Of course, the poll on here is taken by a selected group who has time to hang out and read message boards and post about politics. Probably not a very good sample. And it's primarily Texas-based residents, which has one of the healthier economies in the US right now. The fact that real wages for your average "working class" American have been dropping for much of this economic recovery is a very, very disturbing trend. And we can argue that we are moving to a service-based economy and they need more education and what not, but it doesn't change the very real fact that a lot of Americans are NOT better off than the past. I believe a recent study showed that this current generation is the first in American history to not be financially better off than their parents were. Not all Bush's fault, of course - but the reality is that this GDP growth over the past 8 years has not translated to nearly as wide a breadth of Americans as previous economic recoveries/booms and certainly not even a fraction as broadly as the 1990's boom.
Well, people are losing their houses. It's happening more now than in years past. I have prospective . I'm not a complainer, but saying that most bbs users here are better off than last year is really a bad argument.
On this - and these are college grads: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/wage_gap.php Kay Steiger blogs about this EPI chart showing the substantial gap in wages for male and female recent college graduates. The good news, though, is that thanks to deteriorating male wages, the gap is narrowing . . . if we just continue our 21st century economic trajectory, college educated man and college educated woman alike can be equal in penury.
One man is not. But one man can be the leader of change in DC. He isn't even president and there are already some changes. A lot of new people are getting involved in the process. That hasn't happened in a long time. People are actually booing the candidates when they go negative and personal with the attacks now. Before people accepted that as politics as usual. The changes aren't 100% and they are just starting. But that isn't bad for someone who isn't even the party's nominee yet.
We can argue about real wage, wealth distribution etc. My point was more about this perceived notion that the whole country is in depression (which its not), and everyone is living in hardship that's caused by this Bush "catastrophe". If this is "catastrophe", then what makes the Carter years, the end of the world?
well, i just think these companies and sponsors that supports politicians have way too much influence. they can say changes are going to come, but at whose interest? hopefully it's for the benefit of the majority. as for economy, i don't think it's going back anymore. there will be rebounds, but it seems like a permanent shift to other parts of the world. we just have to deal with it and get used to it.
While the economy is not altogether great, I don't think most people harp on Bush as a catastrophe strictly as it correlates to present fiscal robustness.
Well I think most good natured folk realize that although the country is headed in the wrong direction and that times are bad due to bad government, we are still better off than 98% of the world. Meaning, we have roofs over our heads, and food on the table although its getting harder and harder to pay for such items. I am not better off because of the policies of the last seven years. I am better off because I do my best not to let the idiots in Washington rip my families future apart. Yep we can scream, kick, and moan but at the end of the day the bills have to be paid. The current administration just has made it that much harder on the average American to pay those bills. Yet we live to fight another day. I have been to countries where they have it far worse than 99% of us here. That alone I am grateful for. No thanks to this administration though....
We have just begun to see the problems in the economy. We've doubled the money supply under Bush, and prices have just begun to rise significantly. Price inflation is a lagging indicator of real inflation. Unless there's some big new industry that comes along and carries the American economy on its back the way the internet did in the 90s, the economy is going to get worse before it gets better. A catastrophe.
I figure we should heed the wisdom of one of the 20th Century's greatest philosophers. "Why don't somebody print the truth about our present economic condition? We spent years of wild buying on credit, everything under the sun, whether we needed it or not, and now we are having to pay for it, howling like a pet coon. This would be a great world to dance in if we didn't have to pay the fiddler." --Will Rogers "Things will get better despite our efforts to improve them." --Will Rogers
Which is another good thing about Obama. His campaign is not financed by special interests. He didn't have to sell his soul to them to raise all the money he has. I think the economy is spreading out to other parts of the world. The key is not to try and take it over from them, but find a way to adjust to the new economy in a way that propels the U.S. forward.
That's funny, there's actual data showing that things aren't going great for the average Joe, and that's the "percieved" notion, while listening to a few examples from the small sample size of the BBS is all the proof you need that things are going great. And it wasn't 4 years, it was 8 years, I would think that the people who talk politics here are college educated or currently in college and therefore during the course of 8 years, regardless of who is president, we may have advanced in our careers. You can't just point to someone and say "8 years ago he was a broke highschool student, now he's a college grad and he's got a good job making 60K a year, all thanks to President Bush!"
The thread was "are you doing better than last year", most answers were yes. Again, bbs isn't a good indicator of the whole country, but I do find this "catastrophe" talk a little overboard.
And people wonder why Hillary Clinton gets so much support from women? Just look at the graph you posted. Hillary doesn't get that support from women simply because she is of the same sex... she gets it because she gets it. Women are still discriminated against in this country. Most of them, not the Stepford Wives, but most of them understand that until they hold the highest office in the land, this issue that affects them so deeply, inequality compared to men, and not just in wages, will not be addressed. A woman VP would go a long way to give equality a push. And the graph's blurb at the bottom is misleading. Simply look at the graph. After narrowing, the difference in wages stayed flat for a while, and is increasing again. Impeach Bush.
i think asking yourself, "am i better off" is a terrible way to evaluate anything of a presidency. they're 300 freakin million people in this country. if the country is going to hell in in a handbasket (not arguing it is) then it will eventually affect you. this isn't directed at you deepblue because obviously we here this reasoning in the media all the time.
Sorry, but this is silly. It suggests that men have no interest in equality and the problem can't be fixed unless a woman does it. That's never been the case in American history - women got the right to vote, slaves got freed, etc etc with white men in office. It just takes a commitment to the issue - by anyone interested in addressing it. And frankly, there's not a lot in Hillary's history to suggest that the issue is a major priority for her. Having a woman inhabit the highest office in the land doesn't help women at the lower rungs any more than a woman CEO automatically helps fix women's wages at lower rungs in a corporation. It's symbolic, and I understand why women would support Hillary - no one has argued that they shouldn't - but her winning in itself doesn't help address the problem. Those kinds of changes have to come from within organizations and changes in corporate culture in many cases. I would also guess that other countries that have had female Presidents and Prime Ministers have similar wage gap problems, and I doubt they really improved during their tenures (though this is just a guess). The graph also shows that the gap IS decreasing - in 6 years, the gap decreased by 25% (a larger time horizon would be a bit more useful for analytical purposes though). While it's not due to women's wages rising, the flat wages are preferable to men's declining wages. It's also not a terribly useful graph because it doesn't take into account choices of profession. If, for example, there are a lot of men in fields that are higher paying, that would account for some of the differential. There may be an issue of if women are choosing those professions or are unable to break into the higher paying industries, but that would be an indication of an entirely different issue than simple wage discrimination. The graph doesn't really help us identify the underlying problem.
I am not saying that "am I better off" is a good way to judge the presidency. Just pointing out there are a lot of doom and gloom talk (here and in the media), I really haven't seem much of it around me, again I will admit its not a good indicator. But looking at the mortgage rate, inflation, unemployment, all are pretty good by historical numbers.
