Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[awm]

• Average family income, adjusted for inflation, has gone down
  I don't believe this. Here's an article from wikipedia showing that while there was a drop in median household income in 2008 that we are still recovering from, it's way higher than the 1980s. Here's another article showing a gradual rise. It's true that the wealthy have gained more, and that median household income hasn't kept up with GDP per household, but it's definitely better than in the 1970s and 1980s.
   
  
• Labor force participation has declined
  Only if we compare to the peak in the late 1990s. And a lot of it is because of an aging population and more people going to college. If we look at ages 25-54 (considered prime working years) this chart sheds some light on it. There's has been a small decline since the peak in the late 1990s (84% at the peak, 81.4% now) but we're still higher than the 1970s and 1980s (mostly because more women are working).
   
  
• Education quality, relative to other modern countries, has declined. (US now ranks 43rd in arithmetic/math competency)
  I don't believe this either. As this article summarizes, the US has always done poorly on these comparative tests between countries. We were doing badly in the 1970s and 1980s too! And most of the problem is poverty (here's an article on that).
   
  
• The US has lost a significant portion of its manufacturing capability to other countries.
  Not really. As this graph shows, US manufacturing output is near all-time highs and substantially above the 1970s and 1980s. Now if we're talking about manufacturing jobs this would be true, but that's because of advances in technology and automation.
   
  
• The US has a higher per capita prison population than any other country.
  This is true, and it's a problem. However, as this wikipedia article shows, the prison population has been fairly steady since 2000, reached a peak in 2008 and has actually been declining slightly since. So this is not a new problem and it hasn't gotten worse in quite some time.
   
  
• Inner city violence has increased. Chicago just set a new record for homicides in 2016,
  There has certainly been a spike in Chicago crime rates last year. However, over the last sixteen years we had a significant decline. So the 2016 Chicago homicide count is not really a record -- of the 30 years from 1970 through 1999, 18 years had more homicides than 2016 (this article is a source). It is also not clear that Chicago is representative of the rest of the nation, and a slight uptick nationwide in the last year does not counteract the declining trend over decades (see this article).
   
  
• The US has been continuously involved in a foreign war/police action/whatever every day for the last 8 years.
  True, and definitely a problem. However if we're comparing to previous decades, it may be worthwhile compare against the Vietnam War, when far more Americans served and far more Americans died (see this article). So despite the length and seeming futility of these actions, we are not necessarily worse off than the 1970s in this respect.
   
  
• The US now has more than 800 foreign military installations.
  Okay. Not clear to me how this is particularly relevant to our quality of life though.
  

[ldrews]

Average family income, adjusted for inflation, has gone down

I don't believe this. Here's an article from wikipedia showing that while there was a drop in median household income in 2008 that we are still recovering from, it's way higher than the 1980s. Here's another article showing a gradual rise. It's true that the wealthy have gained more, and that median household income hasn't kept up with GDP per household, but it's definitely better than in the 1970s and 1980s.

 

I stand corrected. Measured from 1967 the median household income, adjusted for inflation, has increased by $9,373, or about 0.4% ($200)/year. From 1989 the increase has been $351, or about 0.03% ($14)/year. Truly a robust result.

 

The U.S. Census Bureau currently publishes median household income data from 1967 until present day.

 

 

