The actual number is $433,000,000.

Been a great thread , many laughs . At least one truth has been mined . Some care about perception and feelings, like they are doing the right thing even though the obvious facts and truth point out a different scenario . Classis liberalism . Don't worry about the facts , all emotion , no substance . Even when presented with undeniable unbendable truths they still argue for perception. Funny and enlightening at the same time .

Been a great thread , many laughs . At least one truth has been mined . Some care about perception and feelings, like they are doing the right thing even though the obvious facts and truth point out a different scenario . Classis liberalism . Don't worry about the facts , all emotion , no substance . Even when presented with undeniable unbendable truths they still argue for perception. Funny and enlightening at the same time .

Your perception of the distinction is laughable.

The actual number is $433,000,000.

 

What product do the Fayette County Schools sell? Or are they service provided by the government with taxpayer dollars not ran as a for profit company.

Yeah I'm interested in how a school produces a revenue . My guess is some intellectual pointy head assigns X amount per graduate ?

What product do the Fayette County Schools sell? Or are they service provided by the government with taxpayer dollars not ran as a for profit company.

 

And we wonder why kids do not understand basic economics.

 

Revenue, cost of goods - whats the difference...

 

Tell me this doesn't look alarming. :greedy:

 

I don't understand the ire towards people who are obviously seeing flat wages over the past 40 years. Especially since we are talking about 70% of our population.

[ATTACH]51290[/ATTACH]

 

Tell me this doesn't look alarming. :greedy:

 

I don't understand the ire towards people who are obviously seeing flat wages over the past 40 years. Especially since we are talking about 70% of our population.

 

Ire?

Outrage. Just looking through the thread the discussion swayed toward the "how dare you question our system" tone.

Outrage. Just looking through the thread the discussion swayed toward the "how dare you question our system" tone.

 

I don't see anyone taking anyone to task for questioning the system. I see people like me explaining how I think some people are misguided in their thinking. Hardly the same.

 

Don't take frankness and opinions as ire towards any person or class.

 

Tell me this doesn't look alarming. :greedy:

 

I don't understand the ire towards people who are obviously seeing flat wages over the past 40 years. Especially since we are talking about 70% of our population.

 

The chart says what most know.

 

In a nutshell - the 1990s were good, since 2000 or 2001 things are mostly flat - for everyone.

 

The DOW stock average was 3,241 when Clinton took office. It was 10,587 when he left.

 

Had that pace been maintained the dow would be somewhere noth of 30,000.

 

The economy has been basically sideways for 15 years.

The chart says what most know.

In a nutshell - the 1990s were good, since 2000 or 2001 things are mostly flat - for everyone.

 

The DOW stock average was 3,241 when Clinton took office. It was 10,587 when he left.

 

Had that pace been maintained the dow would be somewhere noth of 30,000.

 

The economy has been basically sideways for 15 years.

 

Yep, your pay stays the same if you make under 100k.

This is why we won't see a republican president for a long time. People no longer believe that anyone can become rich, and feel their more likely to become poor.

The chart says what most know.

 

In a nutshell - the 1990s were good, since 2000 or 2001 things are mostly flat - for everyone.

 

The DOW stock average was 3,241 when Clinton took office. It was 10,587 when he left.

 

Had that pace been maintained the dow would be somewhere noth of 30,000.

 

The economy has been basically sideways for 15 years.

 

The 90s economy was driven primarily by the internet bubble and secondarily by the housing bubble, neither of which were sustainable. The internet explosion died out in the early 2000s and took much of those 'unsustainable' good times with it.

 

The 80s are often described as the decade of greed but really the 'greed' in the 90s was much more pervasive as mom and dad tried to hit it big through internet IPOs, whereas the 80's greed was driven by a relatively small number of institutional investors.

The 90s economy was driven primarily by the internet bubble and secondarily by the housing bubble, neither of which were sustainable. The internet explosion died out in the early 2000s and took much of those 'unsustainable' good times with it.

 

The 80s are often described as the decade of greed but really the 'greed' in the 90s was much more pervasive as mom and dad tried to hit it big through internet IPOs, whereas the 80's greed was driven by a relatively small number of institutional investors.

 

I think that may be giving too much credit to the internet and housing bubble. I am familiar with both. It is hard to sometimes figure what was cause and what was effect when using the Dow as a measuring stick.

 

One measure I know is somewhat subjective is that social security receipts. Its an interesting statistic since it is on earned income, i.e.pay from actual work and is not impacted by capital gains. They also get capped so that high earners do not scew the data. It is a good reflection of how the 'middle class' is doing.

 

SS revenues rose every year from SS inception - until 2009. This was even during recession periods - which is somewhat amazing. The fact that it shrank for the first time ever in 2009 shows a material shrinkage of the economy. I will not lay that fact in total at all at the current administrations feet as some would, though the policies since 2009 have probably slowed its recovery. This statistic does show that in the very late 2000s there were game changing dynamics afoot.