will free up money to do other things, which is a good. it does not add wealth, it adds food.

Re:trickle down (2)

na1led (1030470) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736885)

If you base poverty level on what people receive for assistance, then over half the population is poor. They can fudge these numbers anyway they want for propaganda, just like they do with unemployment numbers.

Re:trickle down (2)

operagost (62405) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736985)

I would also like to add that for people who have never been told how to manage money, putting them on assistance doesn't help that issue. They will expect the income and find it more difficult to get off of it. Even if I thought it was OK to steal money from middle class people to give it to slightly poorer (but still middle class) people, it would just make people who are capable of supporting their families LESS capable in the long run.

Re:trickle down (0)

mr1911 (1942298) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736509)

I thought the wealth was supposed to trickle down?

Apparently you have been asleep for a few decades. This is Hope and Change!

Re:trickle down (0, Flamebait)

negRo_slim (636783) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736567)

Apparently you have been asleep for a few decades. This is the beauty of a self serving do nothing congress!

FTFY

Re:trickle down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736589)

Because Obama has been president for the last few decades. Get a job you fucking hippy.

Re:trickle down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736893)

What do you think the Clinton years were?

Re:trickle down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40737023)

It does gravitate. The trick is recognising that 'down' is where the largest mass of money is, not what the sociologists call the lower classes.

Re:trickle down (5, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#40737067)

That's a Republican lie. Wealth is not created in the boardroom, it's created in the programmer's cube, the recording studio, the factory floor, the fry-cook's stove, the copper mine. Wealth is created by the poor and middle class.

Wealth doesn't trickle down, it flows upwards. The wealthy don't create wealth, they aggregate and control wealth.

And with the current folks in power (5, Insightful)

Phrogman (80473) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736469)

Its only going to climb higher. I am up in Canada, but its the same here, all I see is businesses closing, programs being cut, the only jobs available seem to be for crap wages with no benefits etc. The economy is failing from the bottom up as the small businesses die off one by one. Meanwhile of course, the high end executives get massive yearly bonuses as a matter of course - even if the company they are working at is tanking and likely to go under.

Re:And with the current folks in power (2)

polar red (215081) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736639)

and with the people 'in power' you mean who? The 'elected' puppets ?

Official MinTruth Statement (1, Insightful)

jabberw0k (62554) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736471)

In Washington, the Ministry of Truth says that we just need four more years of Hope and Change...

Re:Official MinTruth Statement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736515)

In Washington, the Ministry of Truth says that we just need four more years of Hope and Change...

While their opponents say we need a fresh, new, hip war that will stimulate the economy and create jobs both at home and abroad!

Re:Official MinTruth Statement (4, Insightful)

brian0918 (638904) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736541)

There's a third alternative: Gary Johnson [garyjohnson2012.com].

Re:Official MinTruth Statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736847)

LOL

Re:Official MinTruth Statement (4, Funny)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#40737041)

His platform is to end the IRS? I can't see any potentially nasty side effects of that.

Re:Official MinTruth Statement (5, Insightful)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736535)

I thought the idea was to give Mittens the reigns, let the corporations have 100% control of our country (vs the current insulting 98%), and hope for some trickle down?

Re:Official MinTruth Statement (5, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736773)

You know trickle down had some merit in a world before a telecommunications revolution and easy shipping. In that world corporations HAD to competively hire local people to get work done. We're past that.

Right now allowing the top 1% to make money off of easy imports of overseas goods is to the GDP what a empty calories are to your diet.

Re:Official MinTruth Statement (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736637)

You think the last 4 years are what did this?

You don't think the last several decades might have had more of an impact?

Re:Official MinTruth Statement (5, Funny)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736693)

Yep. It goes back at least to Bush I, probably much earlier.

I say we blame everything on Nixon. That's when things started going downhill and the budget started spiraling upward.

Plus, he makes a good scapegoat. He's already "evil" in the public eye; why not blame him for starting America's decline as well as for Vietnam and Watergate?

Re:Official MinTruth Statement (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736793)

But see, that's hard. If we blame Nixon, we have to write a whole new song. If we blame Obama, we can just substitute him into the already-written "Blame Canada!" It's efficiency, see?

Re:Official MinTruth Statement (5, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736813)

Nixon was a *much* better president than Bush II. He actually had accomplishments.

Bush Jr will get his proper place in history... as a person that used his 8 years (and an major terror attack that occurred on US soil) to funnel money to his buddies. I don't buy any attempt to say Bush was part of 9/11, but he sure as hell took advantage of it.

