The U.S. Economy Since 2008: Who's Better Off And Who Isn't
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-09-10/us-economy-2008-whos-better-and-who-isnt
Employers added 96,000 jobs last month, fewer than expected, and the unemployment rate remains above 8 percent. These latest figures serve as pointed reminders of the economy’s lackluster recovery following the 2008 financial meltdown. Still, the economy has been growing since the middle of 2009, and the stock market has largely come back, but many companies are sitting on what’s been described as "piles of cash." Although many people have suffered economically in recent years, for others, especially those at the top end, it’s remained relatively comfortable. Please join us to discuss economic winners and losers of the Great Recession.
Guests
Dante Chinni
director of the Jefferson Institute's Patchwork Nation project, author of the WSJ column, "Politics Counts," online correspondent for the PBS NewsHour and author of "Our Patchwork Nation."
Betsey Stevenson
associate professor of public policy at the University of Michigan.
Martin Baily
senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution and former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton administration (1999-2001).
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Am I better off than four years ago? Absolutely!
My 401k has doubled.
My house has been refinanced at the lowest rate in living memory.
My car gets better gas millage than any I have ever owned before.
I am respected as an American when traveling abroad.
And none of my former students is dying in Iraq.
One point the panel missed in the consumer spending discussion is that credit card interest rates were increased during the financial crisis, credit lines were cut, and current rates are still extremely high compared to rates before 2008. This, apart from other factors, has slowed consumer spending, as more of our money is going to banks and other credit card providers in the form of interest, despite the fact their own interest rates are historically low.
I was fortunate in that I have a good income and excellent credit, and could freeze my cards when my rates were raised from around 5% to more than 20%. I did not use any credit cards for over a year. I've now opened new accounts, but keep my spending at a level that I can pay off monthly, as current rates of 12.99%+ are unacceptable.
One last point: those who "ran up" credit card debt were not necessarily irresponsible. In 2007, I put the bill for a large home repair on a credit card because their fixed rate at the time was lower than the interest rate I was able to get from my credit union for a home improvement loan.
In the late 1960s, many forcasted that, in the future, computers and robots would be doing all our work and we humans would have nothing to do but play golf or take classes in things we found fascinating. i don't remember any mention of how people were supposed to get MONEY. Well, I think that future has come to pass and we still have not solved that problem. Many people are worried about jobs, which jobs went overseas, and how they are going to make a living. I believe that we found our future but we never planned for how we would live day to day in the society where nobody HAD to work.
Oh, really? We are supposed to take measure of the economy by your experience with your own firm. Well, Romney has said that you would sink or swim so, go ahead and vote for him and continue sinking.
After four years under President Obama, is blaming George W. Bush or the Congressional Republicans still valid for the weak economic condition that we are in? Maybe partly, but, now, only in a very small part, in my opinion. I'm afraid it's mostly because of Pres. Obama's highly dogmatic and uncompromising position that constantly caused gridlocks and uncertainties.
I am better off now than I was four years ago.
The nation would also be better off as a whole if the main directive of the Republicans wasn't to block everyting President Obama tried to pass the last four years.
Our family is worse off than four years ago, no thanks to the obstructionists in Congress. As an independent, I find the partisan gridlock in Congress unacceptable and despicable. The only bright spot for us is the passage of ACA which allows our young adult children to remain on our family health insurance plan for a while longer while they look for work. Also, because our family depends heavily on educational programs only available on PBS, I will never vote for anyone who threatens to cut off its funding.
I have always been better off with pay raises rather than tax cuts. The problem is pay raises are far and few in between.
The income tax rate on a lousy paying job is zero or near zero. A tax cut is no more than a band-aid.But a $1. hr. raise means EVERYTHING.....
Millions of Americans have been sinking during Obama's four years, so your comment lacks credibility.
They started sinking before he was in the White House!
