Interesting assesment for the US from the CIA world fact book

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Economy - overview: The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $36,300. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy considerably greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, lay off surplus workers, and develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to entry in their rivals' home markets than the barriers to entry of foreign firms in US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment, although their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The years 1994-2000 witnessed solid increases in real output, low inflation rates, and a drop in unemployment to below 5%. The year 2001 witnessed the end of the boom psychology and performance, with output increasing only 0.3% and unemployment and business failures rising substantially. The response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 showed the remarkable resilience of the economy. Moderate recovery is expected in 2002, with the GDP growth rate rising to 2.5% or more. A major short-term problem in first half 2002 was a sharp decline in the stock market, fueled in part by the exposure of dubious accounting practices in some major corporations. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups. 1

This is a wonderful source.Link
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Zebo
Economy - overview: The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $36,300. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy considerably greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, lay off surplus workers, and develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to entry in their rivals' home markets than the barriers to entry of foreign firms in US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment, although their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The years 1994-2000 witnessed solid increases in real output, low inflation rates, and a drop in unemployment to below 5%. The year 2001 witnessed the end of the boom psychology and performance, with output increasing only 0.3% and unemployment and business failures rising substantially. The response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 showed the remarkable resilience of the economy. Moderate recovery is expected in 2002, with the GDP growth rate rising to 2.5% or more. A major short-term problem in first half 2002 was a sharp decline in the stock market, fueled in part by the exposure of dubious accounting practices in some major corporations. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups. 1

This is a wonderful source.Link

Except they fail to mention a teacher married to fireman will get you the top 20%. The top 20% is not hard to achieve with a little work.

 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
CIA factbook is an excellent short reference. Country studies in the LOC are also good.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,338
253
126
Top 20%?? Nope, just one full-time professional fireman employed by a reasonably populated city will cleanly enter the top 20% and certainly one union worker (especially longshoremen or autoworkers) will.

They're talking about hotel maids and convenience store clerks who are paid minimum wage or slightly more.

Teachers never count because they only work 9~10 months out of the year.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
what the hell do you expect, zebo? why shouldn't those that have made investments in education reap the benefits? What exactly is your point in posting this? Are you saying that we should follow the communist or socialist model and even out the benefits so that everyone gets the same share even though their efforts are different? history has already shown those models to be fundamentally flawed. face it, there will always be an upper and lower class in any system. capitalism is the best design since it benefits those who work the hardest. and the us has universal healthcare for the poor and elderly, medicare and medicaid.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Dari
What exactly is your point in posting this?

I thought the point was rather obvious. Someone, such as yourself, with zero personality or dudcutive skills better insure to get an education so you can insure you're in the "top-tier", rather than "stagnation of family income in the lower economic group" bottom eighty percentile. Be sure and attend a private NON-EOC, non-govenment funded, non-student loan university though since all the others are propogating socialism and disbursement of income. We would'nt wanna be part of that scheme.

Or as Charrison and TC eluded to get a UNION job. Thanks guys.


Are you saying that we should follow the communist or socialist model and even out the benefits so that everyone gets the same share even though their efforts are different?
Discribe in detail what those economic or political models entail and I'll let you know.

history has already shown those models to be fundamentally flawed.
Where? and how fundamentally? In detail.



 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
this is an ad hoc answer, but here goes-----------

contemporary socialism, as practiced in today's Europe, is what I meant. I really can't point you anywhere because socialist europe has been talking about reform for a long time now. YOu can find articles everywhere. Point is, continental europeans know that their cushy and highly comfortable pension and labor system isn't sustainable. They are trying to reform it. that is why whenever you hear about a strike in europe, it usually has something to do with that. Unions, as we see them in socialist europe today, are on their way out. The future of unions can be seen in the US where they provide extra services to their paying members (such as credit cards, healthcare, loans, etc...)

What the above article is saying is that we can't look towards europe if (and that's a BIG "if") we want to reform our system. fact is, people are growing older. and they shouldn't expect the younger generation to work more to make their golden years any better. or that unemployed should be collecting benefits for months on end without even looking for a job. none of that is sustainable.

Capitalism values the individual. extreme capitalism is pure greed. Our current system is probably 85/15, whereas the european socialist modem is 60/40.
Capitalism forces the individual to be knowledgeable in various fields. the gov't, as in the us, should offer the basic, and let the private sector offer better products for a premium. the 85/15 balance not only brings about less government, but it also keeps more money into the pocket of the worker. furthermore, it is less restrictive. the harder the individual works, the harder he plays.

and it's not that I have zero personality or heartless, but I like to be direct and to the point. No bsing. No dancing around the topic. You should ask a direct question and I'll give you a direct answer. furthermore, you are only as strong as your weakest link. it's unfair for society to punish those that work the hardest and reward those that don't. fact is, people have to plan for the future. not just their retirement, but what they want to do with their lives. they should go to school and be the best at what they do. i'm tired of the "what about me?" attidude that has permeated american society. is it wrong for people to get what they deserve?
 

