UK living standards outstrip US (Is This Surprising?)

Email Print posted by ihavenobias 01/05/2008 11:27:01 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
I saw this article and immediately thought of the resident conservatives here who assume the US is perfect in every way and can do no wrong (granted, they don't blatantly say that, but they might as well).

Please take note of the bold section.

UK living standards outstrip US

"Living standards in Britain are set to rise above those in America for the first time since the 19th century, according to a report by the respected Oxford Economics consultancy.

The calculations suggest that, measured by gross domestic product per capita, Britain can now hold its head up high in the economic stakes after more than a century of playing second fiddle to the Americans.

It says that GDP per head in Britain will be £23,500 this year, compared with £23,250 in America, reflecting not only the strength of the pound against the dollar but also the UK economy’s record run of growth and rising incomes going back to the early 1990s...

Although many people will be surprised by the figures, Americans have long complained that average incomes have been stagnant in their country.

One often-quoted statistical comparison suggests that in real terms the median male full-time salary in America is no higher now than it was in the 1970s..." (for the rest, click the link at the top)

< Food for thought | CNN to air counter transmission, FOX News- The Least Trusted Name in News, updated >
 Display:
UK living standards outstrip US (Is This Surprising?) | 49 comments (49 topical, 0 hidden)
Viva La Thatcher Revolucion (none / 0)
The "UK economy's record run of growth" has coincided with corporate income tax cuts. Britain began the corporate tax cutting revolution in the 1980s with a reduction of its rate from 52 percent to 35 percent. In April, Britain's corporate income tax rate is due to be lowered from 30 percent to 28 percent, much lower than America's rate. So don't be surprised to see more economic growth in Britain.

by Twba on 01/07/2008 12:38:24 PM EST

I like how you ignored (none / 0)
the main reason I posted that, the stagnant wages (or should I say, stagnant purchasing power to avoid seeing one of your links showing wages have increased).

And as always, the question is, who does the economic growth benefit and ironically, at what cost?

by ihavenobias on 01/07/2008 01:20:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Again (none / 0)
Despite the increase in per capita GDP in Britain, Americans still enjoy more purchasing power due to a lower cost of living.

We've already discussed stagnant wages. Americans have experienced rising compensation for decades. If you remove health care and other benefits from their compensation and only look at wages, you're not really seeing the big picture.

by Twba on 01/07/2008 02:06:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Whoah (none / 0)
And if you account for *real* inflation (the kind that accounts for food, energy and medical care rather than just non-essential goods and services made cheap in third world countries) we've barely made any progress at all since the 70's!

"According to new polls, the economy is the number 1 issue for American voters. But that's not just because the economy is slowing and mortgages are harder to come by.

The real reason is middle-class families have exhausted the coping mechanisms they've used for over three decades to get by on median wages that are barely higher than they were in 1970, adjusted for inflation. Male wages today are actually lower than they were then; the income of a young man in his 30s is now 12 percent below that of a man his age three decades ago.

by ihavenobias on 01/07/2008 02:13:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Really, then how is it that (none / 0)
Phizer, for example reported taxes at 22%?

by MRFred on 01/07/2008 06:19:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Pfizer (none / 0)
Really, then how is it that (none / 0)
Phizer, for example reported taxes at 22%?

I assume you're referring to this:

Effective Tax Rate on Adjusted Income 22.0%

Adjusted income is not the same as net income used to calculate taxes due. For example, Pfizer's adjusted income does not include a $2.8 billion charge for Exubera.

by Twba on 01/08/2008 10:44:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ok (none / 0)

I am aware of the difference between adjusted and net income...

Britain's corporate income tax rate is due to be lowered from 30 percent to 28 percent, much lower than America's rate.

...they reported a tax rate of 22% on adjusted income,  after the write down.

The effective tax rates on adjusted income for the third quarter and first nine months of 2007 were 21.7% and 21.8% compared to 23.2% and 22.1% for the same periods in 2006.