Year No. of Households Nominal $ Inflation Adjusted $

2014 124,587,000 $53,013 $53,657

2013 123,931,000 $52,937 $54,462

2012 122,459,000 $50,396 $52,605

2011 121,084,000 $49,423 $52,690

2010 119,927,000 $48,691 $53,507

2009 117,538,000 $49,158 $54,925

2008 117,181,000 $49,671 $55,313

2007 116,783,000 $49,614 $57,357

2006 116,011,000 $47,599 $56,598

2005 114,384,000 $45,770 $56,160

2004 113,343,000 $43,785 $55,565

2003 112,000,000 $42,823 $55,759

2002 111,278,000 $41,911 $55,807

2001 109,297,000 $41,728 $56,466

2000 108,209,000 $41,446 $57,724

1999 106,434,000 $40,201 $57,843

1998 103,874,000 $38,383 $56,445

1997 102,528,000 $36,477 $54,443

1996 101,018,000 $34,941 $53,345

1995 99,627,000 $33,456 $52,604

1994 98,990,000 $31,522 $51,006

1993 97,107,000 $30,404 $50,421

1992 96,426,000 $29,640 $50,667

1991 95,669,000 $29,017 $51,086

1990 94,312,000 $28,680 $52,623

1989 93,347,000 $27,559 $53,306

1988 92,830,000 $25,872 $52,372

1987 91,124,000 $24,635 $51,973

1986 89,479,000 $23,457 $51,329

1985 88,458,000 $22,259 $49,574

1984 86,789,000 $21,072 $48,664

1983 85,407,000 $19,647 $47,229

1982 83,918,000 $19,155 $47,530

1981 83,527,000 $18,062 $47,658

1980 82,368,000 $16,671 $48,462

1979 80,776,000 $15,177 $50,089

1978 77,330,000 $13,650 $50,184

1977 76,030,000 $12,224 $48,315

1976 74,142,000 $11,379 $48,011

1975 72,867,000 $10,579 $47,227

1974 71,163,000 $9,990 $48,497

1973 69,859,000 $9,265 $50,083

1972 68,251,000 $8,542 $49,092

1971 66,676,000 $7,956 $47,076

1970 64,778,000 $7,701 $47,538

1969 63,401,000 $7,330 $47,910

1968 62,214,000 $6,698 $46,192

1967 60,813,000 $6,155 $44,284

[Zelandakh]

Is household income a better measure than per capita, or at least per worker, income? If changes in social interactions meant that an average household changed from 5 persons to 3, a drop in income would not automatically mean a lower standard of living and might well mean a higher one. And that is before taking account of technological advancements and the like. The only reason I can think for using household income would be to hide the effects of the changing role of women over the intervening years. Hopefully there is noone here that would like to see a return to 1950s standard of sexual inequality!

[hrothgar]

I stand corrected. Measured from 1967 the median household income, adjusted for inflation, has increased by $9,373, or about 0.4% ($200)/year. From 1989 the increase has been $351, or about 0.03% ($14)/year. Truly a robust result.

 

How much would an iMac Pro cost in 1977?

How much has median home size increased since 1970?

How much is the internet worth to people?

[kenberg]

Is household income a better measure than per capita, or at least per worker, income? If changes in social interactions meant that an average household changed from 5 persons to 3, a drop in income would not automatically mean a lower standard of living and might well mean a higher one. And that is before taking account of technological advancements and the like. The only reason I can think for using household income would be to hide the effects of the changing role of women over the intervening years. Hopefully there is noone here that would like to see a return to 1950s standard of sexual inequality!

 

Certainly I have no such wish. But I also would not want to prevent a consideration of the following:

 

Take and average couple, Joe and Jo. What average means might emerge as I go on.

 

1950s, my parents, Tom and Vernetta. Tom worked, Vernetta didn't. Vernetta worked before she was married, and early in her marriage. Not later. In may ways they qualified as average. We could focus on Vernetta's lack of job opportunity. But I want, for a moment, to focus on the fact that she did not need to have a job for our financial survival. My father installed weatherstripping, the guy across the street drove a truck, next to him was a cop, none of the women worked. There are two sides to this. Their job opportunities were limited. Vernetta had quit school when she was 14 or maybe 15, I think her job prospects were very limited. But we lived in a decent but modest house, Tom bought a brand new Chevrolet in 1953, paid for in cash, there was never a question of enough to eat, not even remotely, and so on. And the fact that I know who had what job is an indication of the stability of the neighborhood.

 

So sure. Both my daughters work the oldest granddaughter works, my wife worked, etc etc. I favor women's rights, equal bay, the whole enchilada. But I sometimes wonder: If Tom and Vernetta could make a go of it in the 1950s with only Tom working, and if that is not possible today for average Joe and Jo, are we really better off?

