Are you better off than you were 24 years ago?

[hfojvt]

A question for us old folks. You under thirties don't need to chime in about how young you are.

I decided to re-read "The Poverty of Affluence" and was sorta struck by the preface.

Wachtel writes (in 1988) "Most Americans 'have' more than their counterparts a generation ago. But are they more content? Are they living better, more fulfilled lives? Few would confidently answer yes. Repeated surveys of our national mood reveal that the proportion of Americans who describe themselves as happy peaked in 1957 and has not been surpassed despite an increase in our gross national product which must be measured in 'trillions' of dollars."

Well, the economy has continued to grow since 1988, but on DU it seems to be taken for granted how misrable and poor most Americans are. We are all supposedly struggling. Living paycheck to paycheck and unable to make it in today's capitalist nightmare.

That does not describe my own reality, but being a freak of nature, I don't expect to fit the norm.

However, for society as a whole. In 1988, the per capita GDP was $31,114 (in 2005 dollars). In 1965 it was $21,145, and in 2011 it was $42,448.

Theoretically, we should be twice as well off as 1965 (and yes you under 30 whippersnappers, I was alive in 1965 (not that I remember it).

Now, you may say that we are NOT better off "because of the 1%". It is true, they take too much of the economic pie, something like 23% of it. However, the remainder left for the 99, it still larger. 42,448 * 300 * .75 = 9550800 divided by 297 = $32,157

Still, $1,000 more, per person, than they had in 1988. And in 1988, the 99% did not get all of the pie either.

Well, I have to run off and play pianoforte. When I get back (and I know everyone is holding their breath in anticipation). I will try to see if the bottom 50% has more than they did in 1988.

[Duer 157099]

1. Think about how many things have doubled, tripled in price since that time

Housing cost? Gas? A car? Food? HEALTH CARE? Dental care?

I'd gladly exchange my salary today for the one I had in 1988, if the cost-of-living went back to '88 levels too.

[Sherman A1]

3. Agreed

You hit the nail on the head.

[hfojvt]

23. that is irrelevant though

because I measured REAL GDP per capita. That takes price increases into account - at least theoretically.

I have forgotten how much I paid for rent in 1988. I know in 1985-86 I paid $205 utilities included. I probably pay more now just for utilities, but I also have my own place, and that is a big step up.

[Duer 157099]

49. I don't think it is irrelevent

My rent has increased by 4-fold, gas has increased 4-fold, food prices have increased by at least that much, and yet my salary has only doubled.

You can use any statistics you want, but my real life experience is that I am having to get by on half of what I did in 88.

[Vincardog]

2. NO

[Cleita]

4. I was seventeen then and still at home 1957, but I remember the adults around

me having a certain amount of security about their jobs, pensions and paying off their mortgages so they wouldn't be homeless in their old age. My generation had a sense of security that we would be able to get a higher education and thereby a better job so that we too could enjoy the security that our parents had. That all seems to have evaporated today. In 1988, we were both working and doing fine but we weren't rich by any means.

[hfojvt]

28. I don't think that can be true

although it may be your own experience. In 1957 far, far fewer people were going to college. Even when I graduated in 1980, many of my fellow students did not goto college.

[Cleita]

34. I'm a California resident and we could get tuition free college in the State and University system

in this state. Of course you had to have the grades so not everyone was admitted. However, there was the GI bill also for vets that gave them a living allowance. I went to college with many vets who, along with a part time job were able to get an education through to PhD. There were the community colleges too, where you could get your first two years practically free if you lived at home. Those who goofed off in high school could go to the community colleges to make up their grades so that they could finish their education in the university or state college system.

I worked part time and sometimes full time to support myself. I could not have done it without free education of some sort. I was able to obtain a scholarship at a Catholic college, which again paid my tuition and part time and summer jobs accomplished the rest. It was tough but we didn't need student loans or any such nonsense back then and if you didn't get a scholarship to one of the fancy private institutions, there was the state and community college system to fall back on. Still you had to have a good grade average in high school and keep it up in college or you didn't make it. The opportunity was there in my state.