So based on that, how is your statement accurate.

by MRFred on 01/08/2008 12:57:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Pfuzzy explanation (none / 0)
Pfizer's adjusted income excludes the write down for Exubera. The net income includes the write down. It's spelled out in Pfizer's latest 10-Q.

by Twba on 01/08/2008 02:17:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Pfuzzy...pfor psure (none / 0)

In  from Pfizer 2004 annual report they  paid 1.2 B on earnings of 51.6 B  an actual tax rate of 23.6%. in 2002  it was 24.2...

So I'm wondering here....if US corporate taxes are so high, after all the deductions and incentives...it appears they pay less that corporations in GB.

Bush cut corporate taxes 5 times since he took office that last was  the pork ladden American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 that imposed a tarrif on imported fishing tackle...just for Denny Hastert disricts biggest employer...Plano. also the critical tax relief for hunting bows...bows such as those used for hunting are subject to an 11 percent excise tax if they have a peak draw weight of 10 pounds. The bill increases the peak draw weight to 30 pounds before a tax applies. It also repeals the tax on all fish-finding sonar devices.

I guess free trade and low taxes only applies to Republican congressional districts... 

 

 

 

by MRFred on 01/08/2008 03:06:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Let's attack Pfizer (none / 0)
They export billions of dollars of pharmacueticals abroad, helping us to balance the trade deficit.

They are one of the leading companies in an industry where American innovation is dominant.

They invent technologies that save lives and make the quality of life better for people in poor health.

They create billions of dollars in shareholder equity, and I'd be willing to bet everyone reading this owns a few shares of Phizer stock.

They create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans, both directly and indirectly.

by KenTX on 01/08/2008 03:38:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Whose attacking? (none / 0)

Thats not the point Ken and you know it. Pfizer was just a topic on a previous TWBA post and I looked in thee 10Q to see waht hey really paid in taxes.

But since you brough it up,  sure it can be said they save lives and make the quality of life better for people in poor health..assuming you can buy the drugs.

Now if I wanted to attack Pfizer...I could,  from painfull personal experience. 

And by the way...I don't....own a few shares of Pfizer..a bad play.

by MRFred on 01/08/2008 03:53:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
By the way (none / 0)

I though Bush and Republicans were for free trade? Why would a major corporate tax cut package ( The so called American Jobs Act) contain a tariff on imported fishing tackle?

Did you know that Plano Corp is a major employer (and oddly enough a manufacturer of fishing tackle) is in Dennis Hastert's District ?

Spooky.

 

by MRFred on 01/08/2008 03:59:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
painful personal experience? (none / 0)
Were you one of those guys with an erection that lasted more than four hours?

by KenTX on 01/09/2008 12:40:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No (none / 0)

I was one of those guys paying $ 900 a month for Aricept (a Pfizer drug ) for my mother. Her perscription cost for the first 3 years she was on the drug was about 32K or 20% of her assets. I picked up the tab for the next 2.

Due to changes in the Medicare rules by the Compasonate Conservative Alzheimer's Like Dementia ( its real name) was reclassified as a chronic condition and not eligible for additional Medicare funds other than routine medical vsists once diagnosed. We cared for her in our home for 5 years until we had to place her in a managed care facility. 2 and a half years later we exhausted her retirement funds plus the proceeds on the sale of her house and a large chunk of my investments

She is now on Medicade but due to the rules changes by our FL compasionate conservate that may end this year.

Any other questions. 

by MRFred on 01/09/2008 01:33:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
miracle drugs (none / 0)
If Aricept is really effective in improving the quality of life for your Mom, it might be worth the $900 per month. The main question, is it really effective?

Let's say your Mom was 80 years old when diagnosed with Alzheimers, and Aricept was dramatically effective for five years. Then it might be worth the price.

My Granny developed heart problems four years ago. She was prescribed several very expensive medications. The Bush Administration's Prescription Drug Program made the pharmaceuticals entire ly affordable.

Today, she is going on 93 years old, and she moves around like she's a kid. Her life has been improved and extended by evil drug companies. The cost of the drugs was made very affordable by the evil Bush Administration.

I don't know who to blame for this situation?

by KenTX on 01/10/2008 01:49:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Its called greed.... (none / 0)

Blame isn't the objective.

