Statistics Can Really Lie
Posted: Friday, February 12, 2010
by Joel Hirschhorn
http://www.delusionaldemocracy.com
If you think the terrible impact of America's Great Recession is shown by an official unemployment rate of about 10 percent, think again.
Economic inequality and the myth of Reagan trickle down logic are shown by new data from the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston. The report noted: "What has been missing from the public debate over the labor market crisis is an honest and detailed analysis of which American workers have been most adversely affected by the deep deterioration in labor markets." The researchers found a correlation between household income and unemployment rate in the last quarter of 2009: Look carefully at these numbers and see how unemployment rises as income drops:
$100,000 to 149,999, 8 percent
$75,000 to $99,999, 5 percent
$60,000 to $75,000, 6.4 percent
$50,000 to $59,000, 7.8 percent
$40,000 to $49,000, 9 percent
$30,000 to $39,999, 12.2 percent
$20,000 to $29,999, 19.7 percent
$12,500 to $20,000, 19.1 percent
$12,499 or less, 30.8 percent
Ten times worse unemployment in the lowest class than in the highest class! National averages can really big nothing but big lies and deceptions. Truly amazing and disheartening, don't you think? And you can also infer that in some hard hit geographical areas the poorest people and people of color are being even more adversely impacted. And don't think for a minute that things have really improved in 2010.
When the poorest people suffer so disproportionately as compared to the wealthiest, perhaps only violent revolution will fix America's dysfunctional and delusional democracy. Will President Obama cite the above frightening data in any public forum to make the case for stronger federal efforts. What do you think?
This Article has been viewed 652 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (4 total)I guess that I am becoming totally confused. I didn't believe for a long time that the right really were so determined to undermine the left that they would harm the country, but as I read more and more, I do see one after another hypocritical moves, and I am beginning to wonder what exactly the right’s agenda is?For example, few on the right complained about big government when lots of money was going to the military in the Middle East to help people there, and when Bush killed our budget. But trying to help people here with health care becomes a major firestorm.And the right want no part of socialism or making people pay for health insurance, yet when someone uninsured enters a hospital, who pays? We do, which is a form of socialism. I don’t get it?I don’t want to believe that the right hate minorities and anyone not making a lot of money, or that they hate workers and love Wall Street, but that‘s how it is beginning to look. If this is true, I hate to think what’s store for these people.
Corporate America, or Greedy America as I like to call them, own the supreme court, the president, the senate, the house of representatives, federal and local judiciaries, and local government. Enough said?Possibly not enough said. Corporate America, if a PUBLIC Corporation, is actually owned by the citizen of America. Some, maybe you, own parts of Corporate America and don't know it (pension funds). If Corporate America makes money your direct or indirect investment (and therefore you) make money. If that is not enough then try the people that work for those corporations. If the corporation does not do well then the people who work for them might not be working for them. The corporation is in business to make money (is that greed). The workers are not working for free, the average worker wants as much as they can make (is that greed). If you were offered a million dollars to do your job would you say, "no my job is not worth that much money" or would you say, "yes, please". Greed seems to be a relative thing. It is always THEIR Greed. Corporations are not nameless/formless things. They are made of people trying to make a living and put food on the table.It may, or may not be greed. It depends on whether they are using their financial influence in the halls of congress to aid their profits, at the detriment to the rest of society. Which I believe Mr. Hirschorn's numbers go a long way in revealing may be the case. I realize that corporate influence on our government has been ruled as free speech, but that doesn't make it right, as they can't speak in one voice for their employees, just as it's not right for labor unions for the same reason. It's been my belief that this was to be a republic of the people, by the people, for the people, not of, by, and for the corporation.I don't know?
Well-said, yet I don't see the lie in the numbers. Of course those high-earners are not collecting unemployment, and the lowest-earners are: this isn't news. And also, we know trickle-down economics works in theory only when coupled with deregulation (which never happens).The poorest will always suffer compared to the wealthiest, and any 'revolution' will not fix the problem because there will always be rich and poor, haves and have-nots. Perhaps it is time for something else?The lie is the misleadingly 10 percent figure, as if government can really fix the problem, whereas the higher jobless numbers for the lower income people show how impossible it will be for the government to solve the employment problem. Even in five years or more no amount of economic growth will provide enough jobs.It worked in France! lol
Your total justification for your position is the income bracket and the percentage of Americans in that income bracket. Are the people in the bracket there because of some nefarious force or because their level education or drive does not allow them to attain a greater income? Maybe personal responsibility needs to be addressed and not the 'forces of evil' that some people think that someone is pushing the 'low classes' down. As to trickle down not working, how many people have been put to work by people making minimum wage. Yes, a rich person has a big home but that person also hires people to perform tasks for pay. Would you prefer all people to be paid the same so there are no rich and no poor and what does that do to the incentive to do better when the laziest person gets paid the same as the most industrious. In this case would the lazy person strive to do more or would the industrious person, seeing there is no gain, strive to do less?
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.