It's true many didn't go to college in 1957, mainly women, many of whom got married right after high school. In my high school class only ten out of 49 of us when to college. Again it was a matter of grades, requirements and SAT tests to be accepted in those institutions, but it wasn't all about money then. It was an opportunity for the poorest as well as the brightest to change their futures.

[Curmudgeoness]

37. The point is that they didn't need a college degree

to have a secure life in 1957. I grew up in a mill town and there was employment in mills all over town for people who didn't even finish high school. These jobs were good paying jobs, and they were secure. People worked their whole lives at one company, retired with a pension, and only had to have one breadwinner in the household.

[hfojvt]

40. I still think that is true though

Here's how I look at it. The poverty rate is about 10% even in good times. Basically our society just discards 10% of its number. Like the Soup Nazi says "no soup for you" the job nazi basically says to them 'no job for you'. The rest of us are sort of scrambling to avoid being part of that 10%. Dropping out of high school greatly increases your odds to be discarded. Getting sick or hurt does the same thing. So does not going to college.

As far as security. Most people are after more than that. People could have more security if they saved more, but they would rather have cell phones, xboxes, and cable TV than security. Not to mention cars and trucks. Everybody's gotta have one of them.

I also remember a Tom Cruise movie from the 1980s where the young Tom Cruise is all determined to leave his town and avoid working in the "goddamn mill".

[Bicoastal]

5. 24 years ago my cost of living was completely FREE!

Mostly because I was only six.

[hfojvt]

24. GOTO YOUR ROOM!!!

Actually turning 30 was when I felt old. But even at 26 I felt kinda old because most of the other graduate students were only 22. Those who were my age, or older, were working on their PhDs and not just starting graduate school like me.

[Fumesucker]

6. There's lots of ways you can look at the data..

Here's one, the federal minimum wage in constant dollars, a society is only as well off as it most poorly paid members..



And then there's this..

[hfojvt]

26. well I said I was gonna look at the bottom 50%

taking the easiest source (for me) http://www.koch2congress.com/5.html

"However, for society as a whole. In 1988, the per capita GDP was $31,114 (in 2005 dollars). In 1965 it was $21,145, and in 2011 it was $42,448. "

The bottom 50% got 16.7% of the pie in 1986 and only got 12.5% in 2006.

So I get $10,392 for 1988 (approximately) and $10,612 for 2011. Even the bottom 50% seems to be better off in real terms.

That may be less true for the bottom 20% or the bottom 10%, but unless WE are personally in that group, our own perception should be, for ourselves, that we ARE better off in economic terms. The poverty rate is higher now that in 1988 - 15.1% compared to 10.4%, but in 1959 when people were more optimistic, the poverty rate was 18.5%.

Wachtel's book is based on the idea that as a group we do not feel better off, even though we really are, because our expectations are unrealistic. Perhaps because of advertising. We see ads that suggest we should be getting Lexus' for Christmas, so we feel kinda deprived because we don't.

[Fumesucker]

32. It all depends on what your starting point is..

Start in 1972 or 1973 and we're quite a bit worse off whereas starting in 1988 gives you a relatively low constant dollar income to go up against.

The difference between $10,392 and $10,612 is down in the noise level and for practical purposes insignificant.

Our society is so much more productive now than earlier, one of the reasons people feel cheated is that the average worker is not getting much if any share of the greatly increased productivity.

It's like the Red Queen's race, you must run as fast as you can to stay in one place, to get anywhere you have to run twice as fast as that.

[hfojvt]

54. harder to tell

but I get $8,099 for the bottom 40% and $11,723 for the bottom 60% in 1972 so $9,911 for the bottom 50%.

That there is barely any difference still does not deny the fact that, as a group, they/we are no worse off financially than either in 1972 or 1988.

But this probably changes depending on where one is on the ladder. The 40th percentile is doing better than the 20th percentile. And 60% of us are above the 40th percentile.