In the real world, devoid of rosy conservative spin...thing's aren't so simple.

My mothers disease has progressed to its final stage,the need for Aricept, not that it did nay good, is well past. Aricept is claimed to be effective but at the time one of the few drugs around.  Any further discussion is academic in her case.

Charging what the traffic will bare may be smart at a convenience store or at the last gas station in Death Valley or in my case running a IT consulting company. Customers do have choices.

Drug companies charge what the traffic will bare knowing there is no choice for their customers. Pfizer could have make a reasonable profit on Aricept at half  the price...or less.

Theres no such choice with drugs..unless you go off shore. You can find  Aricept on the web for 133$ a month...from overseas....which as I understand it is illeagle( under the drug plan). Now Aricept is a "reasonable" 4000$ a year...with a drug plan. Not so reasonable if your income is SSI and a small company pension and a IRA.

Conservative constantly wave Walmart around as the shining example of markets and efficiency. Walmart uses its buying power to get lower prices. The Medicare drug plan cant do that by law. Why? Give me a good "conservative" reason for that.

The evil Bush administration has provided a prescription plan alright...basically a subsidy for the pharmaceutical companies and some relief for seniors. A mexican standoff...

AS far as the evil drug companies , in you view corporations can do no wrong...even Enron...so lets see

 

The Lancet: "The view that Aricept, with US sales in 2004 of just under a billion dollars, probably shouldn’t be used in most of the patients for whom it’s prescribed, has so far been largely ignored in the U.S. Only a fervent desire to believe the conclusions of the study that professed to show Aricept keeps people out of nursing homes can explain this phenomenon." ( Reinforced by Pfizer marketing)

"Q :In the U.S., the Alzheimer's drug market is expanding driven by the launch of a new drug for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, which is likely contributing to the boost of Aricept sales. How long will this boom last?

A: Aricept is currently showing remarkable growth with a 40%percent rise in the total prescription number for fiscal year 2003 and also recorded a 45% percent rise in the new prescription number at its maximum. We hope the 40-50% percent range growth will continue, but it is difficult to forecast how long this trend will last at this point. "

You cant tell me Pfizer was not aware from its studies and marketing that Aricept is largly worthless as a treament for AHD.They continue to market what amounts to little more as a placebo with no substantive data to prove it.


by MRFred on 01/10/2008 10:53:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
One more thing (none / 0)

if Aricept really worked....SSA  and the states would be all over itself trying to push Aricept.  Care of the indigent elderly like my mother (after Pfizer and the private sector got through with her), is the fasting growing cost to Medicade.

Nursing Home 3500-7500 per month

Aricept 300-400 per month 

by MRFred on 01/10/2008 02:41:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nominal rate vs. effective rate (none / 0)
Britain's nominal corporate income tax rate is lower than the US nominal rate. Pfizer's effective rate is lower than the nominal rate due to deductions. Britain also allows deductions.

I though Bush and Republicans were for free trade?

Bush's imposition of steel tariffs to influence voters in Pennsylvania and West Virginia should have told you all you need to know about Bush's support of free trade.

by Twba on 01/09/2008 10:48:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nominally Effective (none / 0)

Just for my own edification I checked the 10Qs of serveral companies. Based on that un-scientific survey I would make a guess and say the most corprations in the US pay between 18-25% effective rate on taxes ( unless thay have really crappy accountants)

In other words they pay less taxes as a percentage of income than I do. So I would say our effective tax rates seem ti be pretty resonable...relatively speaking

As far as trade goes I knew that,  I was "trolling"for a KenTx disertation on how wonderful Bushes trade policies are.

But I am glad I can get my fishing tackle made in the USA from Plano...

by MRFred on 01/09/2008 01:50:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
KenTX falling down on the job. (none / 0)
"As far as trade goes I knew that,  I was "trolling"for a KenTx disertation on how wonderful Bushes trade policies are. But I am glad I can get my fishing tackle made in the USA from Plano."

Sorry I missed this. Here is the Cliff's Notes response.

