We're talking about household incomes for the average American here. Not the few participating in the dot.com bubble. We're talking about wages. Take home money. Tech bubbles and real estate valuation bubbles have little to do with that.

This is actually a good way to represent the income when a small portion is gaining at a large rate. The median income is the middle income. A handful of large numbers won't throw it off like it would the mean (which we usually call the average). Unless more than half of America was benefiting from the bubble you are referring to, it doesn't impact the median income.

contessa61 is absolutely correct. In fact, each of the up-swings depicted in the chart correlates with one particular "bubble" or another. The 1990s gave us the tech bubble. The same positive slope is depicted in the period '04 to late '06 (the housing bubble). It was also the case in the slope depicted in the period of '83 to late '88 (a financial bubble featuring the commodification of leveraged buy-outs, and the unregulated growth of junk bond trading - anyone recall the "Go Go 80s?"). Note, too, that each of these bubbles was punctuated with more or less severe economic recessions when those bubbles burst. Still in all, the richest 1% of Americans are the ones who had access to large amounts of capital during each bubble, had an ever-increasingly favorable tax environment, and, therefore, came out on top in each of them when things went south for the rest of us.

"Contessa61" hit the nail right on the head. Look at that chart; include the medians prior to 1990 and the curve is nowhere near as steep. instead of $58,345, you come in just slightly under $54,000 at the very best. If we're going to play with numbers, let's do it intelligently, and be consistent.

Same thing here in Suffolk VA.

Let's not forget one of the real big ones - the increased cost of healthcare. In 2003 my healthcare premiums were approx. $5600/year. By 2008 (the last year I had full employment for equal comparison) the premiums had risen to $11,800 AND my deductible had increased and some of my coverage had to be curtailed.

Now this is not just a one time $6200 difference. This grew year-by-year so the total increase over that timeframe is closer to $18000!

@ Jo, do your "patriotic" duty and pay your taxes silently. Liberals love a huge government, don't complain when you have to pay for it.

"...if by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, their civil liberties... if that is what they mean by a "liberal" then I am proud to be a liberal."

~ John F. Kennedy

SamusX. You need to read more. The vast majority of our financial problems are that the Republicans passed legislation that reduced the taxes paid by major corporations, took away regulations that limited the amount of profits corporations made, allowed the housing/mortgage market to colllapse, eased taxes for corporations that shipped our jobs overseas and you have the nerve to blame the Democrats???

If you can't see what the trickle down economics of the past 30 years has done to our country, to our security, to our wages, to our ecology, to our hope to have a better tomorrow then it's because you just can't bring yourself to look at the reality and see the truth.

I pity you when you finally have to face the fact that you have not only accepted this state of affairs, but you promoted it. Karma really hurts.

Blaming the Democrats for our economic problems is like blaming Poland for WWII. In both cases, the only fault lies in being a pushover.

No. The debt and unemployment start at 0 when the President takes over. President Obama has caused all these things. Gawsh don't liberals know anything?!

More seriously I am curious what will happen if Republicans end up taking control of Congress during this next election cycle. I doubt they will take the White House, but if they take control of the Congress won't that just mean 4 years of gridlock? I recognize we've had gridlock now...but at least some things have gotten done.

I don't know about taking control of Congress. The Senate doesn't look good for Democrats, as far as the number of seats they have to defend v. the number Republicans have to defend. The House may be another matter. If the electorate as a whole goes into a mindless 'throw-the-bums-out' frenzy in November, the Senate will probably flip, but so might the House. That would be an interesting dynamic, as Senate procedures have evolved to favor minority rule.

As for the White House. Hard to say. If December's employment numbers weren't simply a seasonal blip, and there is progressive improvement, then Obama's chances improve. Concurrent with that, Romney--the supposedly most-electable Republican--seems to be growing weaker. I don't mean that he may lose the nomination. He may have a lock on that. I mean that his negative qualities seem to be growing more apparent. The more his GOP rivals hammer at Romney, the more they do the Obama campaign's job for them. I can just see the general election ads from the Democrats...savage attacks on Romney, all featuring Republicans. Delicious (if it actually shakes out that way).

You are correct about the house...there are only 26 seats that Democrats have to make up for and it looks very promising that the house will flip back to Democrats. But then that leaves us essentially in the same place that we've been in since 2010. Republicans controlling the Senate and not wanting to pass anything, House Democrats passing tons of bills under Pelosi's leadership, and President Obama left between a rock and a hard place. The Senate has only favored the Republicans (the minority) because the Republicans have abused the filibuster. However they can do this because the filibuster is being used to block Democratic bills. Democrats aren't going to be able to filibuster Democratic bills, so I don't know that it'd favor Dems....I do sometimes wonder though- can a reverse filibuster be done? One in which you just refuse to sit down until the chamber agrees to discuss a bill or come to cloture?