[jwirr]

7. 70 years old and I think I am worse off now than in 1988. It is not a matter of how much I get but

how far it goes. I should also say that I was in the poverty bracket in both years. What is hurting me now is the cost of groceries and other items. Also the housing situation is part of my problems. Back then I was not on the edge of homelessness but actually lived in HUD housing that was rent controlled. Today I share an apartment with my grandson and am not as secure. I pay more that 30% of my income for rent/utilities. I no longer can afford a car and probably the worst is the fear that things like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will be cut or actually disappear.

No we are not better off IMO.

[Cleita]

10. I'm seventy-two and have the same fears that you do about SS and Medicare.

Also, they aren't really sufficient anymore to meet all of our needs.

[jwirr]

15. I think there are a lot of us who are in this particular boat. Rachel has that thing on tv about how

the seniors are doing okay and she is right if you compare us to some of the younger persons but that does not mean we are not feeling the pinch.

[CTyankee]

22. we are the same age. My husband and I think about our health care costs all the time.

It takes an ever growing portion of our total income. You think all along "well, I can just monetize my home" and that'll be my cash reserve, but even that is either gone or greatly reduced. We've all had the props kicked out from underneath us, that's for sure.

[Cleita]

25. On a personal note, just this month I have had $5 increases on three of my utility bills.

I fill my gas up once a month and make it last between SS payments. This time it was $4.25 a gallon at the cheapest station in town a 50 cent increase per gallon from the month before. The groceries are more expensive, yet my income only went up on the COLA increase this year, but SS lowered the income I get from my husband's SS to "balance" it out. Nothing I can do about it. So really, we are being squeezed in every way. Maybe we should write President Obama about this. We all definitely need a bigger SS check. What we get now was adequate in 1990 but not today. I have a part time job but I haven't had a raise in the four years I've worked there.

[CTyankee]

27. I get points on gas at my supermarket. Right now, I have 20c off per gallon but I prolly won't

have to fill up until I have amassed 40c per gallon. We are, literally, nickel and diming our way out of budget problems all the time. We just recently redid our car/home insurance at a tremendous saving but I'm kicking myself for not doing this earlier (it's a real PITA to do).

You are right about 1990. My mother was doing well (daddy had died in 1988). They were solidly middle class when I was growing up and had invested, starting slowly and building up, in the stock market (daddy was a republican) and had a good retirement portfolio, not grandiose by any means, but just fine. It was easy in those days to pay off the house because houses didn't cost that much to begin with. SS and Medicare really took care of them. Those were the days! My parents talked about how their modest gains in the stock market really proved that America could work for everybody (except of course the "incorrigible" poor, but that's a whole nother discussion). Who believes that any more?

[RebelOne]

35. I am 73 and not complaining right now.

Yes, SS is not sufficient. It pays my bills but does not provide any extra money for luxuries. But my living expenses are low.

[Cleita]

36. I was okay when I got SS and didn't need more, but as the squeeze kept coming I

was lucky to find a job to supplement the SS, but now it's becoming less sufficient either. I might have to go to work full time in the future, but wonder who will have me? I could get by without the job, but I'd have to cut out all but the most basic utilities, not have a pet or car and grow my own food, because without a car I would have to walk six miles to the nearest store.
I probably could do it on a bicycle.

[hfojvt]

43. many places have a bus service for seniors

I also think that taxis and car rentals are cheaper than owning a car, but it sorta depends on how long the car lasts and how much money it eats up to keep it ruuning. I bought one car for $4,000 and it only lasted 4 years, so that was $1,000 a year not even including maintenance and gas and insurance. Insurance alone costs me over $300 a year just for liability. Which would be one $20 cab ride per month.

[Cleita]

45. I live out in the boonies. The bus service ends at the shopping center where I have to go.

We have a senior citizen transport for $35 round trip and it's out of my range although the car is beginning to cost me although it's paid for. It's ten years old. Gotta think about this one carefully. I know neighbors and family would taxi me, but I don't want to impose.

[emilyg]

48. 73 and same fears.

[Cairycat]

8. My husband and I made

a third again as much as we made this year. (couldn't find the 88 tax forms but figured 89 was close enough). We had lots more disposable income then. Mostly because we have different jobs, three kids, health care expenses that we didn't have then, but still, it's a huge difference.