When Plano manufactures and exports fishing tackle to customers in other countries, they should be rewarded by the federal government by not having to pay taxes on the profits. This will give Plano financial incentive to make further investment to increase exports, thereby helping to reduce the trade deficit.

When Plano manufactures and sells fishing tackle to customers in the U.S., they should be rewarded by the federal government by not having to pay taxes on the profits. This will give Plano financial incentive to reduce imports from foreign competitors.

Plano is an evil corporation. They export products and reduce the trade deficit. They create jobs for millions of Americans. They add billions of dollars in equity to the retirement portfolios of millions of Americans.

A corporations is not a person. A corporation is like a giant American goose that lays giant golden eggs for all Americans.

I am proposing corporate welfare.

I am a very bad man.

The End



by KenTX on 01/10/2008 01:20:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
correction (none / 0)
I meant thousands of jobs, not millions of jobs.

by KenTX on 01/10/2008 03:19:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
If we protect fishing tackle (none / 0)

with tariffs and reward Hasterts constituants like this:

When Plano manufactures and exports fishing tackle to customers in other countries, they should be rewarded by the federal government by not having to pay taxes on the profits. This will give Plano financial incentive to make further investment to increase exports, thereby helping to reduce the trade deficit.

why not auto...electronics..apllian ces? That could apply to any company( plug in your company name):

When______manufactures and exports _____to customers in other countries, they should be rewarded by the federal government by not having to pay taxes on the profits. This will give _____ financial incentive to make further investment to increase exports, thereby helping to reduce the trade deficit.

___ export products and reduce the trade deficit. ____create jobs for millions of Americans. _____add billions of dollars in equity to the retirement portfolios of millions of Americans.

Are you saying Republican / conservative trade policy is wrong? We should be protecting industries like Bush did for steel,( and the votes) so they have an incentive to make further investment to increase exports, thereby helping to reduce the trade deficit creat jobs ect.

 Explan that.

by MRFred on 01/10/2008 11:01:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
brief response (none / 0)
Since I'm on my bb. Manufacturing companies should be exempt from paying taxes. At the very least, they should receive huge tax incentives for capital investment.

by KenTX on 01/10/2008 12:26:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
KenTX Theory of Evolution (none / 0)

 Manufacturing companies should be exempt from paying taxes

In your conservative bizzaro world the  rich shouldn't pay taxes...they generate jobs...companies shouldn't pay taxes...they generate jobs...consumers shouldn't pay taxes...they generate jobs...the dead shouldn't be subject to inheritance taxes...and so on

Well exactly who should pay taxes? How exactly will our goverment funtion? Never mind...Thats the true goal eliminate the Federal and state and local governments...survival of the richest.

by MRFred on 01/10/2008 12:48:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Fair Tax (none / 0)
I'm a big advocate of the Fair Tax. Properly implemented, this can completely replace other forms of federal taxes.

by KenTX on 01/10/2008 03:44:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Now that's the rub isn't it. (none / 0)

Fairly implemented is the problem for any taxation plan.

There is no way on Gods green earth that the Fair Tax initiative ( or Forbes Flat Tax or any of the alternative tax plans) would be implemented without some sort of special interest exemption or perk...defeating the purpose of the whole concept and starting the whole cycle all over again.

Any meaningful tax reform would require some reform or elimination of lobbists from our system first. 

Obviously you agree there are activities that must be funded.

I know there are some things you wouldn't go for but I can resonably say that both of us would be rather miffed if the bridge we happened to be driving on fell down or our flights collided because the air traffic control system crashed or we were poisoned by our shaving cream because it had lead in it...that sort of thing. Right?

by MRFred on 01/10/2008 04:21:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Privatization (none / 0)
I know there are some things you wouldn't go for but I can resonably say that both of us would be rather miffed if the bridge we happened to be driving on fell down or our flights collided because the air traffic control system crashed or we were poisoned by our shaving cream because it had lead in it...that sort of thing. Right?

