Income mobility

Americans Are Moving Up

|

NEXT: Rachel Maddow's Racist Smear of Second Circuit Nominee Steve Menashi

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Someone text Boehm, this cant be allowed to spread.

    1. Yes, because someone honest might notice that it fails to take the increase in dual income “households with income” since 1967.

      1. Yet, the overall workforce participation rate remains almost exactly the same between 1967 and 2015 (60% vs 62%), and that does not include baby boomers ageing-out of the workforce.

        The growth in the workforce since 1967 has been almost entirely due to women working in greater numbers (41% to 57%). Perhaps this is due to women having 30% fewer children (2.56 vs 1.80)? Fewer women having kids means more opportunities for women to pursue careers. Something wrong with that? Look at it this way: if women decided to stay home, we would have to have tens of millions of immigrants to fill their positions.

        Are families making more money because the wife is working? Well, only if you don’t include the value of all the uncompensated work that women used to have to do just to keep a household running.

        1. Even if you count it.

          Because all that work is *still* getting done – through hired services or automation – leaving the second partner free to take a job outside the home.

          So, we have one person working, all the normal homework getting done *AND* a second person free to work to bring even more money into the home – or choose to stay home and raise kids.

          I do not get this where this idea that ‘the way thing are supposed to be’ is a one-income family where one partner stays home and spends all day doing laundry and mopping floors.

          1. “I do not get this where this idea that ‘the way thing are supposed to be’ is a one-income family where one partner stays home and spends all day doing laundry and mopping floors.”

            Exactly.

          2. Ditto. Anyone who thinks the good ol’ days are universally better than today isn’t thinking about it too hard. We live in a wonderful world, it’s getting better fast, and has a long way to go before we reach paradise.

          3. I do not get this where this idea that ‘the way thing are supposed to be’ is a one-income family where one partner stays home and spends all day doing laundry and mopping floors.

            Kids.

            You average eight-to-fiver is gone from the house from around seven to six. If both parents work like that, then you need before-school and after-school programs, at least when the kids are young.

            Throw in that meal-prep for regular healthy meals (as opposed to the quick and unhealthy meals you can grab on your way home) takes time, and having both adults in the household working is going to have long-term health impacts too.

            Simply put, households that can afford a homemaker out-perform dual-income households on a whole host of traits, including stress, health, educational attainment of kids, overall happiness and so-on.

            Simply put, we replaced one problem (women not being able to have a successful career on their own) with a new problem (households not being able to have a homemaker). The ideal is giving people the option without coercing them to take it.

            1. They’re not coerced.

              1. No one told them to have kids. They chose that.

              2. The second partner can stay home and manage that. It just means fewer tvs in the house, the cellphones won’t get replaced every year, used cars instead of new, and stop eating out.

            2. You are assuming several things. (Note: I am not saying your concerns are irrelevant)

              You assume that both parents in a double-income household are working full time, or share the same work schedule. This is often not the case. Three examples, all personal friends: Two couples I know actually “share” the same position. They have sacrificed a considerable amount of their lifestyle for the next few years – their son just turned two — so their child will be raised by them.

              As for the other, the husband is a nurse, and works days. The wife teaches dancing three days a week, in the evening. They have two kids, aged five and newborn.

              You are also assuming that people aren’t smart enough to prepare a healthy meal in under twenty minutes. It is not that difficult to do. Hell, even I can do that, and my wife is an expert at it.

        2. The growth in the workforce since 1967 has been almost entirely due to women working in greater numbers (41% to 57%). Perhaps this is due to women having 30% fewer children (2.56 vs 1.80)? Fewer women having kids means more opportunities for women to pursue careers. Something wrong with that?

          Something wrong with that? Only civilizational suicide.

          1. Right, because when the world only had 4 billion people in it, we didn’t have any civilization.

            The lower birth rate is not an American phenomena — it is directly tied to increasing levels of wealth and education, and is happening all over the world. It is predicted that the world population will peak at ten or twelve billion, and then gradually decline and stabilize at about four billion.

            1. Which would be fine IF we weren’t told that we’re evil for not wanting to become minorities in our own homelands… But that’s not the case.

              Western civilization will cease to exist due to mass immigration in that in between time between when the rest of the world explodes in population, moves here, and when they also stop popping out tons of kids. It’s all there in known, uncontested demographic charts from the USA and Europe.

              I don’t see a problem with a slowly declining population… But I don’t want to see western civilization end simply because progs demand we take in unlimited foreigners, no matter their job skills, culture, etc.

              IMO Japan is doing it right… Doing what Japan does, but allowing some skilled immigration in reasonable numbers, seems to be the ticket.

      2. Did I miss a right to single income source households?

        1. Not sure what this has to do with rights. It has to do with consistency.

          AlbertP, you do realize that children grow up to be adults and they could take these jobs?

          1. When the birthrate is below the “replacement rate,” there will not enough children to replace the workers we now have. Of course, with new technologies, we may not need them, or at least as many, proportionate to the total population. And with new ways to “make money” always cropping up, it is possible that a substantial number of people will rely more and more on the gig economy, or, God forbid, start their own business.

          2. “AlbertP, you do realize that children grow up to be adults and they could take these jobs?”

            Of course! There are, of necessity, only a finite number of jobs available, which explains how our population has increased by 100,000,000 over the last fifty years and now there are 100,000,000 unemployed!
            Malthus was an idiot; neo-malthusians are too.

            1. “Malthus was an idiot…”
              You give him, and his followers, too much credit,

          3. Consistency? Multi parent households are dropping and yet the numbers climbed.

        2. Of course not. Many women do not work outside the household (my wife hasn’t worked in years). This does not mean that non-working women don’t contribute financially to the household. For instance: have you checked out the price of day-care lately? A woman providing daycare for three kids, depending on where she lived, could pull down $1200 to $2000 a month. Not bad for part time work. Just because she is caring for her own kids does not lessen the value, but it doesn’t show up in figures of “family income” or even “income” at all. My grandmother raised five children. Cooking, cleaning, sewing, “daycare” (she had help at night from my grandfather, who was a farmer), and endless other services, including helping them with school work. If one wishes to calculate how much it would cost to pay someone to do that, well, she would have been making a bloody fortune. Yet, according to the statistics, she never had any “income.”