Re:Official MinTruth Statement (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736915)

I never said Nixon was the worst. I just said we should *blame* him.

Besides, everyone knows the *real* worst President was Buchanan. But it's kind of hard to blame him for any modern problems, if only because nobody really remembers him (at least Millard Fillmore had a funny name!).

Re:Official MinTruth Statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736829)

Yeah? Hows that war on poverty going for you then genius?

WELCOME TO THE LAND OF THE SOVIETS WHERE LABOR IS FREE.

Re:Official MinTruth Statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736855)

Uh perhaps because outside of Watergate, he was actually a fairly effective president and he actually was elected with a mandate to withdraw from Vietnam? If the 60s were the height of poverty and we haven't been there is some time, wouldn't it stand to reason that the folks that came afterwards (e.g. Nixon) actually had at least a hand in ushering in greater prosperity (even if it was simple the act of letting the prosperity happen on its own)?

The housing situation has been input factors, but that can greatly be attributed to the time of the Clinton Administration, but that includes a Republican controlled House and Democrat controlled Senate. Nobody stopped this policy in the Bush Administration, with the same legislature mix at first, and then fully Republican controlled later... finally ending with fully Democrat controlled. The big decline in the economy did happen after the Democrats took control of the legislature, though, and Bush, for whatever reason, seemed just as happy to work with them as he did the Republicans, perhaps moreso. It was like it was inevitable. Public sentiment simply had enough of Republican control, whether justifiably or not. Business leaders feared what was in store, known and unknown, and the economy collapsed. When it became obviously that the White House would go to a Democrat, it got even worse. If it went to a Republican, we would probably be in decline, but it would be slower. We likely needed the shock so that everyone could wake up... but it seems like many or most people are still sleeping.

Re:Official MinTruth Statement (2)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736801)

Obama has largely continued the economic policies of his predecessors. There's still no effective regulation of high finance. Dodd-Frank is a joke. Obama's cabinet is packed with Goldman Sachs alums. Not one executive level banker has so much as been arrested for any of the crimes they've committed.

Obama is a crony capitalist just like the rest of them. He's even more corrupt than Reagan, who was at least willing to put bankers in jail after the S&L crisis. Do you understand that? Obama is more corrupt than the guy Reaganomics is named after.

Poverty? Gimme a break. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736495)

The 2010 poverty level was $22,314 for a family of four, and $11,139

This kind of income is big money in most of the rest of the world. And the last I checked, prices of most stuff aren't all that different. Why do people in the US believe they are entitled to more?

Re:Poverty? Gimme a break. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736581)

In the rest of the world, those amounts can actually buy you things like food and shelter.

Last I checked(and I check pretty much every fucking day), it's pretty goddamned difficult to buy food and shelter on that much money in the U.S..

People in the U.S. don't believe they are entitled to more. People in the U.S. pay more for things than people in the rest of the world, so people in the U.S. need more money to buy an equivalent amount of said things.

Enjoy your caviar, fucktard.

Re:Poverty? Gimme a break. (4, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736831)

In almost all states it takes over 80 hours of work PER WEEK for someone making minimum wage to pay for a shoddy apartment.

Re:Poverty? Gimme a break. (0)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736987)

Minimum wage sucks, but that isn't entirely true. First off, working 80 hours nets you 100 hours of pay via overtime. In some states (such as California) you'd be getting double-time.

But $7.25 an hour at 100 hours is $725 a week. 4.3 weeks in a month = $3,117.50.

You're insisting that $3,117.50 a month will barely pay for a shoddy apartment in most states? I think you're exaggerating a bit.

Re:Poverty? Gimme a break. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40737057)

That's because minimum wage is what you pay people who have no marketable skills or credentials, just minimum-level nonthinking labor.
In other words, it's not supposed to be enough to pay for shelter, just spending money for high school students.

Pay to be Poor (1, Interesting)

gregulator (756993) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736527)

When you pay people to not have jobs... what the fuck do you expect?

Re:Pay to be Poor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736559)

You, sir, are an idiot.

Re:Pay to be Poor (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736697)

You, sir, are an idiot.

Actually you're the idiot. I know several people on the gov't dole. And the ONLY reason they say do NOT get a job is that they would need to get a job pay X amount so it would be worth getting off the dole. They say why get off the gov't teat IF they(and their family) would be worse off.

Re:Pay to be Poor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736779)

Quit offshoring/outsourcing good paying jobs then. Pretty simple, you moron.

Re:Pay to be Poor (5, Insightful)

kilfarsnar (561956) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736873)

You, sir, are an idiot.