 

I'm not sure this can be completely addressed by statistics.

[hrothgar]

 

But we lived in a decent but modest house, Tom bought a brand new Chevrolet in 1953, paid for in cash, there was never a question of enough to eat, not even remotely, and so on. And the fact that I know who had what job is an indication of the stability of the neighborhood.

 

So sure. Both my daughters work the oldest granddaughter works, my wife worked, etc etc. I favor women's rights, equal bay, the whole enchilada. But I sometimes wonder: If Tom and Vernetta could make a go of it in the 1950s with only Tom working, and if that is not possible today for average Joe and Jo, are we really better off?

 

I'm not sure this can be completely addressed by statistics.

 

Couple comments:

 

1. If folks were willing to have the same quality of life that they had back in the 1950s they might very well be able to make do on one income. But they don't. They want larger houses. The want central air conditioning running all summer. They want a new smart phone every couple years. They want a larger more powerful car. They want to be able to travel. All these things cost a bunch of money.

 

2. The cost of both health care and higher education have been growing significantly faster than inflation. My understanding is that these two factors alone are sufficient to explain the stagnation in real wages.

[ldrews]

http://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2012/10/02/US_spends_much_more_on_health_than_what_might_be_expected_1_slideshow.jpg

[ldrews]

[ldrews]

Education cost history US

[ldrews]

International Comparison of Math, Reading, and Science Skills Among 15-Year-Olds

 

Do you think we are getting our money's worth from our education and health expenditures?

[kenberg]

Couple comments:

 

1. If folks were willing to have the same quality of life that they had back in the 1950s they might very well be able to make do on one income. But they don't. They want larger houses. The want central air conditioning running all summer. They want a new smart phone every couple years. They want a larger more powerful car. They want to be able to travel. All these things cost a bunch of money.

 

2. The cost of both health care and higher education have been growing significantly faster than inflation. My understanding is that these two factors alone are sufficient to explain the stagnation in real wages.

 

 

 

Yes. I know. But I still wonder. The quality of my life was quite good. No smart phone. But I had my own car, bought with money I earned myself, when I was fifteen;. The garage in back was a gathering place for my friends, we all (well,most of us) had cars, and they frequently needed work. I'll take that over a smartphone any day. I get your point, really I do, but my mother should go to work so I can have a smartphone? Or so she could? That would not have sat well with her.

 

Now medical matters are another thing. This is a very good time to be alive as we encounter the inevitable effects of aging.

 

Maybe the bottom line is that it is hard to compare different eras. Statistics don't cover it all. I am not generally a Woody Allen fan but I very much liked Midnight in Paris, and he seemed to come to some similar conclusions about comparisons of eras.

[hrothgar]

International Comparison of Math, Reading, and Science Skills Among 15-Year-Olds

 

Do you think we are getting our money's worth from our education and health expenditures?

 

On health care expenditures? Almost certainly not. Healthcare is definitely not one of those areas where the "market" works well.

 

With respect to education, its a mixed bag.

 

The US higher education system, especially our top tier universities, are the best in the world.

However, the "for profit" universities like ITT and the Corinthian system are highly problematic.

 

If we look at secondary education, the real issue is that we are dramatically overspending in some school systems and radically neglecting others.

[hrothgar]

International Comparison of Math, Reading, and Science Skills Among 15-Year-Olds

 

Do you think we are getting our money's worth from our education and health expenditures?

 

On health care expenditures? Almost certainly not. Healthcare is definitely not one of those areas where the "market" works well.

 

With respect to education, its a mixed bag.

 

The US higher education system, especially our top tier universities, are the best in the world.

However, the "for profit" universities like ITT and the Corinthian system are highly problematic.

 

If we look at secondary education, the real issue is that we are dramatically overspending in some school systems and radically neglecting others.

[ldrews]

If we look at secondary education, the real issue is that we are dramatically overspending in some school systems and radically neglecting others.

 

Perhaps. But the US education spending is in line, proportionally, with the GDP, But it is the 2nd highest on the chart, and our results in comparison to other countries is way down the list.