[HillWilliam]

9. Even after I start my new job

I'll be making a little better than half as much as I was 25 years ago. It has gotten a LOT harder to make ends meet. I have a partner and a home now and it seems like every waking moment is either spent trying to make a penny or pinch a penny.

Fuck "trickle down". All I see from where I sit is the drizzling shits.

[The Genealogist]

11. I am going to say about the same

Maybe I was a little better off 24 years ago today. I was only 14, but I am thinking of how well off my family was. I am going to say "about the same." My father and stepmother, in 1988, both had steady work. I just got work, and it is not steady, though I am happy as can be to have it. My father could only afford a beat-up old van to drive, he had to have something he could work out of and keep his tools in (he was a "building contractor" who tended to do odd jobs or small jobs or not very good quality steady jobs). My stepmother, I think, bought a new Ford Aerostar around this time in 1988; we kids were getting older, and there were four of us, and her dying old Ford Escort was not very good for hauling the four. The income my parents had was supplemented by child support for my stepbrothers and my deceased mother's social security. Even with two incomes and the SS and child support, my family qualified for reduced price school lunches. My stepmother had health insurance, but it was for when we were very sick only, as using it meant a higher monthly installment of free money sent to the insurance companies. We only went to the doctor when we were sick, I didn't see a dentist between 1984 and 1996, no eye doctor between 1982 and 1997. Those were luxuries. We only got new clothes when school started in the fall, or maybe as a Christmas present or as presents from other relatives. We kids DID bowl on a bowling league, as my parents thought it taught us to remain with something for the long haul and it was exercise. We boys were all three Boy Scouts, as my parents thought that it built character and taught us good life lessons (it taught us that settling things by beating up other people was best, and to be conservative Christians).

Today, doctors and other health care are luxuries I cannot afford. My partner and I have one beat up old car that will have to last us probably for years yet. I keep waiting for my computer to die, or my partner's, leaving us with no computer. We get his unemployment, and now my contribution will be a modest check for a PRN office job at a doctor's office (again, I am overjoyed to have it). We don't do anything that costs money that we don't have to do. We live generally very frugally. So, things financially for me are not dissimilar from my situation in 1988.

[rug]

12. No, I'm 24 years older.

[pitohui]

14. this person got the right answer

at the end of the day even if society had changed in wonderful ways, instead heading in the direction of "reagan/bush/screw the middle class and the working class" i can't be better off after 24 years because my body wears out -- 24 years is only an improvement if you're going from age 4 to age 28!

if you are asking if i have more money after two more decades of working (and some years of unemployment) than i did as a student or a recent graduate, well, of course i do, it would be hard to have LESS than zero

we have an aging population and even those who struggle accumulate something, a small condo, a crap car, SOMETHING that they didn't have as a student, so in theory, they are better off

they are still struggling and often still only one disaster away from losing everything so it is impossible to feel secure

security seems to be something that is always just out of reach, instead of something we assumed would be available to all in the 21st century

i'm tired of hearing how we are all better off somehow because we have computers and cell phones, we are worse off, the computer is one of the big reasons that my job is gone, and that's the case for lots of people and lots of industries, my friend who works for the newspaper has just got laid off, newspapers and magazines are an entire industry that no longer pays

[marybourg]

13. Yes! Living better in retirement

than while working, thanks mostly to luck. Real estate and stock markets timed right for me. Also parents and grands had voted for the likes of FDR and Kennedy so I have S.S. medicare and small pension.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. My 1989 net income was 3x what my 2013 net income was, in absolute dollars.

Quelle vie

Plus, as is pointed out upthread, I'd rather be 27.

The good old days were actually pretty good.

[hfojvt]

38. I suppose I would rather be 26 than 50

but I don't feel that much worse for being 50. I cannot sprint the way I did back then without suffering knee pain for the next couple of days, but otherwise I feel pretty good. When I was 26, I was still having problems with my wisdom teeth/molars. I wasn't very happy then. I had no job and no girlfriend, and I was afraid my life was gonna suck with low paying crappy jobs and being alone. Now that it has, I am more resigned to it instead of striving against it and worrying about it.