          1. “…hasn’t worked _for a paycheck_ in years.” If you insist she hasn’t worked, well, either she’s got a really generous husband or you can borrow my couch for as long as you need. 🙂

            1. LOL. I retired at fifty-eight. My wife of fifteen years is, well, twenty-two years my junior. I have been lucky, and have enough wealth to support us both for the rest of my life, as well as her after I am gone, in a middle-middle-class lifestyle. We share the house-work, and she does the cooking. Not wealthy, but comfortable. With lots of time for beach-combing and rock hounding and playing music. it really doesn’t get any better.

              I do appreciate the offer of your couch. 🙂

      3. Are you seriously arguing that household income isn’t actually rising but merely looks that way because there are two people in the household working and there’s more money coming into the household?

        1. Which necessarily means that there are sufficient jobs being created in the economy for households to have two full-time job holders. If jobs were disappearing as the left tells us they are, how would household be able to have two income earners?

          Which reminds me, for the first 12 years of my life, I lived in a single income household. My mother was not “forced“ to work to make ends meet. Of course, we had only one car that was seven years old, only one television that was black-and-white, Our “stereo” was not a stereo at all, but was a radio and amplifier that my father built as part of a home education course in electronics, our “vacations” were trips to visit relatives in Brooklyn, My sisters and I wore hand-me-down clothes, and I wore four dollar sneakers that fell apart after one week of use. Anyone willing to live that lifestyle can continue to live in a single income household.

        2. As is common knowledge, 2 + 2 = 2.

          In defense of the OP, however, I think the OP is talking more about the increase in “buying power” of many households is because significantly more women are working outside of the household.

          But that is, in reality, only true if you don’t count the value of the non-compensated work of women (or men) who stay at home, raising kids, whatever, as “income,” which, in fact the stats do not take into consideration.

          Such non-compensated activities, while not showing up as “income,” certainly have a major, positive effect on the quality of life of the family, including its “buying power.” It just doesn’t show up in the “dollars and cents” categories.

        3. Unemployment is so low because everyone is working two or three jobs!/s

          1. Unemployment statistics do not take into account the number of jobs a particular person has.

            The unemployment rate is calculated based on a modestly-complex formula including those seeking work, including those who want to work but are not actively seeking it.

          2. Sorry… I actually DID notice the sarcasm, although belatedly.

            1. Its something AOC has said – non-ironically.

              1. As has OBL and I’m never sure there.

              2. Yes, I remember that.

        4. It’s all what you measure. If you think household income is, significant, well then include all earners. If you think income per worker is what matters, make a case for that. Ditto if what you care about is mean hourly non-salary cash wages. None of these is inherently right. They all give you different, simplified views of a very complex system.

          1. This is true.

          2. Truth.

            But when you look at average hourly/per capita income I think that gives you the best view into “prosperity” as most people would define it.

            If 1 person working full time makes $50K… And a 2 person household working full time makes $60K… Who would really argue that household 2 is the one that is doing better financially in terms of prosperity per effort?

            Nobody. Likewise if people had to work twice as many hours to make the same income etc.

            So while the left is a bunch of retards who distort the data and what it really means… There is in fact a lot of proof that essentially things have gone flat for a HUGE portion of the population. It’s not got considerably worse in many ways, BUT it has not got better either.

            Also some of the “big” concerns people have have become disproportionately harder than in the past, mainly because of government stupidity. Namely housing, health care, and education. Anybody who thinks an iPhone in a pocket makes up for being able to afford to buy a house, pay for healthcare, and cover your kids college from savings is a tard… And those are all things normal people USED to be able to do in the USA.

      4. That doesn’t change the fact that more households are upper-middle to upper class now.

        Or do they not count as households because both partners might be working?

        1. Different stats tell different stories, all of which have their place…

          Imagine if the same stats showed “Incomes are up 30%! Workers only have to work 100% more hours for it.”

          Would that really sound like a positive development to most people?

      5. How is that relevant?

        Two people choose to work out of the home – because they’re wealthy enough already to be able to afford labor-saving devices (or even to hire others) that reduce the amount of ‘unpaid’ labor that needs to be done to maintain the household.

        So they’re still starting out richer and ending up even richer – iow, the middle class is shrinking because we’re generally getting richer overall.

        1. Two people choose to work out of the home – because they’re wealthy enough already to be able to afford labor-saving devices (or even to hire others) that reduce the amount of ‘unpaid’ labor that needs to be done to maintain the household.

          How many hours/week is being worked outside the home? If a household used to be supportable by one person working 40 hours/week – and that same consumption/income pattern now requires 65 hours/week but they are actually working 70 hours – then are they better off or are they running faster to stay in the same place

          there’s no question that much of the increased workforce participation by women outside the home now is a matter of true choice. The GOAL was to work more outside the house. But ‘choice’ can be a deceptive thing in econ stats. Used to be that steak was the largest component of the ‘meat at home’ basket. Then it switched to hamburger and chicken. Maybe some of that is choice – maybe some is just switching to cheaper cuts of meat because the inflation measures are wrong. What about the next ‘choice’ – say dogfood and roadkill? If people switch to that will that too be a matter of choice – a glorious expression of freedom and economic prosperity that everyone can laud?

          Used to be that working poor could easily go to a doctor. Now I hear people saying that a nurse is a substitute ‘choice’ (as it was then too – but it wasn’t deemed a choice then if one could go to a doctor). Well how about a veterinarian? How about a butcher or an auto mechanic or a voodoo practitioner who hang out a shingle as a ‘doctor’ with elimination of licensing?

          Hell – your money or your life is a choice too.

          1. . . . then are they better off or are they running faster to stay in the same place . . .

            If they’re not better off – then why are they doing it?

            If they have to spend more time working outside the home to get the same work done – then it would make sense that they would stop doing that. Instead of working 65 hours in a job, the second partner would stay home and work 40 there.

            That they are not suggests either people are really, really, really, really stupid – and a person can be stupid, in aggregate, people are very smart – or that it works out better for them.

            Probably because the first 40 hours worked pays for the house stuff and the remaining 25 pays for the extra shit they want in their lives.

            1. If they’re not better off – then why are they doing it?

              Because homelessness and food insecurity is not an aspiration for most? Again – your money or your life is a choice too.

              Probably because the first 40 hours worked pays for the house stuff and the remaining 25 pays for the extra shit they want in their lives.

              For the median household, that’s not really true. What happened when women went into the workforce was that it created a much larger supply of labor and changed the relative bargaining power of employee v employer. The consequence was that wage income went down relatively (relative to total GDP) while other sorts of income – interest in the 70’s, profits from the 80’s on and economic rent from the early 90’s on – rose relatively. But those latter incomes do not get distributed to individuals the same way wages do. They get distributed to those who already own assets.

