It's not your imagination ... if money seems tighter

[michaeledward]

According to the Internal Revenue Service, Americans' incomes have decreased two years in a row.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/29/news/economy/income/index.htm

Americans' incomes fell for two years
Report: IRS data shows first-ever consecutive-year drop; loss of jobs blamed.
July 29, 2004: 7:05 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Americans' overall income shrank for two consecutive years after stocks plunged in 2000, the first time that has effectively happened in the since the current tax system was put in place during World War II, according to a published report Thursday.

The New York Times, reporting data from the Internal Revenue Service, said gross income reported to the agency fell 5.1 percent to $6.0 trillion in 2002, the most recent year for which data is available, down from $6.35 trillion in 2000. Because of population growth, average income fell even more, by 5.7 percent, and adjusted for inflation the decline was 9.2 percent.

 

[MisterMike]

I guess that makes sense following the stock crash. It's important to note that they are talking about 2000-2002.

It's also kinda funny they mention 2002 is the last year they have data for. Didn't anybody file taxes in 2003 and 2004? Seems the IRS would have the data, but not the NY Times. That of course didn't stop them from publishing a story with such a headline.

My guess is, incomes went up as employment rates rose. I didn't read the full article, but I'm guessin' they didn't mention that.

 

[Phoenix44]

No kidding. I had a job for 5 years, no benefits, and no raise the entire time I was there. I worked days, evenings and Saturdays, at multiple locations. Then, after my boss spent a ton on lawyers for his own reasons, he was planning on CUTTING my hourly wage by 15% ("You're kidding, right?"), to compensate for HIS legal woes. Amazingly, he thought I'd stick around anyway, and was stunned when I left. To make a long story short, I now work 2 part-time jobs, with some benefits, and I'm earning, overall, about 30% less than I was 2 years ago--but at least no nights or weekends.

Oh, BTW, without telling you exactly what I do for a living, let's just say it's a professional position requiring a lot of training and experience, and you'd be shocked that this so-called profession could leave an experienced person in this predicament.

I just LOVE this economic recovery we're having. Maybe I should apply for a job at Wal-Mart.

Guess who I'm not voting for?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I love the way the Bush administration tried to get fast food jobs listed in the manufacturing sector on these reports of "economic recovery." I guess a burger wouldn't be a durable item in that regard.




Regards,


Steve

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Oh, me too. Fast-food workers, which have become stripped of any labor skill to keep wages and benefits extremely low, as a "manufacturing' job?!?!

Come on. I mean, come ON!

 

[Taimishu]

Hey Mouse it takes a long time to train a fast food cook. There is placing the burger on the hot plate (assuming the manager switched it on ) Turning the burger at intervals, preparing the bun, finding the salad, turning the burger, placing the burger on the bun, placing salad on burger, placing other half of bun on top, placing burger on paper towel, give to customer.
With all this involved it took at least 7 days to train our last recruit Charlie the chimpanzee.

David

 

[michaeledward]

Just a thought for us 'Lefties' ... while I agree with much of the sentiment, I am afraid the humor/sarcasm won't go far in helping MisterMike see the error of his ways

I guess that makes sense following the stock crash. It's important to note that they are talking about 2000-2002.

It's also kinda funny they mention 2002 is the last year they have data for. Didn't anybody file taxes in 2003 and 2004? Seems the IRS would have the data, but not the NY Times. That of course didn't stop them from publishing a story with such a headline.

My guess is, incomes went up as employment rates rose. I didn't read the full article, but I'm guessin' they didn't mention that.

Speaking of MisterMike ...Why does the loss of income make sense due to the stock market crash (woes) of 2001? I believe most Americans receive income based on labor, rather than dividends. How would stock market changes affect most of us?

I would guess that the reason the IRS takes so long to report on data, is to ensure complete data is received, and that it is properly analyzed. Many file extentions for their tax returns so that they aren't due on April 15 of the tax year.

And while the last six or seven months have reported job growth, since 2001, there has been an overall loss of jobs in the economy. And, as I understand it, the jobs being created in the last 7 months have been lower skilled / lower wage occupations than those that disappeared in '01, '02 & '03.

You are right in one sense, though, Mike; the headline does not clearly match the article. The article reports that high-income personel reported large income drops during the report period ... even with the '01 & '03 tax cuts. It does report that middle income families had, basically, flat incomes (which would be cuts when viewed against inflation).

Mike

 

[MisterMike]

Just a thought for us 'Lefties' ... while I agree with much of the sentiment, I am afraid the humor/sarcasm won't go far in helping MisterMike see the error of his ways



Speaking of MisterMike ...Why does the loss of income make sense due to the stock market crash (woes) of 2001? I believe most Americans receive income based on labor, rather than dividends. How would stock market changes affect most of us?

.....

You are right in one sense, though, Mike; the headline does not clearly match the article. The article reports that high-income personel reported large income drops during the report period ... even with the '01 & '03 tax cuts. It does report that middle income families had, basically, flat incomes (which would be cuts when viewed against inflation).

Mike

I was linking the stock market slump to the income decreases in a time sense. But, as you later pointed out, it probably did have an effect on the high-income personel more so than the lower class as far as dividends.

As the companies saw the market come down, they had to cut off the dead wood so to speak. In that way, I see the slumping earnings reports affecting the market prices affecting layoffs affecting income.

This was what Bush walked into. Nobody could have really timed it.

If we are truely seeing a rebound in jobs, wouldn't this have been a relatively short recession? I thought they typically lasted about 10 years for the cycle. Maybe they only occur every 10 years. :idunno:

~Righty Mike

 

[michaeledward]

I was linking the stock market slump to the income decreases in a time sense. But, as you later pointed out, it probably did have an effect on the high-income personel more so than the lower class as far as dividends.

As the companies saw the market come down, they had to cut off the dead wood so to speak. In that way, I see the slumping earnings reports affecting the market prices affecting layoffs affecting income.

This was what Bush walked into. Nobody could have really timed it.

If we are truely seeing a rebound in jobs, wouldn't this have been a relatively short recession? I thought they typically lasted about 10 years for the cycle. Maybe they only occur every 10 years. :idunno:

~Righty Mike

A presidential administration probably has very little to do with what the economy does, so Clinton does deserve all the credit he gets for the 'Go-Go 90's' ... and Bush doesn't deserve all the blame he gets for the current recession / job-less recovery. They, of course, have something to do with the government expenditures ... Clinton's 93 tax increase no doubt brought about a balanced budget - budget surplus ... Bush's tax cuts no doubt brought about the current 450 billion dollar deficit.

If this recession lasted only the 3 quarters, and we are actually experiencing a 'recovery', then it would be a very short recession. If I recall .... the business cycle normally works on a 20 year cycle ... stale for 20 years ... good for 20 years ... but, I am sure there are other ways of looking at the market.

I just know that my 401(k) is worth about 88% of what I have invested in the last 5 years. For every dollar I have set aside for my retirement, the 'MARKET' has eaten 12 cents ... Oh, Joy!

Long - Mike