[slackmaster]

17. Not better off by any measure, except those directly associated with the benefits of youth

I was 30 years old and being paid poorly at a bank. I had no hope of being able to buy a home any time soon.

[tularetom]

18. Financially I'm a hell of a lot better off

In 1988 I was 47 years old, with one child still in college and a mortgage. I'm now retired and own my home free and clear with a secure pension, medical insurance and enough money in the bank to hold me and my wife for a fairly extended term. I certainly feel more secure than I did 24 years ago.

Physically, I could call it a wash I guess. I have one less eye and one less finger than I did in 1988, and I've had 2 skin cancers removed but I'm 30 lbs lighter and my blood pressure is 115/75 as opposed to 135/90 that it was then.

[etherealtruth]

19. No, not at all

This is equally due to personal choices (am extremely bad marriage and subsequent divorce) and the very poor economy (in Michigan, especially) in which i re-entered the work force.

[Curmudgeoness]

20. I am better off in some ways, but it is a wash as far as pay.

I probably make about the same as I was making in 1988 in comparable dollars, but I have much less debt than I had while paying for a house.

The one thing that I will say I am less well off about is the amount of work I have to do. They talk about the GDP, and as you suggest, we should be twice as well off. What that does not account for, though, is the amount of work required from each employee. Years ago, three people would have been doing the job I do today----higher productivity per employee, but we are not getting the comparable wages to go with that higher productivity. This also means that there are less jobs available for the rest of the people. I work harder and longer than I did, and I have kept myself at a constant level, so I don't see that as better off.

And if we look at job security and the way I FEEL, I am much worse off.

Damn it, I have to correct myself about the pay being a wash.......I would have to be making over $10,000 more today to be at the same wage as I was in 1988. I guess that paying off a mortgage just makes you feel like you are doing better. Damn it. If anyone wants to see how much things suck for them, this is where I found out how worse off I am:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

[hfojvt]

42. it gives a different answer than the BLS

BLS calculator is here http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

For the $5900 I made in 1988, it gives $10,875.15 for 2010.

Your link gives $10,731.64.

Perhaps it used a midyear point. The BLS calculator will give one answer now if you use 2012 as your final year, but it will give a different answer if you try it six months from now.

[Curmudgeoness]

55. Now I'm even feeling worse.

Being able to see the 2012 number is more depressing---since I have not had a raise in 3 years now.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

21. In a strange twist of fate, I'm actually in a similar spot.

24 years ago, I was 16. Living with my parents, looking for work (part-time high school job), trying to figure out what direction to go in life, saving for a car, having my basic needs met (food and shelter).

But unfortunately, now I'm 40. I've owned my own house (and had to give it up), been married (and divorced), had a child (she died), went to College (for a lousy low-paying career trap), owned my own company (economy killed the market), owned a fleet of trucks and heavy equipment (sold them off to make ends meet), and now here I am 24 years later sitting in my parent's house right back at square one with nothing but isolation and bitterness to show for it. What a waste of 24 years.

[hfojvt]

44. well it sounds like there was at least a little sex in those years

Hopefully some pizza too. If only your daughter had not died.

In some ways, you are not far from where I was at 40. I had just moved to take a new job in August 2001 and bought a house in November 2001 and then got fired shortly before my 40th birthday.

But I enjoyed the 5 months of unemployment. That was like my first paid education in years. I also felt like I would be able to be a substitute teacher in the fall. I put my name in 3 school districts, but it never panned out. I still had only $1,000 left on my unemployment (about six weeks) when I got a part time job as a janitor.

Then, of course, I lived happily ever after. Finally, I was able to tell myself "this is why I got straight As and went to graduate school".

[boppers]

29. 24 years ago I was homeless, jobless, (etc.)

So, yeah, I'm doing all kinds of better.

[TeamsterDem]

30. Absolutely NOT better off

While income numbers can be looked at in several ways to make either side of the case, the reality is that people are working harder and longer now than they ever have. Vacation times have been reduced, as have benefits such as sick time and obviously health insurance coverage. Rights have also disappeared as the Republicans have hammered collective bargaining since Reagan's PATCO war - arguably since even before then.

We're now in competition with the rest of the world for our very wages, as neoliberal trade policies have us racing to please the corporate masters in terms of producing more for less. That is not only financially destructive, but American workers aren't stupid: They know they're competing with Chinese workers, and it has them uncomfortable, nervous.

It's no wonder we're less happy and more divided: Those of us whose jobs aren't outsourceable to another country have been put in competition for our very livelihoods with our fellow Americans; instead of people supporting other workers who achieve good wages, they're so dissatisfied and scared with their own situation that they resent someone else's hard-fought victories. That's why some people support Walker's assault on public sector unionization: "hey, I'm barely paying the bills, I can't afford to HELP pay PART of their deserved wages." Perhaps if we weren't all struggling and working so ridiculously hard we wouldn't fight each other over the scraps.

Capitalism is based on the idea that products and ideas compete in the marketplace, and that the best will succeed where the others will fail. But that idea's been perverted to where now workers aren't even fellow human beings anymore, instead coldly being considered some vague "input" to be used and discarded as needed, much as one might discard an old saw blade. Romney is a great personification of today's perverted capitalism: Fellow humans aren't important, profits mean everything. It's for that reason that attacks on safe air and water are now widely contemplated as "good" for the country, witness the proposed evisceration of the EPA as polling quite well among a considerable size of the American public.

I don't think capitalism is necessarily bad, but whatever one might call the version of capitalism we now have, I don't see how it could be considered as anything even approaching "good."

[B Calm]

31. I always thought I would retire early,

but the cost of health insurance is keeping me working. With employers doing away with pension plans and retired employees not being able to carry their health insurance until they're old enough to get Medicare, the new American Dream now days is having enough money to retire.

[REP]

33. Yes.

Oh god yes. I hope I never have to live like that again.

[libtodeath]

39. We would all be better off now

if one regressed our standards of living back to 1988.
In 1988 there was no internet,satellite TV,few had a computer,cell phone with a digital plan and other things.
So while income has increased so has the number of things needed to exist in society in 2012 and all those things cost money.

[hfojvt]

57. none of those things are "needed"

I really, really like the internets and computers, but have little use for satellite TV or cell phones.

But in many ways, because people have these things that they enjoy, like I enjoy computers and the internet, that makes their/our lives better.

[nolabear]

41. Yes, but not better than 13 years ago.

That particular crash took away 3/4 of what we'd made. But we've come back, and are fine. Heck, I grew up nasty, FUNKY poor so for me having a house and being able to help my kids get an education and to buy all the books I want and take a vacation is WAY cool. And education has been my friend.

[phylny]

46. This won't be a popular post, but we are much better off, for several reasons.

First of all, 24 years ago, I was a stay-at-home mom of one, pregnant with our second. My husband worked and made substantially less than he does now. We scrimped and saved. He's managed to stick with the same company for over 30 years, and I went back to school for my second bachelors and a masters degree, graduating in 1999. It was our plan that I would work as soon as the kids were old enough to be in school, which I did and still do.

During the years between then and now, we sold five houses as we've moved, and were fortunate enough to make money on each house, while his company paid for the moves, fees, etc. This helped tremendously.

Now, we earn two salaries (he earns about 2x what I do) and we've put two of our three daughters through college (state college for two of them, half scholarship for one of them which brought the cost even with state costs). We were able to move to the area we wanted to retire to, and built our last house, and have two more years until the last is out of college.

In addition, the unpopular company he works for (and believe me, I have problems with it, too) has provided healthcare consistently, and he will retire with a pension, a 401K, and healthcare coverage.

I mention these things not to gloat. I mention them because I'm well aware of others who aren't as fortunate, and this is why I believe in unions (he's never been in a union, but I have), in mandatory healthcare coverage, and pensions for all.

