yet job employment is flat and wages continue to decline for everyone except the elite.

I just got a raise. Wow, I must be the elite!

So what am I doing slumming with these peasants I call coworkers?

LB Buddy, unemployment at five percent is, or very close to, what was known in the Economics courses I took as "full employment." Robust economic growth, low inflation, and low unemployment are good things, not something to be depressed about.

LMC,

It is true that 5% is considered full employment, but the problem is that there has been an extended period of unemployment for a significant portion of the population. Once you have gone passed your unemployment benefits time limit, you are no longer counted. So the rate could be much higher than 5%. The very flat (in fact decreasing) wages (http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_income20050831) over the last 5 years would suggest that the market is not experiencing a shortage of workers that would drive wages up. People are working longer for less money. This has been a trend for the last 30 years (only slightly less unfair under Bubba). Add ballooning healthcare costs and declining social services, and the picture gets even more grim for the below average household. Rising tides may lift all boats, but I guess only silly socialist moonbats care about how big the yacht is compared to the rowboats.
And Brian, with a median household income of $44K ($29K for single moms!), it doesn’t take a massive paycheck to put you in the top 20%.
I just feel there needs to be much more awareness of the plight of the bottom 1/3. Most of these people are not shiftless, lazy, welfare abusers, but hard working people caught in a squeeze.

LB Buddy,

Do you remember the 1970s? Now those were bad economic times. High unemployment, high interest rates, high inflation. Jimmy Carter told us to put on another sweater. Now those were hard economic times.

This? I'll grant you I'm making less money than I did during the irrational exuberance of the late 1990s, but that was unsustainable, and fueled by an unreasonable expectation of what the internet was going to do, and how fast it was going to do it. If the new standard for good economic times is going to be the dotcom gold rush, then you're going to be disappointed most of the time.

And Brian, with a median household income of $44K ($29K for single moms!), it doesn’t take a massive paycheck to put you in the top 20%.

I couldn't find current stats for the brakdown, but According to this, Making what we do now, wife would have been in the in the area of the top 40-60%, nowhere near the top 20% (and our income AT THAT TIME was significantly lower than that), but thanks for making assumptions about my income. So we're barely above the median, yet we live quite comfortably, and despite being nowhere NEAR the top 20%, I GOT A RAISE, and my wife found a BETTER PAYING JOB. So much for "wages continue to decline for everyone except the elite."

Oops, "wife would have been" should have been "My wife and I".

You can tell that I am avoiding my actual work here but:

Colossus:

Sorry, not old enough to understand the economic pains of the early 70's, but one of the big reasons that household incomes have not dropped as drastically as they might have from the 70's to today is the increased entry of middle class women into the workforce meaning we are working nearly twice as hard for the same amount of money as our parents were (except for the top 20%). Our income inequality is equal to 3rd world countries, the worst of all industrialized nations. Continue this trend for another 50 years and we have no middle class.

Brian:

I was merely trying to establish that median income is quite low and the elite is not necessarily a millionaire. I am genuinely happy that your income is higher, one experience is not necessarily representitive and the average national data is running counter to that example. During our recent economic recovery, % below poverty and % with no health insurance have continually increased. Our social contracts are being abandoned.

LB Buddy:

I understand what you were trying to establish, but I was in response establishing that an income barely above median hardly makes me "Elite". Furthermore, while my experience may be anecdotal, your claim that "wages continue to decline for everyone except the elite." was equally hyperbolic. There's difference between the absolutism of that statement and "the average national data".

I'm curious as to what you think we should do about this falling economic sky?

The link I included above:

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_income20050831

Shows changes in real average income by quintile for 2003-2004. Top 5% is the only gaining group. This is what I based my statement on. This trend holds true for 3 years of expansion 2002-2004. I will admit I do not know if it holds true for 2005. It definitely took several years for lower income brackets to benefit from the Clinton boom years. The gap increase has been steady since 1969.

As for a solution, I would argue for rolling back the tax breaks particularly on capital gains (perhaps even increasing those), decreasing military spending (we outspend the rest of the world combined), and use that money to reinstate (and increase) the social protections of welfare, job retraining, quality schools (including state U's), and universal healthcare. Cut the military budget enough, and there would likely be enough money to pay down national debt as well. This is an extremely effective model for Sweden and Norway (admittedly Norway also has the advantage of massive oil profits).

Ah. In other words, when you called yourself a "Socialist Moonbat", you weren't being sarcastic.

I would argue for rolling back the tax breaks particularly on capital gains (perhaps even increasing those),

From each according to his ability, eh? That top 5% is already assuming 50% of the tax burden. Any tax that's not a flat rate across the board is unjust.

decreasing military spending

Right, because we don't want to be able to actually DEFEND our nation's interests. That would be MEAN.

and use that money to reinstate (and increase) the social protections of welfare, job retraining, quality schools (including state U's),

Here's my problem with all of those: I don't mind giving out of my own pocket to help any of those causes, but I have a BIG issue with you picking my pocket and deciding how much I'll give and how it will be spent. Furthermore, who decides what constitues a "Qualiry" education? And if I disagree with the definition? Let me guess -- tough luck, the State knows better than you. Thanks anyway. You want the schools to teach things I am ethically, morally, religiously, philisophically, intellectually, or politically opposed to? Fine, but not on my dime.

Cut the military budget enough, and there would likely be enough money to pay down national debt as well.

Small consolation when we lose a war with the next despot in line. Comparing the military requirements of a country like Sweden or Norway to those of the US is oversimplistic.

military spending (we outspend the rest of the world combined)

I just wanted to thank you guys for that. As part of the rest of the world, it means a lot.

(No, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm an Aussie, and though we do what we can, we're relatively small fry. Thank you America!)

I'll grant you I'm making less money than I did during the irrational exuberance of the late 1990s, but that was unsustainable, and fueled by an unreasonable expectation of what the internet was going to do, and how fast it was going to do it.

Don't remind me. :(

Mind you, the only unreasonable part was how long it would take for the internet to get there. It will in time exceed the wildest dreams of the dotcom boomers, but since my paper millions are now one with Nineveh and Tyre, I don't care all that much.