This topic puzzles me. I hear SO many people (Democrats, mostly) complaining that the U.S. economy is not good and hasn't been good since the 90s when Clinton was in office.

Yet, most of the traditional, objective economic indicators in the news these days suggest that the economy has been good (but not great) and has been steadily improving since 2000.

What real, objective evidence is there that the economy is bad? (I'm looking for more than anecdotal non-arguments such as "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer").

What are some of the objective indicators supporting the bad-economy theory?

If ever there was a topic that didn't belong on this side this is it.

Inverted yield curve.

An interest rate environment in which long-term debt instruments have a lower yield than short-term debt instruments of the same credit quality. This type of yield curve is the rarest of the three main curve types and is considered to be a predictor of economic recession.

Historically, inversions of the yield curve have preceded many of the U.S. recessions. Due to this historical correlation, the yield curve is often seen as an accurate forecast of the turning points of the business cycle. A recent example is when the U.S. Treasury yield curve inverted in 2000 just before the U.S. equity markets collapsed. An inverse yield curve predicts lower interest rates in the future as longer-term bonds are being demanded, sending the yields down.

"What real, objective evidence is there that the economy is bad?"

My income. My consultant-independent engineer-production geek workload has gone down down down since Bush took over. If that's not objective enough for you, what exactly do you mean?

Some of the indicators are rising out of control health care costs
increasing way beyond any tracking indicator, rising energy costs (don't let the pre election Dick Cheney secret meeting buddies keep the price down for a few months fool you), and the biggest ones that you can not play down ...

The outsourcing of so many great jobs in technology
Huge layoffs in manufacturing (GM, Ford just to name a few,
there are many more).
What jobs there are pay less and incomes of working people are not growing hardly at all.

AIt's not just Democrats, it's over 60% of the country that think the Bush economy sucks.

"According to the National Bureau of Economic Research this expansion started in November 2001 when there were 130,883,000 establishment jobs. There were 135,230,000 establishment jobs in June of 2006 for an increase of 4.347 million jobs. That's a compound annual growth rate of .71% and THE WORST RATE OF JOB CREATION IN 40 YEARS"

"The administration has a nasty habit of lying. So they often use June 2003 as the starting point for their job numbers. It would be really nice if you called them out on this, but that requires backbone which you are really lacking right now. SOOOO, let's use the administration's dates. In June 2003 there were 129,822,000 establishment jobs in the US and there were 135,230,000 in June of 2006. That's a compound annual growth rate of 1.5% which is still THE WORST RATE OF JOB CREATION IN 40 YEARS See? Wasn't that easy? You don't even have to call the administration a bunch of lying hacks. You can use their points and still say, this is THE WORST RATE OF JOB CREATION IN 40 YEARS."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/20/75450/7846

Here's another story claiming 70 years.

http://loadedmouth.com/node/4043?PHPSESSID=cc59d1abd6a27c5f9ac7856ebe9e6aff

Get the picture?

There is no way you are going to get an objective answer to the question, unless you can find some experts from Mars that have no preference which party is which.
If party A is in power, then party B will almost allways say the economy is bad, and vice versa.
Either party allways claims the economy is not good enough for some segment of people.
If you are doing good, then you think the economy is good, and vice versa.
This is a case where anybody can comeup with some figures to support their carefully worded claims, and the other side is going to come up with some other figures to claim the opposite.

It's a class issue. Those middle and lower class people among us have less buying power, higher prices, higher debt on average.

Stock prices only tell the story of how well the higher class and corporations among us are doing. (Yes, corps are lumped in with people --which is another thread someday on the other side.)

Better to ask different questions than a general economy good or bad bit.

the pileup of debt crushing the standard of living for our children. They'll be saying frak you "W" for decades.

Turning our attention to radio, what did we charge for one 60 second spot during CLINTON'S years? What do we charge today? Does that help? The answer is practically 20 then 10 now.

There we go! That's an interesting indicator.

Nice thread saver there.

Why?

Is it that people can't afford the ads in this general money squeeze, or is it some thing else?

...it's something else!

Two reasons:

Shrinking advertising budgets, and the internet.

This report comparing 2005 to 2004 shows local radio slightly up and network radio slightly down.

http://www.tns-mi.com/news/02282006.htm

"Broadcast radio advertising increased a mere 0.3 percent to $20.07 billion in 2005" This next article shows how the internet figures are growing.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060912/nytu177.html?.v=54

Unfortunately, this doesn't translate to local stations streaming on the internet picking up what they're losing on air, or at least I couldn't find anything to support that.

"IT'S HARD TO SAY EXACTLY WHEN radio started to lose the love and the
power and the magic celebrated in that 1975 rock anthem, but a good bet
would be 1996. Landmark telecom legislation back then unleashed a
powerful wave of consolidation that left the airwaves cluttered with
commercials -- and investors set up for disappointment down the road.

Though many radio stocks soared seven- or eightfold during the merger
frenzy, the excitement proved ephemeral. The stocks came back to earth
with a thud, and the industry has since reverted to its former status as
a generator of steady but unspectacular returns, with revenues growing
little more than the economy as a whole. Worse, there's increasing
concern that radio is entering a long-term decline, the result of new
competition and technologies and changing consumer tastes."

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200408/msg00316.ht ml

Wow...who knew that RPete was a Yield Curve expert?

Hey, the poster asked for "objective indicators"...and I think the Yield Curve can be pretty objective. After all, money talks, BS walks.

I appreciate R-pete's analysis. It really explains what I struggle to when asked what's wrong (usually by some troll who prods me for an opinion on, say, Michael Moore) and I can only mumble something about my grave concern over "the deficit." The Yield Curve spells out the currently observable factors indicating the impact it'll have the future course of the economy.

I remember the 80's bumper stickers proclaiming "We're spending our children's inheritance." At first I thought it was a gag (like, "we're blowing all ours on an RV and travel") until I realized it was an indictment of the "steal now/pay later" approach cynically and methodically implemented by the party that blasts "tax and spend" Democrats. As the late Hunter Thompson observed, Reaganomics was like pilfering office supplies compared to what we're seeing now.

Economy good, beddy beddy good to me.

>>>"SO many people (Democrats, mostly) complaining"

That line sort of says it all, doesn't it.

It does!

More of the Dems understand the issues and have consumed less BS!

Its simple,Deane. The economy is great if you are a Republican. But it stinks if you are a liberal Democrat.

Looks like the answer is pretty simple. If you want to improve your economic stature, become a Republican and you will instantly be doing well.

According to a lot of you.

20 years of it didn't do me well

Guess I was just not far enough in the closet!

How about basing the economy not on politics but whether you are busting your butt and working to make your personal economics better?
Work Hard
Play Hard
Sleep Hard

I like that perspective.

Sorry, but have been doing a *lot* of butt-busting. More than at any time in my life to date.

Normally this pulls me ahead somewhat.

This time it's all about treading water...

I can never understand how dirt-poor GOP supporters here in this forum get a warm fuzzy feeling about a "GREAT" economy that only those in the rarified air of upper income levels are actually benefiting from.

When Clinton was around, EVERYBODY and their pets were sharing the wealth.

Woof-woof to you too, Sir.