[Arkana]

47. I was only two 24 years ago.

[bhikkhu]

50. 24 years ago was a pretty messed up time

...broke, crappy job, broken car, no skills, no girlfriend, full of anxiety about all sorts of things. Plus, my friends were coke-heads who were "cool", but that wouldn't last. They ended up ripping off a bunch of my stuff and I bailed out of the whole situation - moved up north back to my dad and started in a new job.

I don't know about all the percentages and so forth for how I "should" have been doing, but the 80's were absolutely not the good old days for me. As far as parents, my mom was doing ok with a state job involved in programming for the retirement department - steady work. My stepdad had bailed out of one career and was struggling along as a refrigerator repair person, while studying computer programming on the side. And my dad worked in the defense industry, where he was high up enough to survive the turmoil (massive layoffs) there, but it was very high-stress and low return for him.

[Yo_Mama]

51. Wage earners are losing ground now pretty rapidly

That graph shows longer change sequences for total US wage disbursements. Not per capita. Total. They are deflated by CPI-W. That graphs doesn't figure in tax cuts (like the payroll tax cut), but it shows why wage earners are hurting, on average. There is huge labor slack, so they don't, on average, have any bargaining power. Many people still can't find jobs at all.

Then you have to factor in increasing household liabilities:


You may feel good now, but when we finally have to ante up and raise taxes, it won't be all those people with the deflating wages who will be hit - it will be you. So your income after taxes is going to fall. And it is going to fall hard. The people at the top just don't have a big enough share of national income to raise the type of revenue we need to raise. We will have to go down to close to the middle.

GDP per capita is a poor measure of individual welfare. Those who are doing well in this economy ought to be worrying about how other people are doing, because in the long run it determines the tax burden for those who are doing relatively well.

Last quarter real per capita disposable income was almost exactly what it was in Q2 2007. However that includes the + 2% on all wages, so if taxes were at the same level it would be lower. It would in fact be lower than Q4 real per capita disposable income for 2006. Five years, lower per capita incomes, higher share of many people's incomes spent on the bare necessities, which are inflating quickly - it adds up to economic trouble.

In Q4 of 2006, personal income excluding personal current transfer receipts (government payments to or on behalf of individuals) was 9.56 trillion. In Q4 of 2011, it was 9.44 trillion.
Table 2.1 BEA, look it up. Look at the ratio of government social benefits to personal consumption expenditures, and you'll stop smiling.

[hfojvt]

56. it will be me?

"You may feel good now, but when we finally have to ante up and raise taxes, it won't be all those people with the deflating wages who will be hit - it will be you."

As near as I can estimate, I will pay about $2,180 in taxes. About $2,755 will be withheld from my paychecks. I don't need or want the $660 in payroll tax cuts. I could easily pay the extra $400 that would be required if all of the Bush tax cuts expired. However, I am going to put $6,000 in my IRA to avoid $900 in taxes.

Not complaining, just stating facts.

Not sure if it is valid to factor wages by CPI-W. You are already flattening things. So what, a larger percentage of Americans are getting their income from rent, commissions, self employment income or capital gains?

[Yo_Mama]

58. No, real personal per capita disposable incomes are down substantially

Lower interest rates = less income from savings, etc.

I don't think people are grasping how much we will have to raise taxes to make it. Our demographics mean government transfers to individuals have to continue to rise just on federal retirement.

[PotatoChip]

52. Hell no- And I'll just leave it that, since

median per capita income(s) along with TONS of other factors play a huge role in this question. There are far too many variables to break down.

However, since the question was directed at indiviual DUers including me (presumably), I'll once again simply reiterate- Hell no!!! I shudder to think what my life would be like if I was in my mid 20's now versus then...

Speaking of which (individuals- I mean, since the Q seems to be directed at each of us rather then the US collectively) why did you choose to use GDP as a gauge as to how 'well off' we were then vs now? Just curious.

[Fla_Democrat]

53. Yes, much

but then, I was fresh out of school, didn't have a pot to pee in, or a window to throw it out of. The question will be if I am better off 24 years from now.