 

To me this indicates that the problem is not funding, per se, but that the delivery system is not functioning well. Perhaps our model of education delivery needs revamping, or competition needs to be introduced to induce improvements, or something. Certainly if we keep doing the same thing we will get the same result.

 

Granted, our top universities are the equal of any, but our primary/secondary systems suck.

 

Do you have any suggestions on how we might improve the educational system, other than throwing more money at it or redistributing the current money? Or do you think the current systems are just fine the way they are?

[hrothgar]

 

Do you have any suggestions on how we might improve the educational system, other than throwing more money at it or redistributing the current money? Or do you think the current systems are just fine the way they are?

 

Given that the fundament problem is one of income distribution, I don't see a (practical) way to fix this without income redistribution.

[ldrews]

In regards to medical costs, I met a lady in Puerta Vallarta, Mexico who is a medical referrer. She matches US visitors/residents with local medical suppliers. She has an arrangement with insurance companies to arrange for colonoscopies for the insurance company clients. The insurance company flies the client down to Puerta Vallarta, puts them up in a local hotel, the client has the colonoscopy, spends a day or two in "recovery", flies back to the US. All for less than the cost of a colonoscopy in the US. And the level of medical care equals that of the US.

 

That is crazy.

[ldrews]

Internation education cost vs results

 

The above link shows a comparison among 11 countries of educational costs per student and student performance. The US has the highest cost per student but less than average math and science scores. In my opinion this does not support the idea that improving distribution of educational funding would improve performance. The US system appears to be simply less effective at delivering education.

 

Also, if funding were to be the significant factor, then redistributing existing funding would simply penalize the better performing schools in favor of the lesser performing schools such that the overall results would probably not change significantly.

 

And if the argument is made that more funding should be provided to lesser performing schools, then we raise the per student cost of education to a multiple of other countries to obtain, perhaps, the same performance that the other countries achieve with much less money. Another argument that the US education system simply not functioning well.

 

Perhaps we could figure out a way to outsource education to other countries?

[hrothgar]

Internation education cost vs results

 

The above link shows a comparison among 11 countries of educational costs per student and student performance. The US has the highest cost per student but less than average math and science scores. In my opinion this does not support the idea that improving distribution of educational funding would improve performance. The US system appears to be simply less effective at delivering education.

 

Here is an alternative explanation: Looking at averages doesn't tell you very much.

 

1. In the US there are a wide variety of welfare programs that count towards education spending that do show up in other countries

2. The US has highly inequitable spending on education. Combine this with diminishing returns to scale and ...

[ldrews]

Illiteracy

 

The above link discusses the functional illiteracy problem in the US. Another example of our failed educational system.

[ldrews]

Here is an alternative explanation: Looking at averages doesn't tell you very much.

 

1. In the US there are a wide variety of welfare programs that count towards education spending that do show up in other countries

2. The US has highly inequitable spending on education. Combine this with diminishing returns to scale and ...

 

So, from the above response, I take it that you feel the educational systems is pretty much OK the way it is. Maybe some tweaking of the financial distribution, but otherwise no changes needed.

[hrothgar]

So, from the above response, I take it that you feel the educational systems is pretty much OK the way it is. Maybe some tweaking of the financial distribution, but otherwise no changes needed.

 

I would certainly start by reforming the financing...

[y66]

Yes. I know. But I still wonder. The quality of my life was quite good. No smart phone. But I had my own car, bought with money I earned myself, when I was fifteen;. The garage in back was a gathering place for my friends, we all (well,most of us) had cars, and they frequently needed work. I'll take that over a smartphone any day. I get your point, really I do, but my mother should go to work so I can have a smartphone? Or so she could? That would not have sat well with her.

 

Now medical matters are another thing. This is a very good time to be alive as we encounter the inevitable effects of aging.

 

Maybe the bottom line is that it is hard to compare different eras. Statistics don't cover it all. I am not generally a Woody Allen fan but I very much liked Midnight in Paris, and he seemed to come to some similar conclusions about comparisons of eras.

