BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

• Average family income, adjusted for inflation, has gone down
  I don't believe this. Here's an article from wikipedia showing that while there was a drop in median household income in 2008 that we are still recovering from, it's way higher than the 1980s. Here's another article showing a gradual rise. It's true that the wealthy have gained more, and that median household income hasn't kept up with GDP per household, but it's definitely better than in the 1970s and 1980s.
  
  
• Labor force participation has declined
  Only if we compare to the peak in the late 1990s. And a lot of it is because of an aging population and more people going to college. If we look at ages 25-54 (considered prime working years) this chart sheds some light on it. There's has been a small decline since the peak in the late 1990s (84% at the peak, 81.4% now) but we're still higher than the 1970s and 1980s (mostly because more women are working).
  
  
• Education quality, relative to other modern countries, has declined. (US now ranks 43rd in arithmetic/math competency)
  I don't believe this either. As this article summarizes, the US has always done poorly on these comparative tests between countries. We were doing badly in the 1970s and 1980s too! And most of the problem is poverty (here's an article on that).
  
  
• The US has lost a significant portion of its manufacturing capability to other countries.
  Not really. As this graph shows, US manufacturing output is near all-time highs and substantially above the 1970s and 1980s. Now if we're talking about manufacturing jobs this would be true, but that's because of advances in technology and automation.
  
  
• The US has a higher per capita prison population than any other country.
  This is true, and it's a problem. However, as this wikipedia article shows, the prison population has been fairly steady since 2000, reached a peak in 2008 and has actually been declining slightly since. So this is not a new problem and it hasn't gotten worse in quite some time.
  
  
• Inner city violence has increased. Chicago just set a new record for homicides in 2016,
  There has certainly been a spike in Chicago crime rates last year. However, over the last sixteen years we had a significant decline. So the 2016 Chicago homicide count is not really a record -- of the 30 years from 1970 through 1999, 18 years had more homicides than 2016 (this article is a source). It is also not clear that Chicago is representative of the rest of the nation, and a slight uptick nationwide in the last year does not counteract the declining trend over decades (see this article).
  
  
• The US has been continuously involved in a foreign war/police action/whatever every day for the last 8 years.
  True, and definitely a problem. However if we're comparing to previous decades, it may be worthwhile compare against the Vietnam War, when far more Americans served and far more Americans died (see this article). So despite the length and seeming futility of these actions, we are not necessarily worse off than the 1970s in this respect.
  
  
• The US now has more than 800 foreign military installations.
  Okay. Not clear to me how this is particularly relevant to our quality of life though.

Quote

I stand corrected. Measured from 1967 the median household income, adjusted for inflation, has increased by $9,373, or about 0.4% ($200)/year. From 1989 the increase has been $351, or about 0.03% ($14)/year. Truly a robust result.

The U.S. Census Bureau currently publishes median household income data from 1967 until present day.


Year No. of Households Nominal $ Inflation Adjusted $
2014 124,587,000 $53,013 $53,657
2013 123,931,000 $52,937 $54,462
2012 122,459,000 $50,396 $52,605
2011 121,084,000 $49,423 $52,690
2010 119,927,000 $48,691 $53,507
2009 117,538,000 $49,158 $54,925
2008 117,181,000 $49,671 $55,313
2007 116,783,000 $49,614 $57,357
2006 116,011,000 $47,599 $56,598
2005 114,384,000 $45,770 $56,160
2004 113,343,000 $43,785 $55,565
2003 112,000,000 $42,823 $55,759
2002 111,278,000 $41,911 $55,807
2001 109,297,000 $41,728 $56,466
2000 108,209,000 $41,446 $57,724
1999 106,434,000 $40,201 $57,843
1998 103,874,000 $38,383 $56,445
1997 102,528,000 $36,477 $54,443
1996 101,018,000 $34,941 $53,345
1995 99,627,000 $33,456 $52,604
1994 98,990,000 $31,522 $51,006
1993 97,107,000 $30,404 $50,421
1992 96,426,000 $29,640 $50,667
1991 95,669,000 $29,017 $51,086
1990 94,312,000 $28,680 $52,623
1989 93,347,000 $27,559 $53,306
1988 92,830,000 $25,872 $52,372
1987 91,124,000 $24,635 $51,973
1986 89,479,000 $23,457 $51,329
1985 88,458,000 $22,259 $49,574
1984 86,789,000 $21,072 $48,664
1983 85,407,000 $19,647 $47,229
1982 83,918,000 $19,155 $47,530
1981 83,527,000 $18,062 $47,658
1980 82,368,000 $16,671 $48,462
1979 80,776,000 $15,177 $50,089
1978 77,330,000 $13,650 $50,184
1977 76,030,000 $12,224 $48,315
1976 74,142,000 $11,379 $48,011
1975 72,867,000 $10,579 $47,227
1974 71,163,000 $9,990 $48,497
1973 69,859,000 $9,265 $50,083
1972 68,251,000 $8,542 $49,092
1971 66,676,000 $7,956 $47,076
1970 64,778,000 $7,701 $47,538
1969 63,401,000 $7,330 $47,910
1968 62,214,000 $6,698 $46,192
1967 60,813,000 $6,155 $44,284

Is household income a better measure than per capita, or at least per worker, income? If changes in social interactions meant that an average household changed from 5 persons to 3, a drop in income would not automatically mean a lower standard of living and might well mean a higher one. And that is before taking account of technological advancements and the like. The only reason I can think for using household income would be to hide the effects of the changing role of women over the intervening years. Hopefully there is noone here that would like to see a return to 1950s standard of sexual inequality!

ldrews, on 2017-January-10, 10:15, said:

How much would an iMac Pro cost in 1977?
How much has median home size increased since 1970?
How much is the internet worth to people?

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-10, 10:20, said:

Certainly I have no such wish. But I also would not want to prevent a consideration of the following:

Take and average couple, Joe and Jo. What average means might emerge as I go on.

1950s, my parents, Tom and Vernetta. Tom worked, Vernetta didn't. Vernetta worked before she was married, and early in her marriage. Not later. In may ways they qualified as average. We could focus on Vernetta's lack of job opportunity. But I want, for a moment, to focus on the fact that she did not need to have a job for our financial survival. My father installed weatherstripping, the guy across the street drove a truck, next to him was a cop, none of the women worked. There are two sides to this. Their job opportunities were limited. Vernetta had quit school when she was 14 or maybe 15, I think her job prospects were very limited. But we lived in a decent but modest house, Tom bought a brand new Chevrolet in 1953, paid for in cash, there was never a question of enough to eat, not even remotely, and so on. And the fact that I know who had what job is an indication of the stability of the neighborhood.

So sure. Both my daughters work the oldest granddaughter works, my wife worked, etc etc. I favor women's rights, equal bay, the whole enchilada. But I sometimes wonder: If Tom and Vernetta could make a go of it in the 1950s with only Tom working, and if that is not possible today for average Joe and Jo, are we really better off?

I'm not sure this can be completely addressed by statistics.

kenberg, on 2017-January-10, 12:11, said:

Couple comments:

1. If folks were willing to have the same quality of life that they had back in the 1950s they might very well be able to make do on one income. But they don't. They want larger houses. The want central air conditioning running all summer. They want a new smart phone every couple years. They want a larger more powerful car. They want to be able to travel. All these things cost a bunch of money.

2. The cost of both health care and higher education have been growing significantly faster than inflation. My understanding is that these two factors alone are sufficient to explain the stagnation in real wages.

Education cost history US

International Comparison of Math, Reading, and Science Skills Among 15-Year-Olds

Do you think we are getting our money's worth from our education and health expenditures?

hrothgar, on 2017-January-10, 12:38, said:

Yes. I know. But I still wonder. The quality of my life was quite good. No smart phone. But I had my own car, bought with money I earned myself, when I was fifteen;. The garage in back was a gathering place for my friends, we all (well,most of us) had cars, and they frequently needed work. I'll take that over a smartphone any day. I get your point, really I do, but my mother should go to work so I can have a smartphone? Or so she could? That would not have sat well with her.

Now medical matters are another thing. This is a very good time to be alive as we encounter the inevitable effects of aging.

Maybe the bottom line is that it is hard to compare different eras. Statistics don't cover it all. I am not generally a Woody Allen fan but I very much liked Midnight in Paris, and he seemed to come to some similar conclusions about comparisons of eras.

ldrews, on 2017-January-10, 13:14, said:

On health care expenditures? Almost certainly not. Healthcare is definitely not one of those areas where the "market" works well.

With respect to education, its a mixed bag.

The US higher education system, especially our top tier universities, are the best in the world.
However, the "for profit" universities like ITT and the Corinthian system are highly problematic.

If we look at secondary education, the real issue is that we are dramatically overspending in some school systems and radically neglecting others.

ldrews, on 2017-January-10, 13:14, said:

On health care expenditures? Almost certainly not. Healthcare is definitely not one of those areas where the "market" works well.

With respect to education, its a mixed bag.

The US higher education system, especially our top tier universities, are the best in the world.
However, the "for profit" universities like ITT and the Corinthian system are highly problematic.

If we look at secondary education, the real issue is that we are dramatically overspending in some school systems and radically neglecting others.

Quote

Perhaps. But the US education spending is in line, proportionally, with the GDP, But it is the 2nd highest on the chart, and our results in comparison to other countries is way down the list.

To me this indicates that the problem is not funding, per se, but that the delivery system is not functioning well. Perhaps our model of education delivery needs revamping, or competition needs to be introduced to induce improvements, or something. Certainly if we keep doing the same thing we will get the same result.

Granted, our top universities are the equal of any, but our primary/secondary systems suck.

Do you have any suggestions on how we might improve the educational system, other than throwing more money at it or redistributing the current money? Or do you think the current systems are just fine the way they are?

ldrews, on 2017-January-10, 14:37, said:

Given that the fundament problem is one of income distribution, I don't see a (practical) way to fix this without income redistribution.

In regards to medical costs, I met a lady in Puerta Vallarta, Mexico who is a medical referrer. She matches US visitors/residents with local medical suppliers. She has an arrangement with insurance companies to arrange for colonoscopies for the insurance company clients. The insurance company flies the client down to Puerta Vallarta, puts them up in a local hotel, the client has the colonoscopy, spends a day or two in "recovery", flies back to the US. All for less than the cost of a colonoscopy in the US. And the level of medical care equals that of the US.

That is crazy.

Internation education cost vs results

The above link shows a comparison among 11 countries of educational costs per student and student performance. The US has the highest cost per student but less than average math and science scores. In my opinion this does not support the idea that improving distribution of educational funding would improve performance. The US system appears to be simply less effective at delivering education.

Also, if funding were to be the significant factor, then redistributing existing funding would simply penalize the better performing schools in favor of the lesser performing schools such that the overall results would probably not change significantly.

And if the argument is made that more funding should be provided to lesser performing schools, then we raise the per student cost of education to a multiple of other countries to obtain, perhaps, the same performance that the other countries achieve with much less money. Another argument that the US education system simply not functioning well.

Perhaps we could figure out a way to outsource education to other countries?

ldrews, on 2017-January-10, 17:20, said:

Here is an alternative explanation: Looking at averages doesn't tell you very much.

1. In the US there are a wide variety of welfare programs that count towards education spending that do show up in other countries
2. The US has highly inequitable spending on education. Combine this with diminishing returns to scale and ...

Illiteracy

The above link discusses the functional illiteracy problem in the US. Another example of our failed educational system.

Quote

So, from the above response, I take it that you feel the educational systems is pretty much OK the way it is. Maybe some tweaking of the financial distribution, but otherwise no changes needed.