Actually you're the idiot. I know several people on the gov't dole. And the ONLY reason they say do NOT get a job is that they would need to get a job pay X amount so it would be worth getting off the dole. They say why get off the gov't teat IF they(and their family) would be worse off.

Would you support raising the minimum wage so that all jobs pay more than gov't assistance?

Re:Pay to be Poor (1)

jafiwam (310805) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736911)

You, sir, are an idiot.

Actually you're the idiot. I know several people on the gov't dole. And the ONLY reason they say do NOT get a job is that they would need to get a job pay X amount so it would be worth getting off the dole. They say why get off the gov't teat IF they(and their family) would be worse off.

This is exactly right. They also go through the whole "get job think it's great, do the usual screwup, get fired/laid off, struggle with new rules, get back on dole at slightly lower rate" cycle.

There really should be some sort of "low paying job but teaches you stuff" substitute run by the government that gets put in place in replacement for just getting a check. Like "you get X if you don't do this, and you get X+Y if you do this, and you complete this training"

There are lots and lots of people who can work, but see the short term only (because that's the way they are) and the short term is clearly on the side of "stay on the dole".

I know several people in this cycle. Sure they could boot strap themselves however the reality is, some people wont do that. Until the point at which society decides to just grind them up for soilent green, society will have to deal with them, so wishful thinking about those people being different needs to be stifled. It's useless.

Re:Pay to be Poor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40737063)

gregulator is entirely correct.

Sadly these people are also being paid to VOTE.

We are kind of screwed.

Re:Pay to be Poor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736667)

You don't pay people to not have jobs, you pay them to keep them going while they look for another job. With the money they themselves paid into the system during their time of employment, and that all of us pay in case of this exact scenario.

Re:Pay to be Poor (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736979)

You don't pay people to not have jobs, you pay them to keep them going while they look for another job. With the money they themselves paid into the system during their time of employment, and that all of us pay in case of this exact scenario.
That depends whether the people you are referring to are just on unemployment or are on some other program, like disability. I know several people who are on disability, and they struggle from month to month, but they can't get a job because the job would pay less than the disability and the disability would be cut off completely if they get a job.
Of course, then there is the whole question of why they are on disability when they really COULD work if it came down to it.

Re:Pay to be Poor (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736683)

When you pay people to not have jobs... what the fuck do you expect?

You need to try and work for a salary of $11,000/year and support 2 people in a household, together with a car payment. I have, and I can tell you, it has nothing to do with getting paid not to work.

So with your ignorant statement you are part of the problem and not the solution...

Re:Pay to be Poor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736795)

Yeah, how dare we give the people a bailout.

Sincerely,
Goldman Sachs

Politics and "math" (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736549)

Has anyone ever asked how we decide what the "poverty line" is, and how often it's adjusted for inflation? Left alone long enough, with permanent inflation due to Keynesian policies, everyone will fall below the poverty line.

Re:Politics and "math" (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736721)

Wouldn't it go the other way around? During inflation, prices increase and the value of money decreases. So eventually *everyone* would be above that nominal poverty line.

I'm pretty sure the poverty line in Washington's time was in the range of hundreds of dollars per year.

Re:Politics and "math" (2)

miltonw (892065) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736889)

The "poverty line" and all the "official" U.S. definitions for what constitutes "poverty" became completely political some time ago. The result is that we really don't know how many people in the U.S. truly need help. Are the real numbers going up or down? Is the "War on poverty" having a good effect or is it making things worse. I'm sure someone knows but after the figures have been "adjusted" for political purposes we, the people, just don't know. Of course, that's deliberate.

But this can't be right (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736557)

Why, massive corporations everywhere have been boasting absolutely record profits constantly! SURELY these vast sums of wealth are working their way down to the grunt workers at the bottom who actually DO the work and make the company money.

Surely!

Yep Obama is doing a good job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736561)

He said he wanted the US to be more like Europe. He's getting his wish. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73138.html [politico.com]

while the link shows only a quote from gas I'm just to tired this Monday morning to get the other quotes that prove that he wants to make the US into what is happening in Europe.

"Highest rate since the 1960s" (1, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736607)

Depends entirely on when in the 1960s you are talking. Around 1960 itself, the rate was over 20%, and had fallen to half that by the end. But anyways, I trust economists predictions about what is going to happen in a year about as much as I do weather predictions 5 days hence: if I had to bet on them or a coin flip, I'd go with the coin every time.

Stop redefining proverty. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736609)

Seriously, Poverty in the US is ok.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty [heritage.org]

Re:Stop redefining proverty. (5, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736713)

This article is nonsense. My extended family is working class and none of them could ever afford air conditioning. They are what you might call the "working poor". Never mind "the poor".