The bridge could be a privately owned toll bridge. The air traffic control system could be privately owned and paid for by airlines and passengers. Underwriters Laboratories can test for lead as well as a government lab.

by Twba on 01/10/2008 04:34:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh what a great idea! (none / 0)

No, don't tell me,  let me guess...if enough privatized bridges collapsed the consumer would choose to use privatized bridges that haven't collapsed..and the owners of the collapsed bridges would go out of business!

Oh...let not stop there! I see more posibilties...we could privatize:

Fire departments.

 

911 - Whats your emergency and credit card number?

 

 

 

Parks 

 


 

The mall in Washington DC 

 


The invisible hand of the free market!

How silly of me. 

by MRFred on 01/10/2008 05:33:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
pay to ride (none / 0)
The largest highway system in the country will be built without a single penny of taxpayer money.

My guess is that almost all new highways are toll roads.

by KenTX on 01/10/2008 05:48:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nice try......the real objective is (none / 0)

Republican Party presidential candidate Ron Paul has voiced major opposition to the project, calling it the "NAFTA Superhighway" and saying the road would lead towards a North American Union.

 

by MRFred on 01/10/2008 05:53:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
news flash (none / 0)
Republican Party preseidential candidate Ron Paul is a nut.

by KenTX on 01/10/2008 06:03:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Now who hates America... (none / 0)

Really ,your private highway is nothing more than an attempt to bypass trucking and safety regulation and let cheap mexican truckers move imported freight through Mexico with impunity across the border and put American ports out of bussiness.

What have you got against American truck drivers? Why do you hate the blue collar working men an women so much you want to steal ther livelyhood for a few cents off already cheap crap at Walmart.

 

by MRFred on 01/10/2008 11:04:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why TTC is great for KenTX. (none / 0)
1. This is the closest America will get to having an autobahn. I could drive from Austin to Tulsa at 90 MPH with cruise control on.

2. The highway is scheduled to intersect Texas Highway 71 where I own land. I'll be rich after I build the 50 bay truck stop, complete with laundromat, barbershop, Mexican cantina, and whorehouse.

by KenTX on 01/11/2008 03:25:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You summed up the entire thread (none / 0)
Its good for regardless of the cost to the country. The Republican mantra.

by MRFred on 01/11/2008 07:22:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Erratta (none / 0)
Its good for KenTX regardless of the cost to the country. The Republican/Conservative Mantra : Ive got mine fuck the rest of you....

by MRFred on 01/11/2008 07:25:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
slight modification (none / 0)
I earned mine. You have to earn yours.

by KenTX on 01/11/2008 09:27:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Whatever (none / 0)
I earned mine ..without screwing someone else....

by MRFred on 01/12/2008 09:37:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Priorities (none / 0)
No, don't tell me,  let me guess...if enough privatized bridges collapsed the consumer would choose to use privatized bridges that haven't collapsed..and the owners of the collapsed bridges would go out of business!

One government owned and maintained interstate highway bridge collapses and you have a cow about privatization.

by Twba on 01/12/2008 02:13:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Tax (none / 0)
In other words they pay less taxes as a percentage of income than I do. So I would say our effective tax rates seem ti be pretty resonable...relatively speaking

But many companies are choosing to relocate. Their managers believe the effective tax rates are better elsewhere.

Well exactly who should pay taxes?

Not corporations. The corporate income tax should be eliminated. It only encourages reincorporating in low-tax havens and lobbying Congress for loopholes in the tax code. Don't tax the corporation; tax the owners, the shareholders. Tax the shareholders' dividend income and you've effectively taxed the corporations' profits without creating an incentive to relocate offshore or bribe congressmen.

by Twba on 01/10/2008 04:25:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That assumes (none / 0)

the companies pay dividends in the first place. Companies would simply not pay dividends then move off shore anyway if profits were taxed (if they chose not to declare a dividend).

Companies are going to move and bribe congressmen regardless...to avoid environmental laws, credit and securities regulations and so forth.

No matter what is done business will find a reason to offshore, outsource whatever... short of a free ride at the consumer and tax payers expense.

Companies will simply roam the earth searching for the cheapest labor,  the laxest bussiness laws and enviromental regulations until they end up back in the US , oh  in about 150 years or so. By then we will be the third world.



