From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: the real Reagan record
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:23:53 GMT
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things

shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes: >
Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes: >>
>>
>>The truth is,
>>people in -all- income brackets, as a whole, did better in the 80s because
>>of supply-side economics.
>
>Not according to Kevin Phillips, the *conservative* political commentator.
>His book, The Politics of Rich and Poor, is a devastating critique of
>the Reagan-Bush economic legacy.  Table I, on page 17, reveals that
>average family income, in *constant dollars*, *decreased* for the bottom
>8 of the ten deciles from 1977 to 1988.  Only for the top 10% of Americans
>was there any significant increase, and that increase was highly
>concentrated in the top 1%.
>
>>Census bureau data shows this to be untrue.  I'm sure some individual
>>poor people got poorer, but as a whole they did not.
>
>Not according to Phillips.  The average family income, measured in
>constant dollars, went *down* for 80% of the population.

Perhaps Slartibartfast's (sp?) recent posting about real GNP going
down 24% really referred to per capita income.  Clearly, *per capita*
or even individual income has declined dramatically.  Several posters
note that middle-class income kept even due to the entry of women into
the labor market.  Inotherwords, people feel poorer because they can
no longer keep the same standard of living on one income.

Also, Consumer Reports had an article about how the cost of living had
changed in the last 30 years.  It showed that for inexpensive items, the
real cost was similar (measured by minutes or hours of labor needed to
purchase the item); for mid-range items, the cost had dropped significantly
(e.g. a washing machine costs the same dollar amount, $300, that it did
in 1960, *without* correcting for inflation!); but it is the big ticket
items that have skyrocketed, namely houses and college educations.  The
conclusion was that people felt poorer because they could no longer
afford a home or college for their children on one income.  Both these
items had more than doubled in real cost.  (College was five times
higher, I believe; I don't have the article with me)

This, I believe, explains the different viewpoints on how the economy
performed under Reagan and Bush.  For those in the highest quintile,
their income soared.  Everyone else dropped, but if you aren't an
"everyone else," why should you care?  The discussions on the elections
groups showed this, as several posters mentioned how well they were
doing economically and surmised that the entire populace was faring just
as well.

I do not know of many households where there is only one breadwinner in
Silicon Valley.  This used to be possible.  If this isn't evidence of
a declining economy, then I believe *nothing* will satisfy Mr. Ludwick
short of him losing his own job and being unable to find another after
several months.

ObQuayle: But if that happens, Kurt, your hero Dan notes that McDonald's
is hiring, so the economy must be doing fine.


-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle