Also, add in health care cost increases that employers have to pay but that don't show up in salary surveys.
Also, add in health care cost increases that employers have to pay but that don't show up in salary surveys.
EDIT: "Few" refers to the fact that less than half of Americans own stock of any kind (including through retirement accounts) [1]. And more US families own cats (30%) than individual stocks (13.8%) [2].
1: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101980294 2: http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/09/investing/stock-market-inves...
Any theory of society and economics that doesn't take this fundamental tendency into account is hopelessly unrealistic.
You must have mechanisms, at the level of the whole society and economy, actively fighting this "clumping" force. Otherwise you end up with a handful of giant black holes and a whole lot of empty space in between.
I agree but your point doesn't really contradict the parent.
The unemployed, in fact, would count as the empty space between the black holes you describe.
So let's look at that most inclusive number, the U-6 (which, of course, would be a crazy number to actually measure unemployment by, which is why everyone talks about U3): http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp?f... 11%, vs the late 90's "boom" of 8.5%. Early 90's, of course, were also in the low teens.
All of this, of course, is ignoring the fact that _wages have been stagnant since the late 70's_ -- even through times of crazy low unemployment (U-6 below 7%).
The estimated number of persons employed today is less than 2% higher than in 2008. The estimated number not in the labor force is 15% higher.
About 2 million more people are working now than in 2008, while 13 million more are not working or looking for work.
(Disclaimer: These are statistically estimated and seasonally adjusted numbers from the same month.)
America has a real strong strain of the "I'm not poor, I'm merely a temporarily embarrassed millionaire" sentiment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/the-triumph-of-hop...
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/from-rags-t...
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/05/myths-and-facts-...
http://www.aei.org/publication/maybe-patriarchal-labor-union...
That's simply untrue.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discouraged_worker#United_Stat...
Here's a graph of a few of them over time: http://www.macrotrends.net/chart/1377/u6-unemployment-rate
It's the old "large print for the rubes, small print so we say we're aren't lying" trick.
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/u3-and-u6-unemployme...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82908801/Unemployment-and-Underemp...
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp?f...
As is now hopefully obvious: 11% is a pretty normal number for U-6 (especially given the current U-3), and the only reason you think that's high is because you're used to hearing U-3. Which, of course, is why economists chose to focus on one number over time in the first place. Keep your conspiracy theories out of this, please.
If it were simply people who were not looking by choice you wouldn't expect it to track the official number so closely.