March Unemployment Rate: 4.7%

[STING2]

Which countries are 1-9?

You'd think with all the bombastic nationalism we get everyday that we'd be #1.

Melon

Here is the top 50 for you on the 2005 UN Human Development Index which measures standard of living.


1 Norway 0.963
2 Iceland 0.956
3 Australia 0.955
4 Luxembourg 0.949
5 Canada 0.949

6 Sweden 0.949
7 Switzerland 0.947
8 Ireland 0.946
9 Belgium 0.945
10 United States 0.944

11 Japan 0.943
12 Netherlands 0.943
13 Finland 0.941
14 Denmark 0.941
15 United Kingdom 0.939

16 France 0.938
17 Austria 0.936
18 Italy 0.934
19 New Zealand 0.933
20 Germany 0.930

21 Spain 0.928
22 Hong Kong, China (SAR) 0.916
23 Israel 0.915
24 Greece 0.912
25 Singapore 0.907

26 Slovenia 0.904
27 Portugal 0.904
28 Korea, Rep. of 0.901
29 Cyprus 0.891
30 Barbados 0.878

31 Czech Republic 0.874
32 Malta 0.867
33 Brunei Darussalam 0.866
34 Argentina 0.863
35 Hungary 0.862

36 Poland 0.858
37 Chile 0.854
38 Estonia 0.853
39 Lithuania 0.852
40 Qatar 0.849

41 United Arab Emirates 0.849
42 Slovakia 0.849
43 Bahrain 0.846
44 Kuwait 0.844
45 Croatia 0.841

46 Uruguay 0.840
47 Costa Rica 0.838
48 Latvia 0.836
49 Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.834
50 Bahamas 0.832

 

[STING2]

I was a member of a one income household in the seventies. In fact most of my friends were as well. I would say it wasn't until the eighties that women needed (vs. those who did start working in the seventies because they wanted to) to work.

I'm not so sure about that, but one could say 25 years or 20 years and the massive increase in all these household items from then to 2006 still holds true and no society that was really falling behind on the economic ladder would be able to afford such non-essential things.

 

[redsox04]

the real estate market should be preparing for its bubble to burst. i can't see home values continuing to rise at these rates for much longer. who is going to be left to buy them? surely your average worker cannot afford $250,000+ homes.

Interestingly enough, home buyers are spending a relatively small amount of income on mortgage payments. In 1990, the median mortgage payment as a percentage of median income was about 22%; now its down to roughly 19%, despite the sharply rising prices (according to Money Magazine). It was actually much worse in the 1980s, when interest rates were sky-high.

One might argue that recent surge in interest-only loans and ARMs are the reason for the percentage drop, but (according to Money) these lending instruments still represent only a small percentage of the total number of active mortgages.

 

[MrBrau1]

Real estate can never go down!

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

Generations ago, people would be willing to work their way up. Now, people just want to start several rungs up the ladder.

I'm sorry, I believe this is a romanticized version of the past.

God, I love the FYM sweeping generalizations.

 

[AliEnvy]

The single wage household was for the most part gone or on the way out in 1976.

Since I'm going from memory and not published statistics, my understanding is that women flooded the workforce when divorce rates began to rise significantly which would have started in the mid-70s. Prior to that, women who worked were either single or did not yet have children. Pre 76 or so, the majority of women tended to leave their jobs once they began to raise a family. So I stand by my assertion that in 76, most middle class families did very well on one salary.

The average work week in 1900 was 60 hours, today its just under 40 hours in the United States and as low as 27 hours in countries like Norway. Worker productivity per hour is the highest it has ever been,

Get your head out of the numbers and get real. Do those hours include overtime? They sure don't for a vast number of white collar jobs where the 40 hour work week is just numbers on the pay cheque and in no way relates to actual hours worked.

 

[aislinn]

Generations ago, people would be willing to work their way up. Now, people just want to start several rungs up the ladder.

True in some cases....

but this generalization has nothing to do with those of us who want to work, who are willing to work, but who:

--cannot find a job at all
--find only service jobs with no benefits and low, hourly pay
--have to work more than one part-time job in order to make ends meet

What about those people who have run out of unemployment benefits? Does anyone think there are actually more unemployed people out there than this 4.7%, but because their benefits have ended, they are no longer counted?