Why can't we compare eras? You've lived in different eras. Which era would you prefer to be reborn into?

[y66]

From Obamacare Repeal Might Have Just Died Tonight (Jan 9) by Jonathan Chait:

 

The Republican plan to repeal Obamacare and delay the implementation of the repeal — with a promise to come up with a terrific replacement later — is probably the party’s best way to destroy Obamacare. Unfortunately for Republicans, it’s also the best way to destroy the Republican majority in Congress.

 

Something big is happening in the Senate right now: The Republican plan, affirmed again today by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, is facing dire peril from Republican defections. Republicans need a House majority, 50 Senate votes, and soon-to-be President Trump to pass repeal and delay.

 

If Republicans lose three Senate votes, that drops them to 49, and repeal and delay cannot pass. At least three Republican senators (in addition to all the Democrats) now oppose repeal and delay. Rand Paul, of all people, has demanded that Congress repeal Obamacare at the same time it passes a plan to replace it. Paul has announced that he spoke with Trump and secured his agreement on this. Trump has not said so himself, confining his comments to date to a vague assurance, “That’s all gonna work out.”

 

Trump, of course, tends to change his mind frequently and agree with whomever he spoke with last. But other Republicans senators are taking the initiative. Fellow Republican Lamar Alexander says the same thing as Paul: “We have to take each part of it and consider what it would take to create a new and better alternative and then begin to create that alternative and once it’s available to the American people, then we can finally repeal Obamacare.” Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas said on MSNBC, “It would not be the right path for us to repeal Obamacare without laying out a path forward.” And Senator Bob Corker is walking right up to the edge of the same position, asking Trump to tweet out confirmation of what Paul claims he promised. “If it is his view, it would be really good if he would consider tweeting it out very clearly. There’s more and more concerns about not doing it simultaneously,” Corker says.

 

Even more ominously for the Republican leadership, four other Republicans have joined Corker to sponsor a bill delaying the bill that would repeal Obamacare for a month.

[y66]

From Hacking the Attention Economy by Danah Boyd:

 

For most non-technical folks, “hacking” evokes the notion of using sophisticated technical skills to break through the security of a corporate or government system for illicit purposes. Of course, most folks who were engaged in cracking security systems weren’t necessarily in it for espionage and cruelty. In the 1990s, I grew up among teenage hackers who wanted to break into the computer systems of major institutions that were part of the security establishment, just to show that they could. The goal here was to feel a sense of power in a world where they felt pretty powerless. The rush was in being able to do something and feel smarter than the so-called powerful. It was fun and games. At least until they started getting arrested.

 

Hacking has always been about leveraging skills to push the boundaries of systems. Keep in mind that one early definition of a hacker (from the Jargon File) was “A person who enjoys learning the details of programming systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary.” In another early definition (RFC:1392), a hacker is defined as “A person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular.” Both of these definitions highlight something important: violating the security of a technical system isn’t necessarily the primary objective.

 

Indeed, over the last 15 years, I’ve watched as countless hacker-minded folks have started leveraging a mix of technical and social engineering skills to reconfigure networks of power. Some are in it for the fun. Some see dollar signs. Some have a much more ideological agenda. But above all, what’s fascinating is how many people have learned to play the game. And in some worlds, those skills are coming home to roost in unexpected ways, especially as groups are seeking to mess with information intermediaries in an effort to hack the attention economy.

[kenberg]

Why can't we compare eras? You've lived in different eras. Which era would you prefer to be reborn into?

 

A good question. The era I grew up in suited be quite nicely. Being young in the 40s and 50s was a hoot. This is a nice era to be old in. Well into my 70s I took no meds, but I turned 78 a week ago and the needed pills are there. I think that I timed it all very well. But the grandkids seem to see now as a nice time to be young. I just have to say about smartphones: When you are young, it can be very nice to have no technology that allows your parents to contact you.

 

Nostalgia aside, I do think that when we look at a statistical table and claim we are now doing better or worse, the numbers do not tell the whole story.