I was doing okay when I was working, but now I don't know whether I am better off or not because I just retired from my job after 32 years. I'm concerned about the integrity of Medicare and Social Security, and I'm worried about inflation-- or at least I am worried about the continuous rise in food prices and gas prices. I worked very hard to save for retirement, and now it's turning out to be something of a nightmare. When I was working, I would have been glad to pay a little more in taxes as long as the 1% paid their fair share. Now I'm beginning to think that will never happen. And by the way, how is it that Congress gets to make its own rules about members' behavior? Why don't they have the same retirement and health plans as the rest of us? Why was insider trading legal for them when it would have put us in jail? Even if I am not as bad off financially as many people (and I really feel for them), I can't help feeling that the deck is stacked against ordinary people.
The idea that no one benefited from the last four years is laughable. The "one-percenters" must be ROFL at that idea.
For those who never liked history in school, you would probably be surprised to learn that, since the beginning of history, there has always been a minority whose ultimate goal was to keep the majority in their place: poor. That is what power is all about. Power and money are one and the same; you can't have one without the other. In order for a few to be in control, keeping everyone else in their place is a requirement. You would think that after centuries of this, the general public would understand this. But apparently not.
In the early 70s, writer David Hapgood wrote a book entitled "The Screwing of the Average Man". He stated that the idea for the book was a discussion group of high school students. Most of the students felt that if they really tried, they could become rich. Hapgood's book was a refutation of that feeling.
In his book, he broke down society into "net winners" and "net losers". He believed that in order for 15% to be "net winners", 85% would have to be "net losers". There was no other possibility. He wasn't really referring to rich versus poor. He was probably referring to successful versus unsuccessful. But you have to admit we usually measure success in terms of money.
I re-read this book recently for the first time in about 40 years. The only thing I would disagree with now would be his percentages. The percentage for net winners would have to be smaller as the percentage of net losers increases.
But in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, we continue to harbor our illusions.
The country benefited like a heroin addict benefited from another fix.
My income has increased nearly 50% since 2008. I am working more hours but enjoy all the things that such an increase in income can bring. I am certainly better off than I was before the president took office. I also believe that this country is better off than it was in 2008.
it is hard to say if i am better off. i am a small business owner of a custom home building business. i have worked harder in the last 5 years then any time in my 30 year company history. I went from 15 employees to 5 of us on Half salary. Being then, light and nimble we moved into new markets , remodeling, LEED and green construction, as well as getting involved in our downtown renovation of a historically significant but plighted area,and so far have eked out enough to survive, but just barely.
We are better off because most of our competition is out of business, and we have held on. time will tell, but we are certainly not better off in our incomes, our peace of mind and security and confidence in work coming in on a regular basis. we see restrictive banking and lending rules, more so that what was needed to correct what was wrong with lending before the bust. We see more and more regulation on our industry driving up housing costs. We are defiantly not interested in taking any risks.... and that has much to do with hiring back employees and creating jobs.
Clifford wrote:
"It`s scary when you compare Ohio`s economy to the nation`s economy. "
So let me get this straight. Democrat policies failed at the state level in OH and that is Republicans' fault. Democrat policies are failing at the national level and that is also Republicans' fault.
Do I have that right?
In business college we were taught that the basic source of an economy was the conversion of raw materials into finished goods or Value Added Manufacturing. In spite of knowing this we sent our manufacturing base to the lowest bidder and entertained the notion that we could then buy more of the now lower cost goods. But with no manufacturing base we have no money and we can't buy anything.
Top down trickle down economics. At this writing many American Corps are flush with cash. But they are not expanding or rehiring. Trickle down is correct. even in the presence of a flood of cash the money to the middle class is just a tiny trickle.
Albert Einstein said "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result." Trickle down has been tried many times and, surprise Surprise, it has never worked. So are the leaders of the Republican Party Insane, as Albert suggests that they must be?
margie13646 wrote:
"It takes much longer than 4 years to pull a Country out of the mess that the previous Administration got us into. "
You're drinkin' the Koolaid, margie. STOP! Even the President himself said it took decades to get where we are. What got us in this mess was a combination of a housing bubble created by distortions to the housing market created by Government subsidies (read Fanny and Freddy). The next leg in that stool is college tuition. College tuition is inflated due to distortions in that market created by Government subsidies on student loans. If these markets were left as true open, free, and fair markets and Government kept its nose out, the bubbles don't happen.