 

[AliEnvy]

Here is the top 50 for you on the 2005 UN Human Development Index which measures standard of living.

10 United States 0.944

Right, let's give that a little more perspective...10th in standard of living yet 1st in GDP in 2005...gee, wonder how that happens. Throw in per capita GDP and the USA still ranks 4th. What do all the countries in 1-9 HDI have that America doesn't have? Healthcare.

 

[STING2]

Since I'm going from memory and not published statistics, my understanding is that women flooded the workforce when divorce rates began to rise significantly which would have started in the mid-70s. Prior to that, women who worked were either single or did not yet have children. Pre 76 or so, the majority of women tended to leave their jobs once they began to raise a family. So I stand by my assertion that in 76, most middle class families did very well on one salary.



Get your head out of the numbers and get real. Do those hours include overtime? They sure don't for a vast number of white collar jobs where the 40 hour work week is just numbers on the pay cheque and in no way relates to actual hours worked.

These are "facts", not imagined numbers to fit ones theory. The statistics come from the U.S. Department of Labor.

By the late 1980s, the two wage earning family had been established enough for sometime to a degree that all the same complaints about it as well as its use in articles about declining prosperity were just as common then as now. There was all that talk about how parents forgot about their kids in the 1980s, the "latchkey kids" as they would call them. The Kids would greet their parents when they came home hours later instead of the other way around with at least one parent. Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam actually discussed this issue a lot around the release of their first album in 1991.

I know 1976 was definitely different than 1986, but it was not that far away and definitely closer to the condition we see today rather than what the typical family was like the 1950s.

 

[BAW]

the real estate market should be preparing for its bubble to burst. i can't see home values continuing to rise at these rates for much longer. who is going to be left to buy them? surely your average worker cannot afford $250,000+ homes.

I don't even hold the faintest glimmer of hope that my kids will ever own their own homes, at least not where we live right now (Orange County, CA). You can't even buy a 1 bedroom condo for $250,000. Our median home price is sitting somewhere around $650,000 and rising.

And the average rent for a 1 bedroom apartment is $1,400 per month

 

[AliEnvy]

These are "facts", not imagined numbers to fit ones theory. The statistics come from the U.S. Department of Labor.

And where do you think the Department of Labor gets their "facts"? From companies who are required to report financial and payroll data. As I said, the pay cheque says 40 hours, therefore the report to the Dept of Labor says 40 hours. Many employees would probably tell you the actual numbers are more like 50-80 hours and that is not an exaggeration.

That's not a deception in reporting, just an overlooked "fact" that salaried employees are paid based on a set number of hours week to week even though they may work many more.

 

[STING2]

Right, let's give that a little more perspective...10th in standard of living yet 1st in GDP in 2005...gee, wonder how that happens. Throw in per capita GDP and the USA still ranks 4th. What do all the countries in 1-9 HDI have that America doesn't have? Healthcare.

Countries 11 to 21 are not much different than countries 1-9 in that respect, but they rank behind the United States in standards of living. The United States also spends a massive amount of money on international security related programs which benefit the entire planet and is something that countries 1-9 do not make a large contribution towards despite the fact that they have perhaps benefitied the most from the current global economic system. 40% of Canada's GDP is dependent upon exports to the United States. The other countries in 1-9 also benefit from having a favorable trade balance with the United States. In addition, the average population of those 9 countries is under 10 million. When a country like Norway is sitting on a massive amount of Oil relative to its 4 million population, it makes it rather easy to have such a high standard of living compared to other countries.

 

[AliEnvy]

The United States also spends a massive amount of money on international security related programs which benefit the entire planet and is something that countries 1-9 do not make a large contribution towards despite the fact that they have perhaps benefitied the most from the current global economic system.

So basically you're dodging the healthcare issue by saying America's military saves the world and therefore Americans must sacrifice a better standard of living to protect everybody else?

 

[STING2]

And where do you think the Department of Labor gets their "facts"? From companies who are required to report financial and payroll data. As I said, the pay cheque says 40 hours, therefore the report to the Dept of Labor says 40 hours. Many employees would probably tell you the actual numbers are more like 50-80 hours and that is not an exaggeration.

That's not a deception in reporting, just an overlooked "fact" that salaried employees are paid based on a set number of hours week to week even though they may work many more.

Just because some employees report working massive amounts of overtime for which they are not payed does not translate into a national average. We have the facts from the Department of Labor, we have an unproven allegation from you that the AVERAGE American is working 10 to 20 hours longer than any hours that are reported.

 

[MrBrau1]

I don't even hold the faintest glimmer of hope that my kids will ever own their own homes, at least not where we live right now (Orange County, CA). You can't even buy a 1 bedroom condo for $250,000. Our median home price is sitting somewhere around $650,000 and rising.

And the average rent for a 1 bedroom apartment is $1,400 per month

Don't worry.

When you pass your current house on to your kids it will be worth $4,000,000.

Remember, real estate never goes down.

 

[STING2]

So basically you're dodging the healthcare issue by saying America's military saves the world and therefore Americans must sacrifice a better standard of living to protect everybody else?

Incorrect, I pointed out to that the countries in 11-21 have similar health care programs as the ones in 1-9 which shows that "health Care" is not the reason that countries 1-9 are ranked higher. The global economic system for which countries 1-9 depend on for their standard of living would not exist without the American Military. These countries have very small defense budgets and a favorable balance of trade with the United States. They have smaller populations and can benefit from favorable trade conditions or an unusual abundance of a natural resource in ways that large countries could not.

 

[AliEnvy]

Just because some employees report working massive amounts of overtime for which they are not payed does not translate into a national average.

But it DOES mean that the national average is likely under-stated. By how much? Who knows. It's also likely rising faster than we know because accurate measurements are not taken.

We have the facts from the Department of Labor, we have an unproven allegation from you that the AVERAGE American is working 10 to 20 hours longer than any hours that are reported.

Haha yeah...cause what would I know? I will spare you my resume and guess that you are either studying this in school or are in a government job that is fairly far removed from the reality of the private sector.

 

[AliEnvy]

Incorrect, I pointed out to that the countries in 11-21 have similar health care programs as the ones in 1-9 which shows that "health Care" is not the reason that countries 1-9 are ranked higher. The global economic system for which countries 1-9 depend on for their standard of living would not exist without the American Military. These countries have very small defense budgets and a favorable balance of trade with the United States. They have smaller populations and can benefit from favorable trade conditions or an unusual abundance of a natural resource in ways that large countries could not.

I still see you saying that the US military budget pumps up countries 1-9 and therefore leaves the US unable to afford a better HDI ranking.

If not for the healthcare/military tradeoff, why isn't the US much higher in HDI?

 

[STING2]

But it DOES mean that the national average is likely under-stated. By how much? Who knows. It's also likely rising faster than we know because accurate measurements are not taken.

Well, that could be said about any time period(1900 or 2006) as well as any country in the world.

 

[STING2]

I still see you saying that the US military budget pumps up countries 1-9 and therefore leaves the US unable to afford a better HDI ranking.

If not for the healthcare/military tradeoff, why isn't the US much higher in HDI?

I listed the military budget as one factor out of many that could impact the HDI.

Its more complex than simply a healthcare/military tradeoff. Most people regard the health care system in the United Kingdom to be better than Ireland, but Ireland has a higher standard of living than the United Kingdom. Hundreds of factors go into making these annual reports. As I said before, a country like Norway that is sitting on a valuable natural resource relative to the size of its population is going to benefit in ways that a large country like the United States would not. Favorable balance of trade as well as other issues also have an impact.

 

[Zoomerang96]

This is all BS. Now, people working =


No one is crying for wage rates, benefits, etc. from 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.

Generations ago, people would be willing to work their way up. Now, people just want to start several rungs up the ladder.

alright nbcrusader, let's say you got laid off from your posh 7ob three years ago, but since nothing has opened up to you since, you decide to take a 7ob you're overqualifed for 7ust for the fact it's a source of income... even if it's half of what you used to make, and that's not taking inflation into account (though in three years, it's not that much of a factor)

now you're part of a statistic that lumps you with the rest of the "employed".

don't complain now, you can always move your way up at your new 7ob, right??

statistics can be incredibly deceiving if not put into a proper context.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Who defines proper context?

 

[melon]

Who defines proper context?

Certainly not the Republican Party. They redefined everything from "inflation" to "unemployment" in the 1980s to create rosy numbers for themselves.

Melon

 

[Zoomerang96]

Who defines proper context?

civil unrest.

and rarely has it ever been as high in the states as it is now. and it's not all because of the ridiculous iraq war, either.

 

[STING2]

civil unrest.

and rarely has it ever been as high in the states as it is now. and it's not all because of the ridiculous iraq war, either.

There is little, if any, politically motivated civil unrest in the United States. Even for the third anniversery of the start of the Iraq War, the number of people at protest in the major cities was tiny, often only in the hundreds. In a country of 300 million people, a protest of that size is not even a seriously reportable event.

People get laid off in countries all over the world. That does not change the fact that the average person in the United States enjoys a standard of living that is the 10th highest in the world. It does not change the fact that the median annual income in the United States is $49,000 dollars, one of the highest in the world as well. The unemployment rate while not the only factor is a significant one, and a 4.7% unemployment rate is one of the best in the world.

Whats incredibly deceiving is to take individual situations and extrapolate them over the entire country and pretend that they constitute the average experience of the person living there which could not be further from the truth.

 

[nbcrusader]

People are right to question the quality of jobs in the American marketplace today.

Why? As a country, we are near the top in standard of living. And dare say, most of the questioning is done by people who live in the upper half of US society.

Not everyone has the opportunity to obtain all the post-graduate education that some of us have obtained, yet the "highly educated" ones cry for more.

What is the basis that anything is owed to us? And on what basis should be expect others to provide for us?

 

[nbcrusader]

I'm sorry, I believe this is a romanticized version of the past.

On what basis? Not once have we been presented with facts suggesting that life was better in any prior decade.

The fact is that current generations enter the job market at income levels that took the prior generations years to achieve.

And, the facts show that we consume faster than we earn, unlike prior generations where savings occurred prior to spending.

 

[melon]

And, the facts show that we consume faster than we earn, unlike prior generations where savings occurred prior to spending.

You want to talk about "prior generations"?

1) My grandparents paid cash for their house in the 1950s.

2) My parents paid cash for new cars in the 1970s.

3) One of my doctors was able to work only over the summer to pay for an entire year for a private university.

So don't start jabbering about "prior generations." They went through life burning every bridge behind them.

If inflation was defined appropriately, rather than skewed against wages, we should be making, on average, millions of dollars a year just to have the same lifestyle as "prior generations."

So, yes, when WildHoneyAlways says you have a romanticized version of the past, I'd say that's right on the mark.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

I don't even hold the faintest glimmer of hope that my kids will ever own their own homes, at least not where we live right now (Orange County, CA). You can't even buy a 1 bedroom condo for $250,000. Our median home price is sitting somewhere around $650,000 and rising.

We should address this issue to the current home owners who want so much for the homes they sell.

Orange County is incredibly expensive and anyone thinking of entering the home market (self included) will face enormous barriers.

The flip-side, however, is that there a now thousands of people who, in as little as 1-2 years, have earned enough equity in a home to (for example) completely finance a college education.

So, homeownership has been a boon to many, even though the rest of us are on the outside looking in.

And the average rent for a 1 bedroom apartment is $1,400 per month

This raises two good points. First, is it far cheaper to rent than own in todays market. Even at $1400 a month, the cost of a mortgage for a small condo (even with our relatively low interest rates) makes ownership difficult to obtain.

Second, is the "American Dream" of home ownership a right? Should it be? Do we miss the value of renting in establishing priorities?

 

[melon]

Second, is the "American Dream" of home ownership a right? Should it be? Do we miss the value of renting in establishing priorities?

There is no "value" in renting. You're literally throwing your money away, whereas home ownership allows you to put money in something that you can eventually sell.

Melon