6 ms·
US GDP per capita is larger then it has ever been. We are richer then we've ever been and this economist predicts we'll be richer still for the foreseeable futu
by guelo 11y ago
US GDP per capita is larger then it has ever been. We are richer then we've ever been and this economist predicts we'll be richer still for the foreseeable future. The problem is that 30 years ago or so the middle and lower classes stopped receiving any of the gains.
- dangrossman 11y agoHealthcare providers and insurers have received much of the gains, it's not just a class issue. Since 2001, employers' benefit costs have risen 60%, which is almost twice the rate salary increased. Perhaps salary increases would've outpaced inflation, leading to the real wage gains everyone's missing, if that money weren't being diverted into the employer's share of health insurance premiums.
- WalterBright 11y agoThe government's share of GDP has increased substantially. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.ht...
- jjoonathan 11y agoAnd how much of that is due to increasing medicare costs?
- zaroth 11y agoLooks like about 40% of the increase over the last 30 years can be attributed to increased "health" spending. Health as a percentage of total has gone from ~10% - 22%. Health Everything Else (Per Capita, 2009 dollars) 1986 1141 10243 2016 4111 14484 Inc 2970 4241 http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1980_2021USd_17s2li111mcn_F0t10t http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1980_2021...
- fweespee_ch 11y agoIn perspective its really not that odd. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYONGDA188S https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYONGDA188S 1) 2015 is 20.55%. 1980 is 20.64%. 2) Recessions increase spikes as a share of GDP, really bad recessions have bigger spikes.
- WalterBright 11y agoScroll down to chart S.03t. It shows a consistent trend upwards. The chart shows total government spending, not just federal.
- fweespee_ch 11y agoThe point is, I can't fix the other 49 states with magical powers.
- zaroth 11y agoMaybe a nit, but spending more on health care doesn't mean there were not "real wage gains". The wage gains were real, and people spent a big part of those gains to get more healthcare. Another way to phrase it... If health spending had stayed constant since 2001, how much less "care" would the system be providing right now? All that extra spending is not pure waste, I'd love to see some hard studies on how much "waste" has increased and how exactly do you define it? If you meant "economic gains" as-in healthcare's share of the overall pie has increased, and so healthcare as a sector of the economy has seen an outsized share of gains, that is definitely true.
- diskcat 11y ago>The wage gains were real, and people spent a big part of those gains to get more healthcare. for old people, who are not earning those wages. blame socialism
- zaroth 11y agoIt's also called an insurance pool. You don't pay based on your own current cost, or even the old unemployed people's current cost. You pay based on your own expected lifetime cost, which is increasing substantially for those young employed workers. ACA flattened the rating factors a lot to shift cost to younger insured. Personally I don't think that was good policy. You have a lot more disposable income after the kids graduate college, it's not necessarily a bad thing for health care costs to be shifted later in life. But annual premiums rise for the young anyway because their expected lifetime benefits are increasing substantially every day. I guess my point is we all pay in, and we all ultimately take out of the system. If it was single-payer the cost would be exactly your marginal tax rate. As-is the cost is highly correlated with your marginal tax rate but just with a much lower cap.
- diskcat 11y ago>I guess my point is we all pay in, and we all ultimately take out of the system. And my point is that young people disproportionately pay in a larger value and disproportionately take out a smaller value. > You pay based on your own expected lifetime cost, which is increasing substantially for those young employed workers. So would a person who would be expected to live forever pay all his income? If you are expected to live longer then you should be expected to pay for longer and not more per year. This doesn't make any logical sense.
- cmurf 11y agoWhat about education? Seems like everyone I know has substantial student loans. And that's a double dip because it's the school and a bank making money off the student. The next tend is employers paying part of the student loan. Just like how employers started to pay for health care payments. Then the costs really went up.
- bye_amzn 11y ago> We are richer Averages are very misleading.
- illivah 11y agoWE are richer, you are not.
- forrestthewoods 11y agoYet curiously the middle and lower class enjoy a higher standard of living today than 30 years ago. It's almost as if GDP/income aren't an absolute measurement of, well, anything.
- epicureanideal 11y agoI suspect your down-voters are thinking "are you sure about that?" Maybe they have smart phones and other gadgets which are highly advanced, but they might be living in a smaller place and less able to afford other things. I'm not even stating this myself, although it might be true... I just haven't researched it. But it's a thought that occurred to me.
- mikerichards 11y agoIn other words, the down-voters are grasping for straws because what the parent said is probably true, but it just doesn't sound right?
- zaroth 11y agoWage income may not have increased much for lower/middle class over the last 30 years, but certainly gross income counting welfare benefits has increased significantly, so perhaps that could have something to do with it.
- tiatia 11y agoIf you talk about GDP then you have to talk about inflation, which is tricky to measure. The official inflation number is for debate. And one mans assets are another man's debt. This can unwind pretty fast. Look at all the people that are "entitled" to retirement benefits. Good luck with that in the long run.
- tiatia 11y agoIf you talk about GDP then you have to talk about inflation, which is tricky to measure. The official inflation number is for debate. And one mans assets are another man's debt. This can unwind pretty fast. Look at all the people that are "entitled" to retirement benefits. Good luck with that in the long run.
- brightball 11y agoWhenever I see numbers like that I always wonder if it's inflation adjusted.
- PopsiclePete 11y agoSo when you say "we", you mean the top 1%? I wish I was part of that "we" group...
- guelo 11y agoWe as a whole are richer.
- WalterSear 11y agoThat doesn't exclude most of 'the whole' getting poorer at the same time.
- dTal 11y ago41 years actually. The rich started getting richer in 1975.[1][2] Other notable things that happened in 1975: incarceration rates began their meteoric rise[3], and the "Halloween Massacre"[4] in which Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and George HW Bush seized power, becoming Secretary of Defence, Chief of Staff, and head of the CIA respectively. I would be extremely wary of considering GDP a proxy for economic health, particularly when the military-industrial complex exists. [1]http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/50614/GR_120513_Stone1.jpg http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/50614/GR_120513_Stone1... [2]http://www.the-crises.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/income-inequality-usa-05.jpg http://www.the-crises.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/income-... [3]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/U.S._inc... [4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Massacre