[Soresbox]

I make the exact same thing, and that ain't good.

[Gastonleruanich]

Could one possibly argue that the economic prosperity experienced during the Clinton administration was due to the "trickle down" of Reganomics and the decrease in incomes could be due to policies enacted during the Clinton era "trickling down?" Not to mention, the fact that since Bush took office, we've had a terrorist attack on US soil and a world-wide rise in the demand for raw materials & OIL.

[Msrwbdas]

Originally posted by Bosh

Especially when indexed to inflation. That's what I mean. Prices of all goes up, wages don't. If you're fortunate enough to even have wages. I'll take my same over none or less, and count myself lucky. What other realistic choice is there?

[lipitrRrxX]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Is it sad that I make more now? I make quite a bit more now too, but then living in a country where the local currency has gone up about 30% against the dollar since I moved here is nice...

[warrgazur]

yet GDP has been growing every year... it's now about 20% higher than it was in 2000... while population is up less than 10%.

[Aqgkvwzm]

Originally posted by Smiley
yet GDP has been growing every year... it's now about 20% higher than it was in 2000... while population is up less than 10%.

Hmmmm, I wonder why...

[NumsAmenniams]

And if you aren't assuming that corporate profits should make up no portion of the national income, then you have to somehow demonstrate that the previous levels were better than the current ones. It's possible for corporate profits to be too low.

(I'm not saying that is/was the case, but I don't see any compelling reason either way.)

[hieklyintinee]

The good times... They are a rolling. Just ask DanS.

[lasadeykar]

This seems like a good thread for this little tidbit from the WaPo.

Number of Uninsured Children Rises
Census Figures Show 8.3 Million Youths Lacked Health Coverage in 2005

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 5, 2006; Page A06

For the better part of a decade, fewer and fewer American children have gone without health insurance each year, a trend that diverged sharply from the seemingly inexorable rise in the number of adults without coverage.

No more.

For the first time since 1998, the number of children younger than 18 without health coverage ticked upward last year by 361,000, along with the overall increase in the ranks of the uninsured, according to census figures released last week. Of the nation's nearly 74 million children, about 8.3 million, or 11.2 percent, lacked coverage in 2005, up from 10.8 percent the year before.

The discouraging development surprised some health experts, who attributed the change to budget crunches that led some states to curtail enrollment of children in government-subsidized plans and steady declines in the number of people who receive health insurance through their jobs.

Children without health coverage are three times as likely as insured children to lack a regular doctor, according to a report released last month by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Research from the American College of Physicians in 2000 found that uninsured children were less likely to be up to date on immunizations and to receive treatment for sore throats, earaches and other common childhood illnesses. A University of Texas study found that kids with insurance tend to have fewer school absences.

The uptick in the number of uninsured kids could play a major role in next year's debate in Congress over whether to renew the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), a nine-year-old federal-state effort to provide health coverage to children of the working poor and near poor.

"There is a message in these numbers," said John R. Lumpkin, a physician who is a senior vice president at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "The only reason that number [of uninsured children] isn't worse is because we have Medicaid and SCHIP. . . . We continue to have a crisis in this country with kids who have no health insurance."

Congress created the popular SCHIP program in 1997, directing tens of billions in matching funds to the states over 10 years. The goal was to provide health coverage for children whose families do not qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford insurance on their own -- generally those with incomes as high as twice the poverty level, or $39,942 for a family of four last year.

In the first six years, about 3.9 million children were signed up for coverage, but enrollment has flattened since 2003. In part, that is because an economic downturn led some states to raise premiums, reduce outreach efforts and impose enrollment limits and new administrative hurdles, said Genevieve M. Kenney, a health economist at the nonprofit Urban Institute.

"There's no question that we don't have the same momentum nationwide," she said. "Some of it is natural as the program matures. But I think the recessionary period and the state budget crunch were real factors in interrupting the momentum. And I don't think states have recovered from that."

Enrollment limits or freezes lasting six months or longer took effect in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Montana, North Carolina and Utah, Kenney said. Mississippi stopped accepting applications by mail. In Texas, where more than 20 percent of children are uninsured, the highest percentage in the nation, officials in 2003 imposed new premiums, eliminated dental coverage and began requiring families to re-enroll their children every six months rather than yearly.

"There was a $10 billion [state] budget shortfall," said Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.

Number of Uninsured Children Rises

After peaking at 529,271 kids in May 2002, enrollment in Texas's children's health insurance program plummeted nearly 44 percent to 298,731 by June of this year, state figures show. Goodman said the decline was more than offset by increases in Medicaid enrollments, but the two programs serve different populations.

The most potent force behind the recent increase in uninsured children, experts said, is the decline in employer-sponsored health insurance as rising costs prompt businesses to raise premiums or cut coverage.

The latest census figures show that a record 46.6 million Americans had no health insurance in 2005, up from 45.3 million in 2004. Among those who did have coverage, fewer were receiving it through their jobs. In 2001, for instance, 62.6 percent of Americans had employer-sponsored coverage. By last year the figure was 59.5 percent, census figures show.

Katherine Swartz, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, said a trend toward trimming business payrolls and hiring contract workers has made things worse. More than a quarter of 25-to-34-year-olds do not have health insurance, said Swartz, author of "Reinsuring Health." For 35-to-44-year-olds, the uninsured rate is 19 percent.

"Those are the prime ages for having kids," she said. "These are unheard of percentages of those age cohorts that are uninsured. And, of course, if they have kids, their kids are not going to have health insurance either."

Corralling rising health care costs is one way to boost the number of insured children, said Diane Rowland, executive director of the Kaiser Family Foundation's Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. A more immediate step is better education and outreach because studies show that at any given time about seven in 10 uninsured children are eligible for low-cost or publicly subsidized coverage, she said.

"We lose some people because they are not aware that they might be eligible or they don't know how to go down and apply," she said.

Pride also is a factor, with some families reluctant to accept government help, said Lumpkin of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "Part of our campaign is to convince them, 'You know, you pay your taxes, you might as well get the benefits,' " he said.

Researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this repor http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...0400958_2.html

[Lerpenoaneway]

Corporate profits have increased so much as a percentage because they were very low when Bush took office. They are still within the tight post-Roaring 20s band.

[JohnMitchel]

Like any other statistical measure, median alone doesn't prove much. Show us means, standard deviations, kurtoses, etc.

[77Dinaartickire]

Why would I squirm on Poly?

I just call things like I see them.

[DextExexy]

Originally posted by VJ

Americans: pwned
and some suckers STILL refuse the accept that they've been robbed [/QUOTE]

yeah, and this map doesn't even fully factor in the decline of the dollar against other currencies.

[_tppga_]

Adam Smith

[Blacksheepaalredy]

That was implied

[ordercigsnick]

I think I put my finger on the dynamics with regard to this report. From 2004-2005, real median household income increased 1.1%, a healthy gain. See the following Census report, which was issued last month, and on which that labor thinktank prepared the map. Page 4 (11).

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

But they can't let Bush tout good news in an election season, so they looked back to 2001 and included the recession in their calculations.

As Adam Smith noted, the report also uses the Consumer Price Index to adjust for inflation. This puts Bush in an unfairly unfavorable light to the tune of about 1% per annum.

[Mearticbaibre]

No doubt, but this map was used as a political weapon, and therefore needs to be understood in a political context.

[patuvammnogoo]

I have faith that the next Republican and Democratic candidates will be judged on their own merits.

[UriyVlasov]

What economic events during this period can really be attributed to Bush actions?

The recession starting in Feb. 2001?
The 9/11 attack?
etc.

[ligeplodore]

MEDIAN INCOME UPDATE.... A few days ago I posted a map from the Detroit Free Press showing that median household incomes had dropped in nearly every state between 1999 and 2005. Via Asymmetrical Information, I see that the Freep screwed up: they used a different measure for the 1999 figures than for the 2005 numbers, and that made the decline look worse than it was.

Census figures are here, and while they aren't perfect, they do use the same methodology over time. This doesn't change the main conclusion of the original post, namely that median incomes have dropped even though the economy has been growing, but the drop wasn't quite as bad as it looked. The census figures are below...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._09/009459.php