              Some of that was entirely to be expected – because the goal of many women WAS simply to work outside the home and receive personal satisfaction for that rather than to ‘get ahead’ in some purely monetary sense. But there are also large gaps between what they might have accepted v expected v what happened. And those gaps explain why many Americans would view this article as blowing smoke and propagandistic bullshit.

      6. Many people, Dr. Perry included, have noted and analyzed the effects of changing demographic on income statistics. It gets pretty complicated pretty fast, leading to lies, damn lies, and statistics. It’s much, deeper than “household incomes have gone up” or “worker wages are flat.” Personally I find it fascinating to look at the numbers in all sorts of ways.

      7. Ok, now do the increase in households with single parents.

      8. Or that the inflation adjustment is presumed to be 100% accurate – despite the fact that inflation measurement has deliberately been screwed with for political purposes – and there is never a hint presented in the conclusions as to how sensitive the results are to the measure of inflation used.

        Would the conclusions be the same if the real inflation measure was 0.1% higher/year?

      9. Yes, that is the reason for more housholds in the higher bracket, since the median income of $21K in 1989 (and now 26K, with 1 in 4 making less than $10.10 an hour) has, adjusted for inflation, fallen by over 30%.

        Eliminating children and students results in showing that 8.5% of population makes 100K+ per year, and 91.5% of the same population makes less. So to get to 27.7% of households making $100K or more means most of them have two workers in the household.

        If ordinary Ameridans, as the article suggests, are doing so much better, why are they borrowing at record levels. Why are most
        Americans broke?
        “According to Bankrate’s latest financial security index survey, 34 percent of American households experienced a major unexpected expense over the past year. However, only 39 percent of survey respondents said they would be able to cover a $1,000 setback using their savings.” That leaves 61% who could come up with $1000.
        peerfinance101.com reports: ”
        According to data from the Federal Reserve, total household debt in the United States has surged in 2017 to $12.84 trillion, up by more than half a trillion in the last year.

        If people are moving up, why are they forced to borrow in order to survive?

        Borrowers in 13 states now owe more than they make in a year and the average household pays a dollar out of every $5 in income just to make monthly payments to debt.”

      10. Household income stats are notoriously bogus, and a tip off of someone spinning a Narrative.

        Is your household better off with both parents working for 100k, or one parent working for 90k?

        Also, if you’re only talking income but not costs, such as taxes and cost of living, which if often a whole lotta government enabled rent seeking, you’re talking out of your ass.

  2. Another fine example for open borders. Also, Orange man Bad.
    -Shika Derpaderp

    1. Orange Man bad?!? He BAD, all right! He SOOO BAD, He be GOOD! He be GREAT! He Make America Great Again!

      We KNOW He can Make America Great Again, because, as a bad-ass businessman, He Made Himself and His Family Great Again! He Pussy Grabber in Chief!
      http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

      “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet”
      He pussy-grab His creditors in 7 bankruptcies, His illegal sub-human workers ripped off of pay on His building projects, and His “students” in His fake Get-Rich-like-Me reality schools, and so on. So, He has a GREAT record of ripping others off! So SURELY He can rip off other nations, other ethnic groups, etc., in trade wars and border wars, for the benefit of ALL of us!!!
      All Hail to THE Pussy Grabber in Chief!!!

      Most of all, HAIL the Chief, for having revoked karma! What comes around, will no longer go around!!! The Donald has figured out that all of the un-Americans are SOOO stupid, that we can pussy-grab them all day, every day, and they will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing us right back!

      1. Find another hobby. No one even reads your e-diarrhea

          1. Says THE chasm-Peon of ALL Shitposting of ALL Time!

            1. That would be Hihn. Then Pedo Jeffy, then YOU.

              You aren’t even number one at shitposting. Although you are definitely number two I’m general.

      2. Get help.

      3. I usually don’t read your shit, but in this case, it was worth the try:
        Read your own damn link to The Atlantic: A whole series of “I heard”, “she said”, “he was charged but not convicted”, and so forth. All left over from 2016, and none of them gone any further in the ensuing 3 years.
        An entire collection of ‘hint, hint’, ‘nudge’, ‘nudge’ absent one bit of harmful fact. Not ONE was shown to be both harmful and true.
        Do you pride yourself on saving bullshit claims for years in the hopes someone will ignore the fact that they are bullshit and out of date besides?
        Fuck off and seek help.

      4. OMG! EVERYTHING IS SO TERRIBLE AND UNFAIR!!!

        Haha

  3. Oh, great. More oppressors.

  4. To a deluxe apartment in the sky.

    1. Finally got a piece of the pie!

      1. To a higher tax bracket so the governor can give away more pie for votes.

        1. I wonder where Weezie is working.

  5. That was Mighty White of you to fail to mention that in 2016 a majority of “households with income” now require two incomes to survive versus a single income in 1967.

    1. The standard of living in 1967 was much lower than it is today. If you wanted to live a 1967 lifestyle, as in give up air conditioning, cable, satellite, internet, good frozen food, safety features on your car, computers, cell phones, smart phones, flat screens, cds, Bluetooth, WiFi, video games…. the list is practically endless, then yeah you could do that on a single paycheck. Easy. A greater standard of living isn’t free.

      1. Not to mention which, the 1967 standard of living included a lower divorce rate and a lower unwed mother birthrate because women simply couldn’t afford to get divorced or have a child without a husband’s paycheck. Which is why household income is a flawed measure of how well people are doing – one household with a $75,000 income plus a $35,000 income looks better than one household with a $75,000 income and one household with a $35,000 income. But I’ll bet that person with the $35,000 income thinks they’re better off moving out of Mom’s basement or getting away from that cheating bastard she made the mistake of marrying.

      2. Frozen food has gotten progressively worse over the past 40-50 years.

        A lot of this is due to the walmart effect, and their constant pressure on unit pricing, forcing suppliers to cheapify the quality of their frozen meals.

        Also, advances in the technology of mechanically separated meats allow more [previously] waste parts to be used.

        If you don’t believe me, read some of the reviews for various Conagra brands (Marie Callender, Health Choice) and Nestle (Stouffers, Lean Cuisine) as they made each successive cheapification.

        And don’t get me started on ice cream, which is essentially ice gum now and the industry is so consolidated that there are only two major producers. A shake can’t be made today using Breyers or Edys because of the high percentage of gums.

        You’re probably thinking, if the product quality changes are so bad, the market wouldn’t let these products succeed. But the amount of customers (who care about quality) that they lose is made up with extra customers who are willing to eat swill if it is cheap enough.

        1. As a Connoisseur of frozen, pre-made meals, I can tell you that you’re way, way wrong here. The quality has increased across the board – and where its not increased, the unit price is significantly lower (adjusted for inflation) for the same sort of thing 50 years ago.

        2. You would seriously prefer a TV dinner in 1967 compared to what’s in the frozen meal aisle today…?

          Seriously?

        3. “Conagra brands (Marie Callender, Health Choice) and Nestle (Stouffers, Lean Cuisine)”

          As far as these brands suffering “cheapification,” I will have to take your word for it. The brands I typically purchase, (Annie’s, Quorn, Gardein, and others), have shown a great improvement in nearly every aspect, and, relative to the better-known competition, lower prices than just a few years ago.

        4. In case some of you defending frozen t.v. dinners for some reason didn’t read far enough…

          “And don’t get me started on ice cream, which is essentially ice gum now and the industry is so consolidated that there are only two major producers. ”

          It was a joke post.

          1. It’s no joke.

            Ice Cream’s Identity Crisis; http://archive.is/ZAJ5P

            Or just search youtube for all of the people trying to make an “ice cream” shake out of today’s “frozen dairy dessert” products.

            Nestle and Unilever control all supermarket ice cream brands. Even brands that they don’t own have to use their distribution and/or production facilities.

            Real ice cream can still be found, for example, at whole foods. But you’ll pay $8+ a pint for what essentially everybody could get at the supermarket in the 1970s.

            1. Doug Heffernan
              August.18.2019 at 2:23 pm

              “It’s no joke….”
              We know! It’s the post of a lefty ignoramus; any joke’s on you.

          2. I really should have caught that! lol

        5. Tjos may be the dumbest thing Ive ever read.
          I take it you never had a Hungry Man Dinner wrappen in foil for the oven

        6. Doug Heffernan
          August.18.2019 at 12:23 pm
          “Frozen food has gotten progressively worse over the past 40-50 years.
          A lot of this is due to the walmart effect, and their constant pressure on unit pricing, forcing suppliers to cheapify the quality of their frozen meals.
          […]
          If you don’t believe me, read some of the reviews for various Conagra brands (Marie Callender, Health Choice) and Nestle (Stouffers, Lean Cuisine) as they made each successive cheapification.”

          Oh, good! another fucking idiot in the trueman mold: ‘you can look it up!’
          Cite or fuck off, and also cite for the bogus claim regarding Walmart, fucking lefty twit.

    2. I’m sure that has nothing to do with the fact that our standard of living since 1967 includes considerably more luxuries than we had in 1967 such as home air conditioning, cable TV, internet, cell phones, Xboxes, Netflix accounts, etc.

      1. Way to be more concise, jerk face.

        1. Sarcasmic!!! You’re back!!! Where ya been, buddy? Welcome back!

          (Hope your ex-wife hasn’t eaten-alive, too much of you, and that your daughter is behaving).

          1. I’m kinda back. Just a few pot shots here and there. The ex used the system to totally fuck me over, such is life. But my daughter is doing well and that is what matters. Thanks for saying hello.

            1. Glad to hear your daughter is doing well.

          2. I’ve been dealing with life. Too fucking busy to waste much time with the assholes who took over this once enlightening forum. So sad to see how far it has fallen.

            1. Don’t let the bastards get you down!

              And what squirrely said.

              1. I got jars of antidepressants. I’ll be fine.

                  1. This is why we lose funny and thought-provoking comments like those of Sarcasmic… Bottom-dwelling scum like you come here to ruin it all for the rest of us! Barf-poster!

                    1. Don’t feed the trolls.

                    2. Squirrely, your writing is the equivalent of diarrhea. Sarcasmic is better, but not much.

                      The people you hate are the smart ones here. You just don’t like us because of that.

            2. It really sux. The only thing worse is how bad the writing has gotten here

      2. sarcasmic refuses to admit that he is part of the problem here at reason Commenting Central.

    3. Define survive for the non retarded people.

      1. And then he should explain it for people who think Trump has an army of angels at his command so you can understand it.

        https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/hank-kunneman-calls-on-god-to-release-angelic-reinforcements-to-ensure-trump-wins-in-2020/

        1. Hi tony. Clock still broken? Linking your a site called right wing watch totes gives you credibility.

          1. Gigantic clocks!! Ahahahaha what a rube. Why is he still using that sad fucking sock?

        2. Esmeralda Overdrive
          August.18.2019 at 11:11 am
          “And then he should explain it for people who think Trump has an army of angels at his command so you can understand it.”

          Hey, shitbag! Take your irrelevant concerns and shove them up your ass.

    4. “That was Mighty White of you to fail to mention that in 2016 a majority of “households with income” now require two incomes to survive versus a single income in 1967.”

      Mighty stupid of you to claim “survival” requires two incomes.

    5. You are one dumb motherfucker. There are plenty of places that liberals haven’t destroyed yet where the cost of living is normal. And even in the places that they have destroyed, you could get by with one income if you lived like people in the 60’s did.

    6. How do they require two incomes to ‘survive’? And what’s ‘mighty white’ about failing to mention it?

      1. No, they don’t. In fact, two people can live together with an even better quality of life than the same two people separately.

      2. Is this how you clumsily shoe-horn in accusations of racism in preparation for not having a convincing argument to back up your statements?

      3. Its kind of off-putting – as in ‘no one wants to engage with the crazy’ – when you just jump in and post the same assertion multiple times, failing to support it each time. Like you’ve got some sort of ‘gotcha’.

      1. Also – if people require two incomes to ‘survive’ – how do all those single people manage it?

        I’m single – got a house on 2.5 acres, two cars, a motorcycle, 4 tvs, two refrigerators, goats, chickens. I’m living a pretty middle-class life on one income.

        1. White privilege.

    7. Well, that’s because it’s not true. If you’re willing to live a 1967 lifestyle, you can do so on a single income.

      Also, a lot of second incomes really don’t add much for families with children: the extra income is consumed by all the services people need to hire in order to allow both parents to work.