That link sounds like the clueless ramblings of a modern day Marie Antoinette.

If the poor are "fed" or "sheltered" there is a good chance that this is only the case because of public assistance.

Re:Stop redefining proverty. (4, Insightful)

dpilot (134227) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736827)

What did you expect? That link points to the "Heritage Foundation."

How much longer? (2)

brian0918 (638904) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736631)

How much longer are we going to put up with the two false alternatives that continue to kick the can down the road and buy votes with money that will be paid back by future generations?

How long until we finally consider a real alternative [garyjohnson2012.com]?

Re:How much longer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736815)

Dream on

Re:How much longer? (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#40737043)

It speaks volumes that the only "real alternative" available across the country in this election is one who would remove even more of the few regulations left to protect us from corporate excess. Look at "Gary Johnson's track record". He brags about being "an outspoken advocate for...protection of civil liberties", and a couple sentences later he brags about how he "privatized half of the state prisons". WTF?

Classic Marx (4, Insightful)

mspohr (589790) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736739)

We've outsourced everything and the capital hides in offshore accounts.
Should be no surprise that poverty is up.
Marx was right.

Re:Classic Marx (1)

CptNerd (455084) | about a year and a half ago | (#40737069)

No, the "capital" that most of the world counts didn't exist to begin with, it was all leveraged from the existing wealth into hyperinflated real estate value and leveraged buyouts. The actual value of the world's assets is just barely starting to come into line with its real value, as the debt and investment in debt and investment in those investments get cleared out. It will mean a lot of pain, because it means the money and "prosperity" that we assumed was there really wasn't, and that we're all poorer than we thought.

What needs to happen is a short, sharp shock, like the 1987 Stock Market crash but on a global scale. It needs to let the "too big to fail" companies and banks and countries fail, so that we can start from a baseline of real value everywhere. "Letting the air out of the balloon" of the economy is like taking just enough painkiller and chemotherapy to hold the cancer in check, instead of going ahead and having the surgery to remove it. The suffering and damage will continue, but some won't feel as much pain as they should.

Aristotle could never imagine a lever as large as the world's bubble economy, and no one building it cared that the average person was the fulcrum. And we know what happens to overloaded fulcra.

Remember This In November (5, Insightful)

assertation (1255714) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736745)

Congressional Republicans have voted down every proposal to help the economy the President has sent to them, even proposals tailored after Republican tactics for economic handling.

Remember this in November, vote the Republicans in the Senate and Congress out.

They are making the country and most likely you, poorer, just because they are in a pissing contest with the president.

They don't deserve your support

Re:Remember This In November (1, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736883)

If the Democrats wanted to be seen as the good guys when it comes to the economy, Obama should have had his Justice Department throw bankers in jail when he had the chance. He also shouldn't have appointed Tim Geithner, or any other crony to the cabinet. And he should have refused donations from Goldman Sachs. And he should have at least tried to bail out home owners directly, instead of giving money to bankers who aren't lending it back out.

Sorry, both the Democrats and Republicans work in favor of the rich against the rest of us. If you want me to believe otherwise, do something meaningful. Refuse all corporate donations. Fire all the cronies in your cabinet. Direct your justice department to prosecut Lloyd Blankfein under RICO. DO SOMETHING!

Re:Remember This In November (2)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736923)

Blindly voting one party (regardless of party) will never fix the issue. If the media was devoid of partisan spin and we could individual elected officials accountable for their actions, then perhaps we'd have solutions.

Re:Remember This In November (0)

characterZer0 (138196) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736945)

The Republicans want to spend money we don't have on sectors that benefit their friends.
The Democrats want to spend money we don't have on sectors that benefit their friends.

Totally different.

Wages as a percentage of U.S. GDP peaked in '72 (2)

WillAdams (45638) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736753)

and have been trending down ever since.

The highest income tax bracket was 91% under Eisenhower --- Kennedy got it reduced to 70% and it's been steadily declining ever since.

Someone please tell me what was wrong w/ the economy under Eisenhower?

Re:Wages as a percentage of U.S. GDP peaked in '72 (2)

Amiga Trombone (592952) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736957)

Well, the economy was fine - you're problem is that it isn't the 1950s anymore. That is to say, our biggest possible competitor, Europe, isn't recovering from a recent world war, China and India aren't undergoing massive famines, Korea isn't in the midst of a civil war, and Made in Japan is no longer a synonym for cheap junk.