"I have much more faith that the next four years will only bring more prosperity my way if President Obama is at the helm "
Albert Einstein said, "The definition of insantity is doing the same thing over and expecting a different result." Obama has proposed nothing new. It's still "investment" and "stimulus" (read: spending) and "everyone doing their fair share") (read: tax increases - on small businesses, mind you).
Leanne Chase wrote:
"For me, the prospect of another Republican administration is very concerning. When George W. took office, the US was in the black"
So far what I am seeing in this election cycle is that Demcrats will simply state complete falsehoods as though they are the truth and then move on to the next topic. Axelrod, Wassermann-Schultz, Obama ... they're all doing it.
Oh, and so is Leanne Chase. When George W. Bush took office in 2001 the U.S. economy was in recession; the Internet bubble, which put the last Clinton budget in the black had burst, and, I repeat, the economy was in recession. You could look it up.
karinheinrich55 wrote:
It might not seem on the surface that I am better off. ... Not having to pay for preventative care as mammograms and pap smears anymore as well as the refunds insurance companies had to pay if they did not delegate 80% of the premium toward health care."
I know! Isn't that free stuff great! Nobody has to pay! It's beautiful!
I find myself in a far worse situation than 4 years ago. The continual belt tightening of funds for Medicaid recipients over time sends families like mine into deeper and deeper financial distress. The average citizen and policy maker does not understand the relationship of Medicaid to a healthy economy. Here is the reality: if you are the parent/caregiver for an adult who relies upon Medicaid services for survival and his/her services are suspended or reduced, then you are put in a situation where you can no longer leave home to work because you must care for the person. You become totally dependent upon living off your savings, if you are fortunate enough to have them, or going onto welfare yourself. There are many individuals in this situation, some of them already well under the poverty line. My goal has been to avoid becoming another one of them.
Four years ago, I had employment in the non profit sector. This sector was hit very hard with the recession, so my position was terminated. I started taking pt/temp jobs such as the 2010 census and grant funded projects with schools, universities, etc. I would sometimes leave my family member unattended in order to work, other times I was forced to use up my family member's respite hours (these are now about 1/2 of what they were in 2008). Since 2012, these education related jobs have evaporated due to less government support, and I am now living off my savings and looking for temporary day jobs.
Although the property tax bill is less due to lower valuation, the food/gas/insurance/ are higher, so my concerns continue to grow about where this will all lead. I believe that whatever positives have taken place in the past 4 years are far outweighed by the difficult realities for many Americans who truly want to work and have experience/ skills, but are unemployed or underemployed.
Beatdog58 wrote:
"it is hard to say if i am better off....
We are better off because most of our competition is out of business, and we have held on. time will tell, but we are certainly not better off in our incomes, our peace of mind and security and confidence in work coming in on a regular basis. we see restrictive banking and lending rules, more so that what was needed to correct what was wrong with lending before the bust. We see more and more regulation on our industry driving up housing costs. We are defiantly not interested in taking any risks.... and that has much to do with hiring back employees and creating jobs".
Beatdog, thanks for your testimony. It rings so true for so many small business owners that I know (including me).
It strikes me that most of the ones who say they are "better off" on this board are better off because of the public teat. Well, yeah, who wouldn't be! But somebody has to pay for that. "Government stimulus" and "Government subsidies" and "Government programs" are dishonest mis-nomers. PEOPLE pay for those programs, not some disembodied entity called "Government".
I see so many strong parallels with the 30's it's really scarry. In both cases, Democrats came in after crashes and, instead of creating v-shaped recoveries by unleashing the power of free-market capitalism, put a pillow on the face of recovery and wondered why, after struggling for a while, it went silent.
8+% unemployment for 43 months. But that is deceptive. The labor force is SHRINKING, which is the ONLY reason UE has decreased, now standing at just 63.5% with almost 89M people idle. I urge you to look at the following graph and see ... not just what happened in 2009 - but what HAS NOT recovered one iota. THAT is Obama's fault.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/
"Joel York wrote:
In business college we were taught that the basic source of an economy was the conversion of raw materials into finished goods or Value Added Manufacturing. In spite of knowing this we sent our manufacturing base to the lowest bidder and entertained the notion that we could then buy more of the now lower cost goods. But with no manufacturing base we have no money and we can't buy anything."