      1. If you’re willing to live a 1967 lifestyle, you can do so on a single income.

        Not unless you are a high income single. For most people, spending has to be prioritized. Some spending is called staples or necessities. Some is discretionary – which means if the money’s already gone ain’t no spending in that category. WTF am I even having to explain this? The stuff that everyone here praises re technology or ‘quality improvements’ is — discretionary. Relative price of those are going down in large part BECAUSE it is discretionary. If staples/necessities used to take up 50% of income and now take up 80% of income (more accurately total consumption $), then there is now only 20% of the pie for that where there used to be 50%. Of course prices drop. Not necessarily cuz of the wonders of economic prosperity but cuz of more marginal demand.

        On the more ‘necessities’ side:
        Rent (median was 20% of income then, is 30-35% or so of income now)
        Medical (used to be included for all income levels – with no out-of-pocket cost – and wasn’t even included in income — now is sketchy/nonexistent at lower income levels and hugely expensive out-of-pocket)
        Taxes – median marginal combined federal tax rate for younger singles (I’ll ignore widows) then was 20% — is now about 28%. That’s mostly added FICA – which of course R’s pretend doesn’t really exist.
        Education – shouldn’t really be a necessity – and wasn’t in 1967 – but in fact has now become a lazy screening device by employers – forcing even lower-paid to spend money on bullshit just to get in the door to get an income that doesn’t really require a degree.
        Food is a combo – definitely more discretionary spending re restaurants/etc but also quite a bit of ‘substituting downwards’ (which is always ignored)
        Gas is cheaper – but commutes are longer cuz long commute is the only way to save on rent. So that is almost a wash – despite fuel efficiency since then.

        You can break out every part of the consumer basket – then to now. For the median American – single or family – the late 60’s was the peak of prosperity – now is not. People know that too — which is why both Trump and Sanders got the support in 2016 they wouldn’t have in 1967. The only difference there is who they blame for their misery.

        1. Yet again proving that all honest journalism at Reason occurs in the comments.

          Rent and medical are government enabled rent seeking, while taxes are direct payments to government.

          Note that Rent is driven up and wages driven down by mass immigration.

          Any analysis of “prosperity” that only looks at household income but not household costs or hours worked is transparent propaganda.

        2. Sorry, but your analysis is wrong. Even by spending categories, the amount of discretionary “other” spending has gone way up for middle class families; take it from the Atlantic. The only categories that have really increased are housing and transportation, largely due to government policies.

          However, even that comparison is incorrect because the quality of food, healthcare, housing, transportation, entertainment, and apparel has increased so tremendously. For example, 1967-style healthcare today costs you almost nothing because it did almost nothing. The 5% people spend on healthcare today is for healthcare that is massively better than it was in 1967.

        3. I rarely ever agree with you JFree, but you’re more or less right on this.

          When you factor in the extra working hours, larger chunks going to a few necessities, etc it is more or less true that AT BEST most people are barely treading water with where we were then, and many are in fact worse off.

          Government stupidity is responsible for a LARGE part of the problem.

          To those that try to throw out “But XYZ is better now!” That’s TRUE… But doesn’t do away with the discrepancies entirely. It’s not like people are making half of what they were back then once one adjusts for things, but as I said they’re treading water at best. With all the advancements we’ve made in productivity we SHOULD all be doing FAR better than we are.

          Government policies and cheap foreign labor are the reason the 1st world has seen such small gains. As a libertarian I suppose we shouldn’t bitch about the competition from poor people in Asia, that’s just how things work… But we can definitely bitch about the stuff the guvmint has fucked up on.

    8. SINGLE INCOMES IMPLODING!!!

    9. Just like how “households with children” might require two parents? Or is that too non-woke?

  6. I myself am moving on up to the East Side.

    1. To a DE-luxe apartment in the sky?

      1. George Jefferson was an entrepreneur who owned a small chain of dry cleaning businesses. He was a good example of the American dream.

        Thanks to progtards, and regulations on businesses like dry cleaners, I doubt he could it get off the ground today.

  7. Are those numbers adjusted for inflation?

    1. The source is the census bureau. they understand inflation.

      1. Shouldn’t you end that sentence with an exclamation point?

        1. Exclamations aren’t subject to inflation.

          1. Yes!! They are!!!

        2. The Fed has increased interest rates on exclamation point usage to combat that exact thing.

          1. EVERYTHING IS SO TERRIBLE AND UNFAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    2. It says so right on the chart: (2016 dollars)

      1. I assumed that meant the darker funny looking bills with the large off center portraits and the security strip on the side

        1. Its the racist non harriet Tubman 20 Bills.

  8. Are Americans moving up enough? Record high rates of indebtedness show the problem to be Americans don’t have enough money to buy the things they want so desperately to have. Desperate enough to go into to debt to acquire them.

    1. So many people don’t understand the difference between want and need.

      1. If you have scads of money, the distinction is meaningless.

        1. Plenty of people have pissed away scads of money.

          1. “Plenty of people have pissed away scads of money.”

            Regardless, even with plenty of money, people still choose to become debtors. The scads of money people are making are evidently not enough.

        2. “If you have scads of money, the distinction is meaningless.”

          And if not, it’s quite important to understand the distinction. Whose fault is it, that lots of people don’t?

          1. “Whose fault is it, that lots of people don’t?”

            The media, mexicans, leftists and young people. Do you really have to ask?

            1. You’re literally giving away the game that you have no honest argument.

              1. Would it be more honest if I included feminists and blacks in my list of usual suspects?

                1. It can’t be an honest list if you leave out SIE JEWS!!!

            2. You’re engaging the trolling asshole who posted this:

              mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
              “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

              He bullshits or offers sophistry, refuses to provide evidence, which is no surprise, since most of his “facts” are pulled out of his ass.
              He has heard of this concept of ‘honest argument’ but has not familiarity with it.

        3. It’s that kind of attitude that keeps you poor and in debt. People with money tend to be very careful with it and avoid debt. That’s how they got rich and that’s how they stay rich.

          1. “That’s how they got rich”

            You don’t get rich with taking risks. Preferably with other people’s money.

            1. Correct: not taking risks with their own money and not taking risks with other people’s money is how people get rich. Glad you see it now.

              1. Mason jars filled with change in the back yard

            2. Many many people get rich taking risks, but also working their asses off to mitigate said risks.

              I take it you’ve never had a job higher than barista.

              1. My apologies. I meant without. You are entirely correct except for the barrista part.

          2. Show me a poor person and I’ll show you someone who spends all their money.

            Show me a rich person and I’ll show you someone who doesn’t spend all their money.

            In high school I worked at McDonald’s and there was this retarded guy there who was a millionaire. He lived in a small apartment. Rode his bike to work. Invested what he didn’t spend. In short he lived well below his means, and retired with millions. No joke.