MAW1082

Senior member
Jun 17, 2003
510
7
81
Dari, take a look at Cuba. Communism is flourishing there even while we wage economic warfare against them and after the fall of the Soviet Union. Even with Cuba, a perfect socialist model has never been implemented in the world because a lot of refining still must be done in order for a near perfect model to emerge . . .
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Interesting dari we are not that far apart really see my last post or second to last. Everyone calls euros socialists but its false and not accurate (socialist leaning I could agree with) .Here

I also agree some policies are needed so we are not all still little dirt farmers with only goerge washingtons kids and progeny being able to go to YALE.

Just a question of how much.:p
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: MAW1082
Dari, take a look at Cuba. Communism is flourishing there even while we wage economic warfare against them and after the fall of the Soviet Union. Even with Cuba, a perfect socialist model has never been implemented in the world because a lot of refining still must be done in order for a near perfect model to emerge . . .

I hope you're being sarcastic. but, if not, then why is Castro worth $240 million dollars? It couldn't have something to do with corruption, could it? and why are there so many damn cubans trying to escape that "communist paradise"?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
unless we are all clones and gov't efficiency was at 100%, the private sector usually does a better job at most things, including healthcare, without much waste.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Communism, as practiced in cuba, seems to me, nothing but a police state aristocracy.

Communism: 1) A social and economic system in which all (or nearly all) property is public, not private. That is, resources are shared by everyone. Not to be confused for socialism, which only grants ownership of the means of production to workers.

2)classless and collectivist that the formal state would wither away, and society could spontaneously operate as a collective whole without government. (See also Marxism.)

Then how is Fidel worth 200+ million and his people are broke? Sounds not very well implemented.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,338
253
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Zebo
How much does an auto worker make?

$30-40/hour I think...
Counting benefits, maybe. A typical hourly autoworker makes between $16~$23 an hour.
Communism, as practiced in cuba, seems to me, nothing but a police state aristocracy.
Pretty much. I guess one could say that Communism is "flourishing" in Cuba, to the extent that Communism can 'flourish'.

Everyone's poor except ranking Communist Party members.

But at least they're all poor together.
rolleye.gif
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
That's pretty low wages TC. No way that puts them in the top 20% of wage earners. Median household is 36K in USA and $18 an hour is 36K and is median. Meaning they are right in the middle.

Two workers maybe. Like in Charrisons example...I heard stories about these guys in detroit, flint pontiac etc making 80K a year though so who knows? Used to be a good job until I'm sure until they made crap and people bought foriegn.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,338
253
126
That's pretty low wages TC. No way that puts them in the top 20% of wage earners. Median household is 36K in USA and $18 an hour is 36K and is median. Meaning they are right in the middle.
My entire extended family pretty much earn their living in the auto industry. My father retired from Chevrolet in 1993 and was making more than $60K per year with overtime. I don't know of any autoworkers who make less than $40,000 per year, unless they habitually refuse overtime. $16 is a starting wage and you rapidly increase to the top wage within three years.

Factor in benefits and other compensation, not bad for turning lug nuts.

On edit: Top 80th percentile wage-earner in the United States made $19.97 an hour in 1995. In 2001, top 80th percentile begins at $21.75. Which means, you make $21.75 or more, you're top 20% in wage-earners. US Department of Labor

This doesn't necessarily reflect "household" incomes, because of two-income vs. single-income families.

Edit #2: 80th percentile upper limit household income:

2000 = $81,960
1999 = $82,041
1998 = $79,141

Couldn't find the lower limit handy.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: tcsenter
That's pretty low wages TC. No way that puts them in the top 20% of wage earners. Median household is 36K in USA and $18 an hour is 36K and is median. Meaning they are right in the middle.
My entire extended family pretty much earn their living in the auto industry. My father retired from Chevrolet in 1993 and was making more than $60K per year with overtime. I don't know of any autoworkers who make less than $40,000 per year, unless they habitually refuse overtime. $16 is a starting wage and you rapidly increase to the top wage within three years.

Factor in benefits and other compensation, not bad for turning lug nuts.

On edit: Top 80th percentile wage-earner in the United States made $19.97 an hour in 1995. In 2001, top 80th percentile begins at $21.75. Which means, you make $21.75 or more, you're top 20% in wage-earners. US Department of Labor

This doesn't necessarily reflect "household" incomes, because of two-income vs. single-income families.

Edit #2: 80th percentile upper limit household income:

2000 = $81,960
1999 = $82,041
1998 = $79,141

Couldn't find the lower limit handy.

yup, teacher + autoworker = top 20%
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
I'm a bit confused by what "top 20% of households" means. Does it mean that 80% of households aren't "having it good"?

Cheers,

Andy
 

B00ne

Platinum Member
May 21, 2001
2,168
1
0
that means : if u look at a chart with household income distribution, the borderline is at the precise amount of income, where 80% of the households have less than that.

But is that surprising?: it is always that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer in capitalism actually it is the same in our so called "socialism" just that the gap might not be as wide.
explanition for that is simple too: power is where the money is....

just look at CEOs, their ridiculous high pay even rises when everything goes down: profit, economy in general... then they say oh we have to lay off workers because of the bad economy - oh and btw because of my good work (although the stock value went down as well as the profit) I will earn 50% more this year *biggrin*....

and that is true - read a while ago: in Germany in the last 10 years the average pay for factory workers has increased some 5-10 percent, while CEO pay has increased by some 150% - that sounds totally like they earned it - after all it is capitalsm and everybody gets what they are worth right.... I just wonder why our economy hasnt increased by 150%....