 

by MRFred on 01/10/2008 05:50:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not as good as it appears for Brits (none / 0)

I read the Financial Times almost every day. Although it's a veeerrrrryy conservative paper, as is the Telegraph, it has a huge amount of credibility. The Times of London used to be a most respectable newspaper until Rupert Murdoch bought it and turned it into another cheap tabloid. I suggest that if you want real news from many views in the UK, read the Guardian/Independent first, then Financial Times, then the Telegraph.

There are more poor people here in the US, and the wealthy are richer than in UK. That skews the numbers. If the Brits are going up, that means that the middle class in the US is sinking badly.

Thanks to Margaret Thatcher's horrendous policies that [like here] rewarded corporations and the wealthy while soaking the middle class, ordinary people in the UK are NOT doing better than we are. In addition, the insane policies that give illegal immigrants preference for homes ahead of ordinary Brits has led to a lot of hostilities, especially since the middle class Brits are paying for homes for illegals when they can't afford the same themselves. Add the 'nanny state' which controls almost every aspect of their lives whether they want it or not [they don't], and we're lucky that we're here instead of the UK, even with L'Idiot Bush and Darth Cheney in the White House--that will change soon.

Those numbers in the article only reflect incomes, not cost of living. The UK is very expensive, not just for US visitors, but for people who live there. A home that might cost $350,000 here would cost in the UK at least 3x more in pounds, probably for something smaller and with less property. Goods in stores are much more expensive than here. About the only thing that's a bargain in the UK are the combo mobile/broadband deals, package holidays and discount flights so they can get the hell out of the UK to go any place cheaper.

The UK economy is more of a house of cards than the US economy. It only appears better because they've kept the pound sterling so high. Perhaps the US economy is looking so bad against, well, everything else is that the monetary policy is something that only a robber baron could love and screws the rest of us. At least it could return to a solid base. The UK will have more of a problem.

by zenie on 01/07/2008 01:18:28 PM EST

You unwittingly nailed it (none / 0)
TWBA absolutely *loves* the robber baron era and he would love to screw the rest of us.

He even had a laughable post about how poor/middle class people today should be grateful because they (according to him) have it SO much better than the robber barons did in the 1890's.

by ihavenobias on 01/07/2008 01:24:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Rubbish" (none / 0)
as the Brits would say.

I used to work for a British company. I spent plenty of time over there and my counter parts spent plenty of time over here.

Here is the bottom line: We Americans live a much better lifestyle on our salaries than Brits live on their salaries. It has to do with salaries versus cost of goods and services, or "purchasing power".

The Brits were dumbfounded at the low cost of goods in America. Once again, you can thank Sam Walton.

We've enjoyed 25 years of low inflation (almost disinflation) and rapidly rising wages. During this time period, we had only one Democrat president, and thankfully, he did nothing while in office.

by KenTX on 01/07/2008 04:33:34 PM EST

Low inflation? (none / 0)
Once again you say something patently absurd (and false).

For the billionth time, not much inflation (or even deflation) *primarily* for non-essential goods and services (i.e. you can buy cheap DVD players and lawncare) but MASSIVE inflation on things we NEED (energy, food, medical care, etc.).

How do you manage to ignore reality so thoroughly? Is it a struggle or have you done it for so long that it's beocme second nature?

by ihavenobias on 01/07/2008 05:01:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Its called (none / 0)

repressed memories.

Ken lives in Texas were every one makes 125$K a year. Just ask him. Even his gardener make a 100K.

I always wonder were they get this rapidly rising wages spin. Depends on what income group your in ...namely the wealthy wages and income could be dlassified as rapidly rising... for the rest of America (90%) household income  has declined. Data is up to 2006...I'm sure 2007 data when its compiled will show simular declines From the references*

Except among the most affluent, US household income has decreased. For example, although the total income reported on taxes in 2005 increased by almost 9% for the entire population, income for those below the 90th percentile decreased by 0.6%.

The Federal Reserve Board reported that median“real” household income (adjusted for inflation) increased by 1.6% between 2001 and 2004 but mean income decreased by 2.3%. 