            But you’re not allowed to suggest that people are responsible for their own fate. People are poor because of something or someone else. Not because of their personal choices. To say anything else is mean.

            1. Our society no longer celebrates personal responsibility. That’s one of our underlying problems.

              1. +100

              2. Yup. It’s still quite possible to do well on a reasonable income in the USA, but too many people have bad money habits. To add to the McDonald’s millionaire, I once met a janitor millionaire. This was about 10 years ago, but he’d never made more than $12-13 an hour, had a wife and a few kids… But he’d stacked up a few rental properties by being frugal. Given that he bought these in a trendy coastal city, that guy might be worth $5-10 million by now.

            2. “In high school I worked at McDonald’s and there was this retarded guy there who was a millionaire. He lived in a small apartment. Rode his bike to work. Invested what he didn’t spend. In short he lived well below his means, and retired with millions. No joke.”

              Humble brag, sarc. Are we not supposed to notice this described you in every detail?

            3. ” this retarded guy there who was a millionaire”

              Are you sure this retarded guy wasn’t receiving some sort of government disability check every month, or otherwise availing of the government largess denied to normal people like us?

              I chose rich parents, by the way. Best decision of my life.

    2. “Record high rates of indebtedness show the problem to be Americans don’t have enough money to buy the things they want so desperately to have.”

      And yet people from all over the world want to come here when you’d think they could indebt themselves quite satisfactorily where they are now. It’s truly a mystery.

      1. “It’s truly a mystery.”

        Read the article. It’s clear that level of debt is unrelated to Americans and their ability to move up.

        1. “Read the article.”
          cite or fuck off, you pathetic piece of lying shit.

        2. You don’t have to read the article to understand that.

          Its a maxim that if you’re taking on debt you are slowing the rate at which you will ‘move up’ – because you’re moving spending through time from your future to your present. You’re enriching your present at the expense of impoverishing your future. That’s what debt is.

          According to you – these people are taking on debt to finance the things they *want* today rather than waiting until they can afford them later.

          As such, this is a trade-off these people have chosen to make. So we’re not going to count their debt-load against their income. If they hadn’t chosen 4 cars and a bike and vacations every year at Disneyland, and eating out every night then they’d be even richer today.

          Instead they chose to be a little richer yesterday at the expense of not being as rich as they could be today.

          1. “Instead they chose to be a little richer yesterday at the expense of not being as rich as they could be today.”

            I don’t see how borrowing money makes you richer. Debt has long been seen as something to avoid.

            1. Let me repeat that, slowly.

              Debt

              Makes

              You

              Richer

              Today

              At

              The

              Expense

              Of

              Making

              You

              Poorer

              Tomorrow.

    3. Are Americans moving up enough? Record high rates of indebtedness show the problem to be Americans don’t have enough money to buy the things they want so desperately to have.

      And when you do that, you stay poor.

      Desperate enough to go into to debt to acquire them.

      Going into debt isn’t desperation, it’s foolishness and lack of money management skills.

      1. “Going into debt isn’t desperation, it’s foolishness and lack of money management skills.”

        It’s a good thing then that one can move up while still burdened with unprecedented debts. Just think how things would be if our indebtedness had consequences.

        1. It’s a good thing then that one can move up while still burdened with unprecedented debts.

          Income and net worth are separate and independent. There are plenty of people with both high incomes and high debt, and they are just one unforeseen problem away from destitution.

          Debt is bad no matter what your income level is. The only debt you should ever even consider is a mortgage on your house, and even that, you should pay off as quickly as possible.

          1. More debt is less freedom. And if moving up means encumbering yourself in debt. then maybe this moving up isn’t as good as Reason claims. I don’t know how increasing debt figures into the picture but you’d think a journalist comparing our well being today with that of 40 years ago would consider it.

            1. Then these people should choose not to encumber themselves with debt.

              But at no point has taking on debt been *necessary* for them to ‘move up’.

              You are not upper class because you own a big house or drive a new car. Those are things an upper class income allows but they don’t make you upper class. So, if you’ve taken on debt for the big house and new car – then you’ve PREVENTED YOURSELF from moving up.

              1. ” So, if you’ve taken on debt for the big house and new car – then you’ve PREVENTED YOURSELF from moving up.”

                We’ve all moved up according to the article and debt apparently plays no part.

            2. More debt is less freedom. And if moving up means encumbering yourself in debt. then maybe this moving up isn’t as good as Reason claims.

              As I was saying: The only debt you should ever even consider is a mortgage on your house, and even that, you should pay off as quickly as possible.

              1. For a simple person who doesn’t want to learn about investing or actively participate in investing this is probably good advice. AKA for 9-5 middle class sorts. For people with higher goals, it is not the best advice.

            3. mtrueman
              August.18.2019 at 6:05 pm
              “More debt is less freedom….”

              This bullshit doesn’t even rise to mercantilism; it’s “everything you need to know, you learned in kindergarten”.
              Yeah, that debt that let me start my new business sure cut my ‘freedom’, didn’t it?

              1. “Yeah, that debt that let me start my new business sure cut my ‘freedom’, didn’t it?”

                Debts have to be repaid. You are not free to ignore them.

          2. “a mortgage on your house, and even that, you should pay off as quickly as possible.”

            Actually, given the tax code and current low interest rates, that’s not actually great advice.

            In my case, for example, I would be hit with a serious tax liability if I sold investments to pay off my mortgage. And my balance is now so low that I don’t even itemize. You really need to consider individual cases before making random judgments.

            That said, of course, both the mortgage interest deduction and policies that keep interest rates low are probably highly questionable. But as things stand you are probably better off to make the standard payment on your mortgage and put any “excess” income into a good investment fund. Especially if you can do so with pre-tax income as you can with a 401(k) or a standard IRA.

      2. They’re going in debt to pay for their medication!!!!! Every month, 75% of all Americans must choose between paying for their medicine or buying groceries!!!!!!!!! They MUST go into debt just to pay their exorbitant monthly rent. Don’t you understand that 80% of ALL Americans are virtually in debtor’s prisons and NONE of this even existed prior to 2016. If we corrected for inflation, then 85% of all Americans actually live beneath the Federally mandated Poverty Level, and 90% of minorities in this country cannot afford clean drinking water without going even further into debt. And ALL of this dates from 2016. In closing, 99% of ALL Americans are one single paycheck from bankruptcy, while the 1% are 5000% more wealthy than they were prior to November 2016. My God!!!!!! Is mtrueman the ONLY person here who has eyes?????????

        1. Wow! It’s even worse than I thought!

    4. Those things aren’t linked.

      You can absolutely be moving up (or falling down) while still going into debt because you’re even more aspirational so you’re funding the acquisition of the things you’re desperate to have through debt.

      That’s just a matter of your eyes being bigger than your wallet.

  9. hehee,, Someone text Boehm, this cant be allowed to spread

  10. Doesn’t stop jerks from denying the facts and complaining.

  11. I’m a 35 year old male in Missouri. I do not know anyone who has moved out of poverty. I know plenty of rich or middle class people. They were always that way. I know several people who were middle class who are now poor. But I know zero people who were making ten dollars an hour five years ago who are making 25 now. No one. Not even close.

    1. I am not discounting your experience — personal experience is relevant, but not necessarily indicative of the big picture. For instance, I can testify that nearly every childhood friend, with which I have maintained at least some contact with, who are now in their fifties and sixties, is doing much better than their parents. Including me.

      Overall, at least based on income, the movement is definitely on the “positive” side. That being said, it is a very slow process. Most folks don’t go from “rags to riches,” in a single generation. And, certainly, those who start out “middle class” or better, are more likely to succeed, due to a combination of better access to education and other social factors.

      But, the fact is that the top bracket is expanding and the lower bracket is shrinking — not at an equal rate, for sure, but this is good news.

    2. Lots of people move out of poverty in the US. People just assume they’ve always been middle class.

    3. I moved out of poverty as I got older and acquired more skills, and employers became willing to pay more for my labor.

      1. Will Rogers remarked that things here work in spite of government, rather than because of it.

    4. You misspelled misery.

    5. “Time in Poverty Across the entire sample, the average spell of poverty lasted 2.8 years. ”

      https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/policy-brief/transitions-out-poverty-united-states

      I’m not calling you a liar. But I’m calling you fucking retarded.

    6. “But I know zero people who were making ten dollars an hour five years ago who are making 25 now. No one. Not even close.”

      Ten dollars an hour is an entry level job. Increasing your pay from such a position by 2 1/2 times over five years is an unreasonable expectation, if you ask me.

      1. Depends on what effort you put into it take some welding or plumbing classes and you’ll easily double it in 2 years.

        1. I agree. I was talking about doubling your pay at your current (entry level- fast food, for example) job.

          1. Fast food and coffee shops arent a career path no matter how much liberals think they should be

            1. Can be if you are ambitious. People become managers or franchise owners.

              1. I know somebody who manages a Burger King. He started working there as a teenager, and is a not ambitious guy… A few years back he got a raise to over $60K a year. It’s not amazing money, but it ain’t bad. Especially considering he pretty much just skated his way into it by not being a total retard and sticking at the same place for eons.

    7. Im in the insurance business. I know several multimillionaires who started off as nobodies with nothing.

      My father was born in a 2 room cabin with no electricity or plumbing. The idea that no one moves up is laughable. You are hanging around the wrong crowd

      1. But that crowd has the right feels and blames the right people.

    8. Probably because they moved away from your go nowhere ass.

    9. Your parents, over the course of 35 years, never improved their lot? I think if you told your father that he was always ‘middle-class’ he would laugh in your face.

      Oh, and even if they really never improved their lot – well, the house they live in has internet, central air, cable tv. I bet there’s more than one flatscreen color tv in the house and that they all have cellphones.

    10. Sounds to me like everyone you know are losers.

    11. You need new friends. And a new state. Yikes!

    12. Honestly, that just ain’t right. I’m a couple years younger than you, and I can say 110% that I know people doing way better than the station they were born in, people doing worse, and people doing the same… Mainly based off of their own skills/effort.

      That even includes people I know from the small town where I went to high school. Plenty of those that remained there are doing just fine too.

      I don’t buy into the it’s all sunshine and rainbows view, because there are some systemic issues IMO… But it is also not all doom and gloom as you claim.

  12. The money supply has increased at least 40% since 1967; this likely simply represents the increase in the money supply.

    1. The median family income, adjusted for inflation, has grown considerably (even with the “stall” in such growth during the “Great Recession.”) Thus, more families have more money, and the number of families at the lower-income (by percentage of the population) has shrunk. Isn’t this how one measures economic progress? More rich families, fewer poor families. Not equally balanced, but it could be a lot worse.

      1. My point is that “median family income adjusted for inflation” is the wrong measure. If you look at the money supply, you can understand better why the middle class feels like they are stagnating even though they are making more and more money.

        1. Don’t forget, that, adjusted for inflation, between 1999 and 2016, median family income WAS stagnant (though it did go up and down. But, it wasn’t until 2016 ($60,309) that the median income came back to where it was in 1999 ($60,062). That is seventeen years of no-growth.

          I suspect a lot of folks, especially with children, found themselves borrowing more money just to keep up. And they may be paying off that accumulated debt for some time.

          https://www.statista.com/statistics/200838/median-household-income-in-the-united-states/

          1. I suspect a lot of folks, especially with children, found themselves borrowing more money just to keep up.

            You can’t “keep up” by borrowing. If your income goes down, you need to cut spending: move to a smaller home, consume less entertainment, send your kids to a cheaper school, etc. There is no other option.

            Keep in mind that you don’t just need to cover current expenses, you also need to save for retirement.

            1. Of course. But I am pretty sure that more than a few people, with relatively easy credit, just carried on as usual, not expecting the recession to last the better part of a generation.

              The poverty rate increased significantly during this period, before settling back down, too, which seems to indicate that a lot of folks “on the margin” were pretty hard hit.

              1. Note that the poverty rate is relative poverty; someone “in poverty” today is much better off than someone “in poverty” decades ago.

                As for easy credit, yes, we agree that a lot of people did just that. I’m saying: that’s nobody’s responsibility but the people who actually did the borrowing.

                1. ” …that’s nobody’s responsibility but the people who actually did the borrowing.”

                  Of course that was, in the huge majority of cases, their own choice — they were gambling that things would “turn-around” soon. And they were wrong.

                  ‘”Note that the poverty rate is relative poverty; someone “in poverty” today is much better off than someone “in poverty” decades ago.”‘

                  That is absolutely true. And a whole lot of that is due to technology, which most definitely is “trickle-down.” The rest of it is due to entitlements. And no, I am not a supporter of the current welfare state, since there is no evidence that it actually combats poverty. But, it does make poverty less onerous.