A reverse filibuster? Well, I suppose. If there was something that Republicans wanted to do, the Democrats could hold it hostage in exchange for one of their priorities. On the other hand, sod anything that Republicans may want to do with the Senate. If the House goes Dem, and the Senate goes GOP...I don't know what is beyond stalemate, but that may be what we get. But if the House is seen to be active and the Senate, in GOP hands, is basically a legislative kill switch, will Republicans get the blame? They haven't so far for the Senate's problems, but they've been in the minority, and I'm not sure that most people get it that in the Senate the minority rules. I doubt the Senate Dems, in the same situation, will show the same unity in the minority. But that may be just fine if Republican Senate actions gain no traction in the House. All the House Dems would have to do is try to negotiate with the Senate, and the Senate GOP won't compromise on anything because they're Republicans, and because they're in charge they might get the blame for nothing happening. That could be particularly interesting if Romney actually takes the White House. I don't know. I'm just thinking this stuff through as I write and it probably makes no sense at all.

‎@ Pauly

"The reasons that I have for wishing to go to Harvard are several. I felt that Harvard can give me a better background and a better liberal education than any other university. I have always wanted to go there, as I have felt that it is not just another college but is a university with something definite to offer. Then too, I would like to go to the same college as my father. To be a “Harvard man” is an enviable distinction, and one that I sincerely hope I shall attain." - JFK

@ Grandma,

I get my information from books, not liberal blogs. That's why I know with complete certainty you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

By the way, if you believe in karma, then your opinion means less than nothing.

samusx:

Sorry, to have upset you.

I get my information from my experience and a lot more than reading liberal blogs (although I find them packed with a lot more information than I do from the Conservative wrong sites.)

I am so pleased that the idea that you know anything about me with "complete certainty" satisfies your space and time, that I almost hate to inform you of the fallacy of your thought. You know nothing about me with certainty, you couldn't begin to know anything about me because we inhabit a totally different universe. Mine consists of caring about our world, our people, our space and our being compassionate toward those who have needs; yours consists of you.

I am happy to hear that you at least read, so there is some hope that you can learn. But if you read only with the idea that you know everything with complete certainty, you won't learn anything.

As to my opinion? It means every bit as much as yours, dear. And I'll let karma speak for itself. Good luck with that.

Definition of irony. You tell me that I don't know anything about you and then you proceed to tell me about the "universe" that I live in.
Still I wonder, if you put your faith in some superstition named karma, how much proof do you really need to justify your opinion? So no, my opinion is certainly more valid considering I don't base mine on superstition.

One of the forgotten mantras from the Reagan era (marching step-by-step with "trickle down economics") was the phrase, "...do more with less." As in we will make the government do more with less.

Well, here is the time-tested, historical truth of that - you cannot do more with less. You can do more with more. If you are really bad at it you can even do less with more. But you cannot do more with less. You can only do less with less.

Well the American worker productivity continues to rise due to computers and automation. Why can't we get government workers to increase their productivity at the same rate as private sector workers? Oh yeah, union work rules.

Hank,

You need to reference a source if you are going to make a statement like that. I would wager that the public sector's productivity has improved on a par with the private sector.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to find that the public sector is ahead of the private sector for the simple reason that they more visible and need to respond accordingly.

BS that public union workers are more productive Pauly. A big part of higher productivity of the private sector is doing more with less people which means working longer. Union workers are paid more for working longer shifts. They have an incentive for being less productive during their regular shift so that they can make time and half or double pay to work overtime to get their work done. My reference source is my own eyes and ears when I am sitting at the CA DMV or I see teachers at LA City hall at Occupy protests during school days. I read the newspapers and readof speeches by Antonio Villaraigosa who says that the LA teachers union are an impediment to teaching kids in LA. This from a former teachers union rep. The first in, first out seniority union rules which when its time to cut expenses, protects the first hired and higher paid teachers and fires the younger, most recently hired and motivated teachers who are least paid. Its impossible to fire an incompetent LA public teacher. Only with video-taped evidence of pedophilia does a superintendent have a shot at firing a teacher, however over the protests of the union rep. C'mon Pauly do you ever get out of your basement with your PC and MSNBC and into the real world?

LA teachers union are an impediment to teaching kids in LA... It's impossible to fire an incompetent LA public teacher. Only with video-taped evidence of pedophilia does a superintendent have a shot at firing a teacher, however over the protests of the union rep.

C'mon Hank do you ever get out of your basement with your PC and NewsMax and into the real world?

The administrators sign the union contract too and it is THEIR job to hire and fire. So you cry over administrators who are paid three times a teacher salary and are parties to a union contract that they fail to meet.

Covah. Administrators have no choice but to sign the contracts with union rules. Otherwise the union stops working. I call that blackmail. Get your head our of your ass and see whats going on. There are far more teachers than there are Superintendents and the Super makes more money than the teachers. Does the CEO make more than your salary? Does Obama make more than his secretary? - Duh! So what is your point Covah?

Bloomberg last week gave a state of the city speech and wanted to give $20,000 merit bonuses to outperforming teachers. Of course the NY teachers union was against this.

Covah - Please click on the following LA Times article about how hard it is for Administrators to fire poor performing teachers.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/03/local/me-teachers3

Here are the excerpts for those of you too closed minded or lazy to click:

Firing teachers can be a costly and tortuous task

May 03, 2009|Jason Song

The eighth-grade boy held out his wrists for teacher Carlos Polanco to see.

He had just explained to Polanco and his history classmates at Virgil Middle School in Koreatown why he had been absent: He had been in the hospital after an attempt at suicide.

Polanco looked at the cuts and said they "were weak," according to witness accounts in documents filed with the state. "Carve deeper next time," he was said to have told the boy.

"Look," Polanco allegedly said, "you can't even kill yourself."

The boy's classmates joined in, with one advising how to cut a main artery, according to the witnesses.

"See," Polanco was quoted as saying, "even he knows how to commit suicide better than you."

The Los Angeles school board, citing Polanco's poor judgment, voted to fire him.

But Polanco, who contended that he had been misunderstood, kept his job. A little-known review commission overruled the board, saying that although the teacher had made the statements, he had meant no harm.

It's remarkably difficult to fire a tenured public school teacher in California, a Times investigation has found. The path can be laborious and labyrinthine, in some cases involving years of investigation, union grievances, administrative appeals, court challenges and re-hearings.

Not only is the process arduous, but some districts are particularly unsuccessful in navigating its complexities. The Los Angeles Unified School District sees the majority of its appealed dismissals overturned, and its administrators are far less likely even to try firing a tenured teacher than those in other districts.

The Times reviewed every case on record in the last 15 years in which a tenured employee was fired by a California school district and formally contested the decision before a review commission: 159 in all (not including about two dozen in which the records were destroyed). The newspaper also examined court and school district records and interviewed scores of people, including principals, teachers, union officials, district administrators, parents and students.

Among the findings:

* Building a case for dismissal is so time-consuming, costly and draining for principals and administrators that many say they don't make the effort except in the most egregious cases. The vast majority of firings stem from blatant misconduct, including sexual abuse, other immoral or illegal behavior, insubordination or repeated violation of rules such as showing up on time.

* Although districts generally press ahead with only the strongest cases, even these get knocked down more than a third of the time by the specially convened review panels, which have the discretion to restore teachers' jobs even when grounds for dismissal are proved.

* Jettisoning a teacher solely because he or she can't teach is rare. In 80% of the dismissals that were upheld, classroom performance was not even a factor.

Tenure is state law and has nothing to do with unions. Administrators need to make a case before a state review board. This is too much work.

Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble

Except Greenspan did not create the housing bubble. Look up CDOs, CDSs, and the shadow banking system. Greenspan keep interest rates down too long which played a role but the funds that were generated to fund the housing bubble's sub-prime mortgages were private and fraudulent, created by AAA ratings on MBSs containing bogus mortgages and sold to pension funds and sovereign funds. Paying back those investment-grade securities is where the "quantitative easing" money went.

Silly boy, the GOP will cut jobs and wages even more, make it possible for more employers to cut/eliminate benefits and raise taxes on low income workers while cutting them for the top.

Don't believe all that Fox hype, it'll rot your brain out.

Just noticed the same thing about that 1st paycheck of the year. Almost $20 less (biweekly).

but I am one of the lucky ones living in a 2 income household

Same with my Social Security - I was seeing an actual raise untiil my Medicare and Prescription premiums were deducted. Now I have less than the last 3 years.

I don't begrudge Mitt Romney's financial success. I aspire to achieve his success and am happy that I live in a country where everyone has the opportunity to pursue success. I can't think of another country which has the mobility that America has where immigrants with no money in their pockets through hard work and pulling up their own bootstraps can achieve success and prosperity.

Fearyness is what works for the GOP. That Fearyness is accomplished with Truthyness. Not sure I can do that.

So Pat are you better off today than 4 years ago? If so, then reelect Obama. If not but you still vote to reelect Obama, then I will throw your Einstein quote back to you, “Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.”

And what do you find as your excuse over the last 30 years of less wages, less benefits, less ability to support your family? What is your excuse after watching the entire world economy implode thanks to the Wall Street giants that worked over the Republicans and Bush to deregulate their actions? If our country is headed in the wrong direction, it isn't what happened in the last three years - it is the culmination of the wrong directions that we have been going in for the last decade and before.

I lost my benefits (vacation time, sick time, IRA) back in 2002. Gee, President Obama was nowhere around. I watched the entire employment market in Las Vegas implode after 9/11 and the loyal employers immediately take advantage of the chaos to cut benefits, fire long term workers, and cut the workforce by 30%. In my view? Employers have no concern for employees other than getting more work out of them for less pay.

I think that is too sad for our country.

Grama, as the BRIC nations over the past 30 years have moved from agrarian societies to industrial and manufacturing societies, their standards of living have risen at the expense of Americans' standard of living. If a Chinese or Brazilian country peasant who was earning $1/day can growing rice in the country with no electricity or indoor plumbing, now earns $20/day by working in a garment factory or $50/day on an iphone assembly line in a factory town with electricity, indoor toilets, then their lives have improved. Aren't you happy for them and their higher standard of living?

I'm tickled pink about their improved conditions. And what exactly does that have to do with my wages, benefits and ability to live in the United States? It isn't necessary or required for their improved status to diminish mine.

Yes Grama, it is a zero sum game. The former Third world countries' citizens are eating our lunch because they will accept wages which are much less than ours while working longer hours. The consequence of this disparity is that their wages will continue to rise while ours will decline until both reach equilibrium. This is what has happened to our manufacturing, jobs and wages over the past 30 years and now these third world countries are now "first" world countries.

At the risk of sounding like I'm plugging a book I haven't read yet, another MSNBC host, Dylan Ratigan, has written a book on the subject, what he believes the problem is and what he thinks needs to be done. Not sure if I should quote the title here or not.

Chris - You are plugging a book that you haven't read.

Brian

I'm going to start saying the GOP and the rich are not capitalists. They're feudalists.

Welcome to the 99%

Well the economy has been growing and with it so should income.. At the very LEAST it should have grown to match inflation.

Carol, why should the rich expect constant growth? Their net worth has more than tripled while the average has dwindled. Why shouldn't they be seeing the same drop everyone else is? Are they working three times as hard while everyone else is slacking off? Please explain.

Whether this is bubble data is irrelevant when you look at a graph for the richest 1%. Their incomes do not dip and they go by extraordinary percentages over the same period of time.

Bubble and burst economic cycles are not good for economic growth. You cannot really stop much of the surge and recess existence w/in the economy, particularly because we are globalized and use credit. But you can mitigate how much you recede and how much you grow which should be the overall intention. It is not a good sign when the economy suddenly and rapidly expands. This is very rarely sustainable and will lead to a collapse and when it does the economy usually ends up shrinking at an amount larger than it grew. When talking about our long term debt this is an especially important point that I do not hear talked about ever by the MSM. The only time I usually hear it talked about are on libertarian websites, but that's only rarely. You cannot pay off your long term debt if every time your economy grows it's immediately followed by a recession that equals or is greater than that of the growth you had. You will always be playing catch-up. Part of why other countries have been able to get out of this global recession faster than we have isn't necessarily because they have less regulations or because they have lower taxes. It's because they do not change their tax code and regulatory code every few years. Virtually every time the US has made major changes to it's tax code and/or regulatory code w/in the past 30 ish years we've immediately been followed by a recession. This is because a. the changes muck up the system so that only lobbyists and those who know how to game the system can stay ahead b. so that it makes it nearly impossible for regulators to actually do their job and c. creates a situation in which the market scrambles to make a profit off the change in tax/regulation. In many ways it would be wiser for our country to just set one set tax rate and then leave it alone for the next 20 years. But as long as we cut taxes or raise taxes, cut regulations or raise regulations, we are going to see recessions that follow.

Mouzer you make a coherent and convincing argument, however if we didn't touch the tax code for 20 years what would Congress do and where would all that lobby money go to?