Click to enlarge.
The future's so bright I gotta wear rose-colored trend channels.
In all seriousness, I believe with every fiber of my being that we will someday return to the red trend channel. The Great Recession got us there last time. I wonder what we'll call the next one.
Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: Custom Chart
"I wonder what we'll call the next one."
ReplyDelete80 million people retiring over 20 years.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LFWA24TTUSA647S
shows the intake at age 20 lasted until 1980, so the retirement wave is only getting started.
This is going to be immensely redistributive and also somewhat positive for job growth, as not every job left by a retiree will be shipped off or closed down.
Though whether the new retirement regime will be collectively revenue neutral for the working masses remains to be seen.
All this new medicare spending is going to create an immense amount of jobs, I hope.
Troy,
ReplyDelete80 million people retiring over 20 years.
Maybe. I drove across the state for my mother's 90th birthday. I stopped at a McDonalds. The person who served it to me was 70+ years old. No joke. That is something I never saw when I worked in the fast food industry in college.
This is going to be immensely redistributive...
As a retiree with no job to fall back on, I tend to be especially frugal. My meal consisted of a single plain hamburger from the dollar menu. With tax, that put the total at about $1.09. Once again, no joke. (I brought my own beverages with me for the trip.)
All this new medicare spending is going to create an immense amount of jobs, I hope.
How many people can afford to become doctors? My girlfriend's switching careers to become a nurse. It isn't cheap and she couldn't do it without my financial support. Not even close.
Troy,
ReplyDeleteThis is going to be immensely redistributive...
At best I would call this one aspect somewhat redistributive. There are many aspects to consider though.
Overall, the very rich might grow richer more slowly and the poor might grow poorer more slowly. Might. Not a prediction, just a possibility.
If we can get the Romneys of the country to pay 41% and not 14%, I have hope.
ReplyDeleteIf not . . .
We've also got to get off the doddamn real estate treadmill. Nobody can even see it for the boa constrictor it is on the working class, the steadily-rising cost of living of everyone's biggest line-item, housing.
My blood pressure shot up 20 pts reading in the paper last month how one largish MFH complex in my town was sold from its Newport Beach-based owners to a Beverly Hills-owned corporation.
What an immense rent tap, trillions flowing out of the paycheck economy.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=nt9
you want a place to exist on this planet, it's going to cost ya $8000 per year now, double in real terms what it was in the 1970s, triple that of the 1960s.
But like fish immersed in water, nobody can even see it.
Troy,
ReplyDeleteIf we can get the Romneys of the country to pay 41% and not 14%, I have hope.
I would welcome the opportunity to shut this blog down and laugh at my unreasonable lack of long-term optimism. Your "if" could certainly do it. Unfortunately, one of my favorite sayings is: If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts then we'd all have a Merry Christmas.
But like fish immersed in water, nobody can even see it.
Don't even get me started on fish. According to the BLS, fresh fish and seafood prices are up 4.2% per year over the last decade. This does not compare favorably to returns on typical savings accounts over the same period. Sigh.
Things are certainly going to have to get a lot worse here before they get any better.
ReplyDeleteI can't see the future, best place to be is some solid metro suburban community like where you are, hunkered down, looking average.
Troy,
ReplyDeletelooking average
I'm trying to look median! "Average" is looking a lot like a mugger target these days due to the richest pulling the average up, lol. Sigh.
Statistical gallows humor.
Any chance of doing this for the middle 3 deciles? My guess it that the continued accumulation of wealth at the top is skewing some of the charts.
ReplyDeleteFred
Fred,
ReplyDeleteAny chance of doing this for the middle 3 deciles?
That data is few and far between.
My guess it that the continued accumulation of wealth at the top is skewing some of the charts.
I'd say that's better than a guess. Nearly every chart I do I think to myself, "How is this being skewed by income and wealth inequality?"