Another astounding reality associated with the abandonment of "Value Added Manufacturing" is that the most technologically advanced economy in the World makes much of it's Exports, COMMODITIES!!!!
Mostly heavily subsidized Commodities, at that.
Oil, Logs (not lumber or finished products), Coal, minerals, grain and Farm products, you name it!!
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"ecgberht wrote:
I see so many strong parallels with the 30's it's really scarry. In both cases, Democrats came in after crashes and, instead of creating v-shaped recoveries by unleashing the power of free-market capitalism, put a pillow on the face of recovery and wondered why, after struggling for a while, it went silent.
September 10, 2012 - 4:53 pm"
As usual, Eggie's dementia-driven madness has taken him off on another wild excursion down (The Right Wing's) Memory Lane.
HOOVER (ever heard of him, Eggie?) had 3 Years to "creat(ing) v-shaped recoveries by unleashing the power of free-market capitalism"!!!
Of course, we all know that it was "the power of free-market capitalism", that caused the Great Depression as well as the Great Recession, anyhow!!
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Four years ago I was in a constant state of anxiety over what I would do when the seemingly inevitable collapse of society occurred. Financial institutions were failing, it looked like there would be a massive bank run, and I was honestly expecting widespread violence in the streets. I remember thinking that fisherman sounded like a pretty good job in the Depression of the future. Now I have a career, some investments, and the confidence that civilized society isn't on the brink of implosion. Absolutely better off.
First My simple answer to this question is to redirect the question to Gov Romney and his running mate, Mr Paul Ryan. My take on this is that neither Mr Romney or Mr Ryan would answer this question. Second a closer look at this question, I suggest we re-frame it to say, if not the policies of the current administration, would you have done any better? My guess is simply NO unless you're among those that benefited by throwing everybody in this mess in the first place. Some benefit by creating misfortunes for others or simply by taking advantage of others and to a certain degree, that was the case before this administration came in. The most sensible thing any administration would do is to remove those loopholes and once again level the play field for all and sundry to survive.
anselm nwosu wrote: "The most sensible thing any administration would do is to remove those loopholes and once again level the play field for all and sundry to survive"
So remove all those "loopholes" that allow 50% of the people to pay ZERO federal income tax?
McChaun wrote:
"As usual, Eggie's dementia-driven madness has taken him off on another wild excursion down (The Right Wing's) Memory Lane."
You're sundowning again, McChaun.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression...
Mitt Romney is better off than he was four years ago, in at least two ways.
First - four years ago he was an unemployed politician who lost his bid to become the Republican nominee for president. Now he is the Republican nominee.
Second - In Dec 2008 the stock market (S&P 500) was around 930. Today it is more than 50% higher. If Mitt Romney is the successful businessman that he claims to be, he should be at least 50% wealthier than he was back then.
We're had a 'new social contract' under the 'trickle-down economic' policies of the last thirty years accelerated by the Bush Tax Cuts, tax breaks for cash rich corporations, and obscene tax breaks for the top 0.001%. The social contract was that in exchange for favorable tax policies for the rich that they would use the extra money to in create jobs for the rest of us. The rich have not created jobs with their wealth but instead took the money the run. They funneled more money into off-shore accounts, paid for politician campaigns in exchange for personal or corporate tax breaks, and paid for a propaganda campaign to convince the rest of us that social programs or labor unions (though they represent a very few proportion of US workers) are the reasons for our economic problems. They outsourced work/closed manufacturing plants/paid to get tax subsidies and fought for emerging industries to obtain tax subsidies. Basically they've engaged in crony capitalism.....It's about time that these top 0.001% be given 'an offer that they can't refuse' in order to force them into putting their wealth into creating jobs here in the USA or else pay 80% (no tax breaks) in taxes. The Walton Family (Walmart) would lose 80% of their wealth which would funneled into the largest national infrastructure project that our country has ever seen/elderly people would receive nursing care in their homes instead of nursing home/free post-secondary education for everyone while paying down the debt.