According to the US Census Bureau, median real income decreased by4% between 1999 and 2004; between 2004 and 2006, median income increased by 0.8% for the highest income quintile but decreased in all other categories.

DeNavas-Walt C, Proctor BD, Smith J. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance
Coverage in the United States: 2006. Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office; 2007. US Census Bureau Current Population Reports, P60-233. http:
//www.census.gov/prod/2007p ubs/p60-233.pdf. Accessed September 4, 2007.

Piketty T, Saez E. Income inequality in the United States, 1913-1998.QJ Econ.
2003;118:1-39http://elsa.be rkeley.edu/~saez/TabFig2005 prel.xls. Updated analysisthrough 2003. Accessed April 23, 2007.

Bucks BK, Kennickell AB, Moore KB. Recent changes in US family finances:evidence fromt he 2001 and 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances. Federal ReserveBulletin 2006.http//:www.federalrese rve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2006/ financesurvey
.pdf. Accessed September 30, 2007.

*( Yes I f'ing cut and pasted the items ,so blow me...)

by MRFred on 01/07/2008 05:42:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
ask the right person (none / 0)
Blow you? Maybe your buddy kentx can handle that

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 01/07/2008 07:53:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
UH... (none / 0)

I get a lot of bitching about cut and paste...I generally do that when the reference is large...and I added just a general comment for those who  complain...but cut and past like mad at their work...

by MRFred on 01/08/2008 09:08:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Don' get frustrated.. it may take a billion and 1 (none / 0)
Ken troll lives in a world of spoon fed lies . Muddying the waters with facts  is a foreign concept when you live on a steady diet of Rush Limbaugh and Free Republic emails.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 01/07/2008 07:58:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Walton ruined prices (none / 0)

Here in the Mid-Atlantic region, prices have always been good, especially in the Philadelphia region. People in this region are very demanding about quality and low prices, and avoid stores with shoddy goods and not-so-good prices like Walmart.

Walmart makes no difference in prices around here. I go there every once in a while and have yet to see much that I can't get for the same price or less, or at a better quality somewhere else close by, so I don't buy there, unless items are below cost, and I can haggle for a lower price [like in south Philly and NYC].

Walmart, however, is responsible for lowering standards, lower wages, mislabeling imports as made in U.S.A., and blackmailing/stealing from local community coffers to run their business. Walmart, along with the rise of the Republican Dixiecrats who don't understand that "right to work" means lower wages and benefits because workers have no union protection, is a cancer on the landscape [and the stores stink, literally].

The Brits come here to shop because the dollar is so low, unfortunately for the American people who will have to repay the Republican and neocon debt. Brits don't want to shop at Walmart. They have Tesco and Sainsbury and a few other hypermarkets at home. They can shop at Carrefour, Auchan/Alcampo, Eroski, Intermarche, Konsum, Giant Casino, Aldi, etc. on the continent, all of which are better than Walmart at most locations. The only store with really hideous business practices like Walmart is the German chain Lidl which, like Walmart, has fired workers and closed stores when workers attempt to start or join a union. Lidl has also threatened and intimidated remaining workers. It's the kind of store, like Walmart, that opens in depressed areas, competing with local businesses until they fold. They also don't label many of their goods properly. [but I can't resist going to Lidl to stock up on Snacky Cracky]

When we were in Miami Beach recently, we met some Brits who arrived at our hostel without luggage, with plans to buy a lot of very expensive goods using their valuable pounds to buy cheap dollars. They don't want Walmart junk. They can get that at outdoor Gypsy markets and street vendors in Europe--minus the Waltons and their ilk. They were going to shop at Sawgrass Mills, in Miami, and in West Palm Beach. They bought new luggage at discount prices at Sawgrass to haul their treasures home.

I also worked for a European company. They weren't amazed at all at the prices; they were smart enough to take advantage of currency fluctuation and favorable exchange rates. They knew where to find good values for quality goods, and often that was in Manhattan [NYC], not at a crummy Walmart. 

by zenie on 01/07/2008 06:33:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
UK living standards outstrip US (Is This Surprising?) | 49 comments (49 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: