5 ms·

Most interesting sentence, to me: The median income in 2008 was below what it was in 1998. GDP in 2008 surely isn't below what it was in 1998. What we're seei

by gjm11 16y ago

Most interesting sentence, to me: The median income in 2008 was below what it was in 1998. GDP in 2008 surely isn't below what it was in 1998. What we're seeing here is yet another indication of the big increase in inequality in the US over recent years.

chc 16y ago
Or more of our GDP is going overseas rather than into American pockets. Or more money is being taken up by various sources of financial friction (taxes, fees businesses need to pay, etc.). Or all three.
- cynicalkane 16y ago
  I'd like to see a new feature on Hacker News that attaches a [citation needed] to all economic posts. We are actually getting more income from foreign countries than they are getting from us: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=43&FirstYear=2002&LastYear=2004&Freq=Qtr http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTa... .
  - chc 16y ago
    I hope you aren't suggesting my comment needs a citation, since it was merely making a claim of possibility. The parent of my comment looked at some data and drew a conclusion, and I was replying that the data could lend itself just as well to other interpretations and thus we can't draw such a strong conclusion. Hence the repeated use of the word "or" rather than "THESE ARE THE FACTS AND I AM A LEADING ECONOMIST SO YOU BELIEVE THIS IS ALL TRUE."
    - gdfaklgklfa 16y ago
      Yes, yes we know. You are an amateur who knows absolutely nothing about the topic, has no education, done no study, and knows none of the facts. Despite this, you're arrogant enough to believe that the senseless bullshit that spews out of your ignorant mind is so important that hundreds of people should spend time reading it. Fuck off to your mom's basement. Arrogant twits like you have ruined HN. If you don't know anything, you don't know anything. There's no shame in not being an expert on everything.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
Or debt-fueled spending has been adding to GDP between 1998 and 2008. Did we by any chance have a massive debt fueled speculative bubble from 1998 to 2007? (If you borrow $10 and spend it, GDP has increased by $10. If you spend it on something other than services, income won't go up commensurately.)
- cynicalkane 16y ago
  ? Every payment is a transfer from one person to another. If you spend $10 on, say, golden rocks (gold), it doesn't get eaten and wiped from existence by the God of Golden Rocks, but rather goes into the pocket of the gold miners and owners of the gold mining capital. It doesn't make a difference that gold is a commodity, not a service. Net product is equal to income. You learn this in Macroeconomics 101. Example financial statement: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=43&FirstYear=2002&LastYear=2004&Freq=Qtr http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTa...
  - eru 16y ago
    A side note: While Gold is chemically fairly stable, money can be created and destroyed.
    - cynicalkane 16y ago
      I'm confused what this has to do with the national income and product accounts. The point of my post is that any product produced and traded falls on both sides of the product/income balance. If a gold miner decides to eat that dollar later (or sell it to the Federal Reserve) that's a monetary phenomenon. My guess is that you wanted to throw out some vaguely gold-bug sort of thing out there, and protect yourself from downvoting by marking it "side note".
      - eru 16y ago
        Please let me explain. I do not really disagree with your main points. yummyfajitas comment about only expenses on services showing up in income was probably not very well worded. I guess he's not using the economist's definition of income. If you substitute wages for `income' in his statement, it makes some sense. Also I do see that income and production have to be equal (modulo effects of moving wealth in and out of the system, perhaps). Different consumption patterns may lead to different distributions of income and wages, even if the sum stays the same. (I don't know whether `the debt fuelled boom' that was mentioned, depresses the median income while boosting the rich.) My side note was really just a side note. The central bank does create and destroy money. I am not a gold bug. If you want commodity based money, tie your currency to a basket of commodities. Even the BigMac index is better than useless gold.
francoisdevlin 16y ago
Or bad math. The guy confuses mean & median in the article.
motters 16y ago
GDP per capita has increased linearly in the US over the last few decades. http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs217.snc4/39207_444504373981_502968981_6034355_1544895_n.jpg http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs217.snc4/39207... The distribution of salaries for the UK looks like this: http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs224.snc4/38561_444867603981_502968981_6044365_160055_n.jpg http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs224.snc4/38561... and I expect that the US is even more extreme, although I don't have any data for US salaries.

by gjm11 16y ago

chc 16y ago

Or more of our GDP is going overseas rather than into American pockets. Or more money is being taken up by various sources of financial friction (taxes, fees businesses need to pay, etc.). Or all three.

cynicalkane 16y ago
I'd like to see a new feature on Hacker News that attaches a [citation needed] to all economic posts. We are actually getting more income from foreign countries than they are getting from us: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=43&FirstYear=2002&LastYear=2004&Freq=Qtr http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTa... .
- chc 16y ago
  I hope you aren't suggesting my comment needs a citation, since it was merely making a claim of possibility. The parent of my comment looked at some data and drew a conclusion, and I was replying that the data could lend itself just as well to other interpretations and thus we can't draw such a strong conclusion. Hence the repeated use of the word "or" rather than "THESE ARE THE FACTS AND I AM A LEADING ECONOMIST SO YOU BELIEVE THIS IS ALL TRUE."
  - gdfaklgklfa 16y ago
    Yes, yes we know. You are an amateur who knows absolutely nothing about the topic, has no education, done no study, and knows none of the facts. Despite this, you're arrogant enough to believe that the senseless bullshit that spews out of your ignorant mind is so important that hundreds of people should spend time reading it. Fuck off to your mom's basement. Arrogant twits like you have ruined HN. If you don't know anything, you don't know anything. There's no shame in not being an expert on everything.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Or debt-fueled spending has been adding to GDP between 1998 and 2008. Did we by any chance have a massive debt fueled speculative bubble from 1998 to 2007? (If you borrow $10 and spend it, GDP has increased by $10. If you spend it on something other than services, income won't go up commensurately.)

cynicalkane 16y ago
? Every payment is a transfer from one person to another. If you spend $10 on, say, golden rocks (gold), it doesn't get eaten and wiped from existence by the God of Golden Rocks, but rather goes into the pocket of the gold miners and owners of the gold mining capital. It doesn't make a difference that gold is a commodity, not a service. Net product is equal to income. You learn this in Macroeconomics 101. Example financial statement: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=43&FirstYear=2002&LastYear=2004&Freq=Qtr http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTa...
- eru 16y ago
  A side note: While Gold is chemically fairly stable, money can be created and destroyed.
  - cynicalkane 16y ago
    I'm confused what this has to do with the national income and product accounts. The point of my post is that any product produced and traded falls on both sides of the product/income balance. If a gold miner decides to eat that dollar later (or sell it to the Federal Reserve) that's a monetary phenomenon. My guess is that you wanted to throw out some vaguely gold-bug sort of thing out there, and protect yourself from downvoting by marking it "side note".
    - eru 16y ago
      Please let me explain. I do not really disagree with your main points. yummyfajitas comment about only expenses on services showing up in income was probably not very well worded. I guess he's not using the economist's definition of income. If you substitute wages for `income' in his statement, it makes some sense. Also I do see that income and production have to be equal (modulo effects of moving wealth in and out of the system, perhaps). Different consumption patterns may lead to different distributions of income and wages, even if the sum stays the same. (I don't know whether `the debt fuelled boom' that was mentioned, depresses the median income while boosting the rich.) My side note was really just a side note. The central bank does create and destroy money. I am not a gold bug. If you want commodity based money, tie your currency to a basket of commodities. Even the BigMac index is better than useless gold.

francoisdevlin 16y ago

Or bad math. The guy confuses mean & median in the article.

motters 16y ago

GDP per capita has increased linearly in the US over the last few decades. http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs217.snc4/39207_444504373981_502968981_6034355_1544895_n.jpg http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs217.snc4/39207... The distribution of salaries for the UK looks like this: http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs224.snc4/38561_444867603981_502968981_6044365_160055_n.jpg http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs224.snc4/38561... and I expect that the US is even more extreme, although I don't have any data for US salaries.