What is either not understood or ignored about the economy

Modern soothsayer economists would have you believe that the US economy is in excellent shape. However, what they either don't understand or ignore is that 43 percent of the people in the US have an income that is less than $25000 a year. That means that when you consider that a typical one bedroom apartment costs around $950 a month, there is not much left for other expenses.

Furthermore more than 70 percent, have an income less than $50000 a year.

A very gross distribution of income towards the top.

That is the problem with the US economy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

 

It also should be noted that the US changed its definition of an unemployment over the years. So it may be misleading when people try to compare unemployment numbers over the years.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

The unemployment figure that is often quoted is U3. The definition of U3 changed in 1994. To be counted in the current U3, you would have had to have looked for work in the past 4 weeks. The problem with this is that the longer you are out of work, the harder it is to find employment.

 

Distribution of income isn't just an American problem - it's pretty much a world-wide problem. The US, Russia, China, Europe - all have very small percentages with the majority of the income.

 

The US, Russia, China, and Europe are currently based on ESSENTIALLY the same economic models. Of course there are variations different flavors among them. For example, quite frequently people refer to the "China model" of capitalism. But in essence, it is the same economic model. Therefore what you have put forward comes as no surprise.

 

So then one might ask if it's the economic model or human nature. I can't find any historical models (except in very small communities) where the distribution of goods or gold hasn't quickly stratified. Doesn't matter if its been a communist model, a capitalist model, or a socialist model.

 

The capitalist model tends to produce the greatest distortions towards the top. Furthermore, this system also has the flaw of producing a system in which individuals with enormous amounts of capital have too much influence on political, intellectual, and militaristic outcomes.

 

It was the same with the Chinese and Cuban communist models. A few very wealthy individuals at the top with all the political power. The best models seem to be hybrids.

 

It depends on the rules of the game. What I’ve noticed over the decades is our rep’s have worked very hard to make the average Joe more vulnerable to being preyed upon across the board.

If you can’t afford to keep an attorney on retainer you’re pretty much screwed in this environment.

 

The United States has been the most prosperous nation in the history of the world! The American people have the highest living standard in the world! Our poor would be considered well off in most of the rest of the world! The only way to change this fact, is to adopt the insane socialist policies of the left, which would quickly bankrupt the country and turn us into a 'Third World Country.' The failed 'socialist economic policies' of the Soviet Union is what caused them to fall. Cuba, Venezuella, etc were once prosperous countries until they implemented socialism.

 

Lets begin by acknowledging that fact that how ever much we might complain about income distribution... the reality is that essentially NOTHING is going to happen about that issue. I given that it is a gigantic struggle to raise the minimum wage above 8 dollars an hour.... it seems far fetched that equitable income distribution will get any useful traction in the political debate. So, however much we may complain about this issue, the fact is that nothing will be done

But, there is another issue about which things can be done: how we spend the money we do have. The fact is that Americans of all income levels spend tremendous amounts of money on foolish and unnecessary expenses. People of relatively low income buy expensive phones, buy designer clothes, go to movies, do not cook much of their own food, buy cigarettes, go out to bars, have cable tv, buy things on credit and pay exorbitant interest rates, etc.

 

I suspect that is a mix of locales. Some people around here have an income of less than $25,000 per year and are doing fine. The cost of living is not that high and they can get a house for around $450.

 

Raising the minimum wage only puts mre people on the dole makes entry level jobs scarcer and places a false floor under all other labor that cripples the working man, on top of which it increases the cost of living. There is no bad thing that can happen to an economy that raising the minimum wage won't make worse.

 

If increasing the ME would only add people to the dole ... then Would reducing the minimum wage remove people from the dole?

 

Hard to say once you got them on it becomes increasingly difficult over time to get them off because they lose job skills while sitting on the bench.

 

You seem to profoundly misunderstand how the minimum wage works

 

Although Fidel had a better material arrangements than most Cubans, it would be a distortion to say that he was wealthy. That said, it is certainly true that the preponderance of power in those systems was concentrated in a relative few hands. But, to my knowledge, that allocation of power was not based on the capital that those individuals had at their disposal.

 

Agreed. One need only look at the recent passage of draconian bankruptcy laws for an example.

 

I would argue that what you have put forward is the result of a capitalist system in which people with wealth have too much influence on the political and intellectual environment.

There is a quite a bit of truth in what you have said. I will say this. Although I would personally like to do without a cell phone, I would find it difficult to remain competitive in the current economic environment without one. Just saying.

 

Hmmm...

Could you please provide some statistics with a source that backs up your claim. Specifically, I would like to see exactly what is the average and median income in your area, as well as the population.

 

It is really amazing that some people actually are put together like that. Amazing!

 

In my county, the average family income is $36,000 and the average rent for a studio apartment is $475.

 

I would like to see a source with the median as well as the average income. Averages can distort what is actually happening.

 

I am sure the median income is lower because their are some failry well do do families mixed in. The county summary did not show median income.

 

That's why the median can give you more insight into what is actually taking place.

 

I may have found the $450 house.