• (function() { (function(){function b(g){this.t={};this.tick=function(h,m,f){var n=f!=void 0?f:(new Date).getTime();this.t[h]=[n,m];if(f==void 0)try{window.console.timeStamp("CSI/"+h)}catch(q){}};this.getStartTickTime=function(){return this.t.start[0]};this.tick("start",null,g)}var a;if(window.performance)var e=(a=window.performance.timing)&&a.responseStart;var p=e>0?new b(e):new b;window.jstiming={Timer:b,load:p};if(a){var c=a.navigationStart;c>0&&e>=c&&(window.jstiming.srt=e-c)}if(a){var d=window.jstiming.load; c>0&&e>=c&&(d.tick("_wtsrt",void 0,c),d.tick("wtsrt_","_wtsrt",e),d.tick("tbsd_","wtsrt_"))}try{a=null,window.chrome&&window.chrome.csi&&(a=Math.floor(window.chrome.csi().pageT),d&&c>0&&(d.tick("_tbnd",void 0,window.chrome.csi().startE),d.tick("tbnd_","_tbnd",c))),a==null&&window.gtbExternal&&(a=window.gtbExternal.pageT()),a==null&&window.external&&(a=window.external.pageT,d&&c>0&&(d.tick("_tbnd",void 0,window.external.startE),d.tick("tbnd_","_tbnd",c))),a&&(window.jstiming.pt=a)}catch(g){}})();window.tickAboveFold=function(b){var a=0;if(b.offsetParent){do a+=b.offsetTop;while(b=b.offsetParent)}b=a;b<=750&&window.jstiming.load.tick("aft")};var k=!1;function l(){k||(k=!0,window.jstiming.load.tick("firstScrollTime"))}window.addEventListener?window.addEventListener("scroll",l,!1):window.attachEvent("onscroll",l); })(); .comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

    Repiglican Roast

    A spirited discussion of public policy and current issues

    Name:
    Location: The mouth of being

    I'm furious about my squandered nation.

    Wednesday, August 30, 2006

    Downward Mobility

    If you’re still harboring the notion that the economy is “good,”
    prepare to be disabused.

    Even the best number from yesterday’s Census Bureau report for 2005
    is bad news for most Americans. It shows that median income rose 1.1
    percent last year, to $46,326, the first increase since it peaked in
    1999. But the entire increase is attributable to the 23 million
    households headed by someone over age 65. So the gain is likely from
    investment income and Social Security, not wages and salaries.

    For the other 91 million households, the median dropped, by half a
    percent, or $275. Incomes for the under-65 crowd were hurt by a
    decline in wages and salaries among full-time working men for the
    second year in a row, and among full-time working women for the third
    straight year. In all, median income for the under-65 group was
    $2,000 lower in 2005 than in 2001, when the last recession bottomed out.

    Despite the Bush-era expansion, the number of Americans living in
    poverty in 2005 — 37 million — was the same as in 2004. This is the
    first time the number has not risen since 2000. But the share of the
    population now in poverty — 12.6 percent — is still higher than at
    the trough of the last recession, when it was 11.7 percent. And among
    the poor, 43 percent were living below half the poverty line in 2005
    — $7,800 for a family of three. That’s the highest percentage of
    people in “deep poverty” since the government started keeping track
    of those numbers in 1975.

    As for the uninsured, their ranks grew in 2005 by 1.3 million people,
    to a record 46.6 million, or 15.9 percent. That’s also worse than the
    recession year 2001, reflecting the rising costs of health coverage
    and a dearth of initiatives to help families and companies cope with
    the burden. For the first time since 1998, the percentage of
    uninsured children increased in 2005.

    The Census findings are yet another indication that growth alone is
    not the answer to the economic and social ills of poverty, income
    inequality and lack of insurance. Economic growth was strong in 2005,
    and productivity growth was impressive. What have been missing are
    government policies that help to ensure that the benefits of growth
    are broadly shared — like strong support for public education, a
    progressive income tax, affordable health care, a higher minimum wage
    and other labor protections.

    President Bush is unlikely to push for those changes, wed as he is to
    tax cuts that mainly benefit the wealthy. But the economic agenda for
    the next president couldn’t be clearer.

    0 Comments:

    Post a Comment

    << Home