You could have a 90% tax in the 50's simply because there was no place else to go. Try that today and watch your industries and your wealth move off-shore even faster than they are now.

Re:Wages as a percentage of U.S. GDP peaked in '72 (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | about a year and a half ago | (#40737011)

Someone please tell me what was wrong w/ the economy under Eisenhower?

We had just started a massive subsitidezed transportation infrustructure and incentivized building boom based on a car-centric philosophy that would lead to horribly inefficient housing, the loss of usable public transportation, a dependency on foreign oil, and a rise in the cost of living over the next half a century.

And getting worse. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736775)

""According to economists and other experts surveyed by the Associated Press"

Economists in academia and of course the wonderful AP are historically leftist, so you can bet the numbers are fudged big time to favor the left and Obama.

That means the real number is far worse for those of you that are not paying attention.

And getting worse.

You can take that to the bank.

the true culprit (3, Insightful)

P-niiice (1703362) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736791)

The true cause for this, wholesale adaptation of Reagan's economic philosophies, will never be identified or addressed, and the middle class will continue to shrink, and will only gain ground (temporary ground) during bubbles. And when those bubbles pop, the middle class slides back even more.

Poverty level (0)

k(wi)r(kipedia) (2648849) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736859)

The news report quantifies the US poverty level as a pair of statistics:

The 2010 poverty level was $22,314 for a family of four, and $11,139 for an individual, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income, before tax deductions.

But it doesn't go on to describe the lifestyle of a person in that income group. I mean, suppose a person chooses to live without a car, a yearly vacation abroad, or the latest iDevice. Surely that person's poverty level would be different from a person who chooses to have a car, take yearly vacations abroad, and buy the latest iPhone?

Poverty. Like the old days. (0)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736867)

Maybe we'll get back to the days when poor people were thin instead of fat.

Relative Poverty Value? (2, Interesting)

scorp1us (235526) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736875)

It seems to me today that "poverty" is on par with 1960s luxury, so what's the point?
We have air conditioning everywhere. We have freely available water. Everyone can have a phone, but not just a phone, a cellphone. We have freely available internet.

I'm not a social scientist, so I am legitimately asking "what is the point to eradicating poverty?" Is it just an attempt to integrate a disenfranchised segment of the population - a persistent segment that ever since we moved out of tribes and into larger societies we've had. At what point are these people choosing poverty, and if that is the case why should we care? The current mother of the POTUS managed not to live in poverty, and have a son that went on to lead the free world.

I've been told by y social work friends that the city I live in has sufficient finds and resourced for the homeless. However the vast majority of these are people with mental problems who are high-enough functioning to not be compelled into assistance, who then go out and choose this lifestyle. If that is the case, then I don't think we can ever solve poverty.

Poverty rate (4, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736891)

"According to a 2011 paper by poverty expert Robert Rector, of the 43.6 million Americans deemed to be below the poverty level by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2009, the majority had adequate shelter, food, clothing and medical care. In addition, the paper stated that those assessed to be below the poverty line in 2011 have a much higher quality of living than those who were identified by the census 40 years ago as being in poverty."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]

These days we count poverty as economic disparity, which is not the historical definition of poverty. Today, if you have access to medical care, housing and food, we state that you are living in poverty. That is not to say there aren't those living in legitimate poverty.

Malnourishment is down, and yet we insist poverty is near all-time highs.

this what you get when you kill unions (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40736897)

this what you get when you kill unions

It jobs where they say people don't have the rights skills and pass over people who when to tech schools and don't want to learn on the job.

Jobs with joke health coverages

places like fedex where you are a contractor and have to buy there truck, uniforms, and the route but are controlled like you are working for them as W2.

walmart

places like best buy where is all about much you can sell

hhgregg 100% commission ( with unpaid expo days) have to buy there uniforms and cards at high cost about $75-100 to start and where you can get fired for going on a jury

staples mitt romney just as bad as best buy

Maybe it's really the new plan... (1)

dpilot (134227) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736905)

Maybe it's really the new plan to stop illegal immigration and boost exports. Depress the economy far enough and those jobs currently held by illegal immigrants will start to look good, even at those wages. Those same "new US wages" will be competitive with the sweatshop wages every other nation in the world is trying to leave behind.

"There will be jobs for Americans... ...when American sweatshops are legal again... ...and when Americans are eager to work in them."

90% of the world was dirt poot until .. (1)

na1led (1030470) | about a year and a half ago | (#40736967)

the Internet, and Globalization was introduced. Now the wealth is getting spread over 7 Billion people, and a few at the top are hording as much as they can.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...