  13. yeah, I don’t get all the doom and gloom. the economy is booming. the environment is getting cleaner. crime is down. maybe people just like to complain.

    1. People out of power are always preaching doom and gloom so voters will want a change of government.

    2. “yeah, I don’t get all the doom and gloom. the economy is booming. the environment is getting cleaner. crime is down.”

      IT’S THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!!

    3. You forgot… Orange Man Bad.

    4. Talk to me in 12 years when the Earth is gone

      1. I’m going to approach some progtards with an offer to option the purchase of their home 12 years from now for $1000 paid today. If they really believe their climate bullshit, then they will truly believe I am a sucker and take the deal.

        Anyone who says no is full of shit and just spouts their nonsense to push Marxism.

    5. A lot of that wealth and income exists only on paper; it can’t be realized. It was created by politicians through currency debasement and monetary policy.

      So, on the one hand people are doing better in many ways.

      On the other hand, people are going to be pissed off when they discover that their net worth is far less than they thought, and that the benefits they thought they would receive were empty promises.

      1. By the way, this has nothing to do with Trump; these policies have been going on for decades all over the world. Trump actually has warned about them, he just hasn’t done much to change them as president.

      2. Yup. We’ve made real productivity strides etc… The problem is that it’s all a house of cards built on shifting sands, AKA fiat currency systems and all the related government bullshit.

        If we had sound money and a sane government I’d be VERY optimistic about the future… As is, it could go Mad Max any old time if people lose confidence in the currency.

    6. EVERYTHING IS SO TERRIB……. well, ya know

      Haha

  14. The pattern is the same. Since the Dems were swallowed by the looters beginning 1892, their election necessarily wrecks the economy because the word “willing” is removed from supply and demand. But once God’s Own Prohibitionists buy a second term they go full national socialist and set up asset-forfeiture looting using plant leaves as a pretext–then act surprised when the economy suddenly implodes. Nixon campaign subsidies trap us in this Groundhog Day alternation between communism and fascism by fencing out the LP.

  15. OK, let’s sum up.
    Our newest lying lefty ingoramus deserves to be taken apart piece-by-piece. Like all of our fucking lying lefty ignoramuses, there is not one bit of honest argument in his/her entire list. But let’s start with the reminder that the buyer, NOT the seller sets the price of any transaction, which I’m sure is a surprise to the fucking lefty ignoramus Hugh Laurie (ignoramuses are, after all, pretty fucking ignorant):

    1) “Nevermind that worker compensation and productivity permanently decoupled in 1973”
    Yep, about the time Detroit finally accepted that those krauts and slant-eyes could make car people wanted to buy and realized granting benes in perpetuity wasn’t a good idea (regardless of Krugman’s celebration of “The Treaty of Detroit”.
    We’ll just chalk this one up to a lack of knowledge of how markets work: “Stupidity”.

    2) “Resulting in real wages remaining at 1974 levels in 2018”
    Mix of cherry-picking and stupidity; ignores increased benes required by government regs and improved products; you really want a Ford Pinto? Still hard on the “Stupidity” side.

    3) “While housing prices continue to rise at twice the rate of inflation, and have risen over 600% overall”
    Since the buyers set the sales price, I guess fuck-face here is griping that we can afford better housing: “Stupidity”, again.

    4) “And consumer debt is at an all time high”
    Given that unless the government fucks with the market, most people borrow what they intend to pay back, this indicates that people are feeling more comfortable with debt.
    Man, “Stupidity” is getting a workout here!

    5) “While interest rates fall to keep the charade going”
    Flat “Irrelevance”; fuck off.

    6) “On the bright side, the U6 unemployment remains over 8% and labor force participation has never recovered to the level it was before the recession of 2003.”
    Fucking lefty ignoramus hopes we’ll take bullshit at face value; more “Stupidity”.

    7) “And young people are starting fewer businesses.”
    Comparison, context? Any eamination of why? Are you kidding?
    Hugh’s got “Stupidity” locked down!

    8) “Which might help explain why Millennials are worse of financially than their parents at the same age.”
    More “Stupid”; fucking idiot didn’t read his own link: “Most millennials will struggle to earn more money and find better jobs than their parents despite being more highly trained, according to a Credit Suisse study”
    More “highly trained” in Ethnic Studies? “Stupid” one more time.

    9) “But hey, that’s all just a bunch of fruity whining.”
    No, it’s a stinking pile of lefty bullshit, bullshitter.

    10) “After all, if I could enter the best labor market in a century with 60% of the labor force unionized, no credentials required for advancement, and commodities costing 800% less than you by god well can do it you entitled fuck!”
    No, you pathetic piece of shit, you could get a job. I’m tired of giving free shit to those, like you, drained out of the bottom of the septic tank.
    Fuck off and die where we can’t smell you.

    1. Oh, and Hugh, you pathetic piece of shit?
      “At this point will the Paris Agreement’s climate goals be met?”
      […]
      “Not a chance. The original agreement was 197 countries, of which only 45 agreed to provide funding for the Green Climate Fund. Of the 45, only three have even come close to meeting their financial obligations. The US pulled out and recently Australia (the largest exporter of coal in the world at 46% of the global total) pulled out of funding. Other countries, including Indonesia, the second largest coal exporter after Australia, is threatening to pull out as well.
      […]
      In terms of the emission targets, not a single country in the accord is even close to meeting its CO2 reduction obligations. You can check them out here. The US, which pulled out, leads the world in CO2 reductions without any government policy. Germany, the “world leader” in renewable energy crippled itself by ditching clean nuclear and is now turning back to coal and gas imported from Russia – a huge threat to their national security.”
      https://www.quora.com/At-this-point-will-the-Paris-Agreement-s-climate-goals-be-met

      The first paragraph tells you that the ‘accords’ had to do with re-distribution of wealth, and little to do with ‘pollution’.
      The second should tell fucking lefty assholes like you the difference between market activity and government mandates.
      But I’m quite certain fucking lefty ignoramuses like you are not capable of dealing with facts.

        1. But I’m quite certain fucking lefty ignoramuses like you are not capable of dealing with facts.
          Thank you for proving it.

  16. Earning in the modern life is not as difficult as it is thought to be. God has made man for comfort then why we are so stressed. We are giving you the solution of your problems. Come and join us here on just go to home TECH tab at this site and start a fair income bussiness

    >>>>>>>> payhd.com

  17. […] true, says Mangu-Ward, "because people are getting richer!" A chart in Reason shows that Americans moving out of the middle class mostly moved up. There are more high-income […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.