Dunno, I just watched it via a DSL line and it worked fine.I tried watching this at pbs.org but the data rate was so slow as to make the video unwatchable. I don't have that problem at other sites. Is PBS routinely overloaded? Is there a better time of day?
I have basic speed DSL and had to watch 5-10 minutes at a time, allowing it to rebuffer.I tried watching this at pbs.org but the data rate was so slow as to make the video unwatchable. I don't have that problem at other sites. Is PBS routinely overloaded? Is there a better time of day?
You hit the nail on the head Meadbh - I am indeed an INTJ, like you!Oh Tom, Tom.....this is the way I used to think, as an INTJ like you (I assume). Those are very important avenues to explore. But the power of stories is evident here. Look how much interest and debate this program has generated here!
So, what gives? Why are businesses in the Neumanns' and Stanleys' area paying so much less? Their profitability must have been low compared to elsewhere. Why?
Or perhaps the stagnant economic condition there drags everything down, and the surplus of labor drives down the hourly rate. Fine, but why don't businesses see that as an advantage and set up shops there, instead of in other places where they had to pay a lot more for labor?
I would suggest to PBS to research into questions like the above.
Maybe, but why be dark? We'll need more government workers for starters, to man these unemployment lines. Look how many more hands will be available for burglary, armed robbery, and peddling narcotics? Don't forget the augmented need for tattoo parlors. And then if we can figure out how to pay them, we will need more cops, more prosecutors and public defenders, more probation officers, more judges and bailiffs-it gives endless employment possibilities. I see America on the cusp of a new golden age!I fear that the automation of the service sector will free our labor up for standing in the unemployment line.
We could debate median/average income increases tell the cows come home. I could literally write a novella length book on how silly it is that our government uses the same methodology to collect data on income that we relied on during the New Deal. Although census workers are now allowed to use that new fangled invention the telephone instead of in person interviews, although cellphone interviews aren't allowed. In short in world were every Walmart manager can tell your precisely how many green shirts were sold before St. Patty's day for the past decade it is crazy how crappy our economic data collection is. So when people quote stuff about income. I want to know how do you define it and how did you collect the data, cause after looking into the sausage factory. I don't really believe it.
But when people say the average family is worse off than they were in the 1970, because yes a male with a high school diploma wages have gone up minimally since 1970. We are ignoring a host of other factors, rising wages woman, rising wages for the twice as many folks with a college education. 30% increases in real household wages since 1970, smaller households meaning more spending per person.
To me if we want to measure prosperity we just you look around at what people do and own . It is far more important what that income can and does purchases so some examples. .
No way is that accurate. Most of the stuff Americans "possess" and have purchased they don't own outright at all . They buy stuff on credit. They can buy much more than they should. Tracking how much stuff we possess is a very bad indicator. Income is very accurate and the numbers come from income tax and wage reported to the IRS from employers. Plus they compare that to previous years records using the same data gathering method and parameters used decades before. You cannot say that isn't much more accurate than how many things people nowadays consume or purchase. That's only an annual barometer for how greedy we have become compared to previous generations (especially since they had no credit cards back when my grandpa was my age)!
Maybe, but why be dark? We'll need more government workers for starters, to man these unemployment lines. Look how many more hands will be available for burglary, armed robbery, and peddling narcotics? Don't forget the augmented need for tattoo parlors. And then if we can figure out how to pay them, we will need more cops, more prosecutors and public defenders, more probation officers, more judges and bailiffs-it gives endless employment possibilities. I see America on the cusp of a new golden age!
Ha
No way is that accurate. Most of the stuff Americans "possess" and have purchased they don't own outright at all . They buy stuff on credit. They can buy much more than they should. Tracking how much stuff we possess is a very bad indicator. Income is very accurate and the numbers come from income tax and wage reported to the IRS from employers. Plus they compare that to previous years records using the same data gathering method and parameters used decades before. You cannot say that isn't much more accurate than how many things people nowadays consume or purchase. That's only an annual barometer for how greedy we have become compared to previous generations (especially since they had no credit cards back when my grandpa was my age)!
I am not sure where do to start here. Do you have a source that say most stuff American's possess they owe credit? If so care to provide a link.
....
Now I don't claim to be an expert, although I sure I know more than the average Joe. So if you have had a career working for the Census Bureau, BLS, Federal Reserve, the economics department at top university or JP Morgan, I'd be happy to be educated.
Otherwise unless you back up your arguments with links to reputable source, I have hard time taking them very seriously. ....
Dang. The "factionistas" are at it again, expecting links an documentation. What a buzz-kill.
Reminds me of a boss, and good friend (not at the same time) who often said "never let facts get in the way of a good story".Sorry, I forgot we were just supposed to immerse ourselves in the 'narrative'.
Facts? Facts! We don't need no stinkin' facts!
-ERD50
Reminds me of a boss, and good friend (not at the same time) who often said "never let facts get in the way of a good story".
You don't need no stinkin facts or links to know common knowledge about the extent if consumer debt. Watch the nightly news. You will get a figure at least once per week!
Sheesh!
You don't need no stinkin facts or links to know common knowledge about the extent if consumer debt. Watch the nightly news. You will get a figure at least once per week!
Sheesh!
Hey, you're the one who said " Most of the stuff Americans "possess" and have purchased they don't own outright at all ."
I guess you're speaking for yourself? Everything in our house is owned outright by us.
You don't need no stinkin facts or links to know common knowledge about the extent if consumer debt. Watch the nightly news. You will get a figure at least once per week!
Sheesh!
The average US household credit card debt stands at $15,325, the result of a small number of deeply indebted households forcing up the numbers. Based on an analysis of Federal Reserve statistics and other government data, the average household owes $7,149 on their cards; looking only at indebted households, the average outstanding balance rises to $15,325. Here are statistics, trends, studies and methodology behind the average U.S. household debt.
...
in total, American consumers owe:
$11.16 trillion in debt
A decrease of 1.6% from last year
$856.5 billion in credit card debt
$7.86 trillion in mortgages
$999.3 billion in student loans
An increase of 6.1% from last year
clifp said:Mostly true but what the media is generally horrible about is providing context.
So for instance this site nerdwallet.com provides some pretty good debt numbers,and I cross checked them with the Federal Reserve numbers. (I should add I trust Feds numbers cause in my experience banks seem to be pretty good about keep track of loan balances etc.) As opposed to a census worker spending an hour asking somebody questions like "in the last 3 months how much did you receive in dividends"
Here are some highlights.
Now 11 trillion in debt sounds huge, but not so huge in the context of 16 trillion economy.
But more importantly look at the dramatic increase of the wealth of the country $65 trillion at the peak in 2007 and with the stock and housing markets both rebounding we will almost certainly see a record in 2013.
The chart is unadjusted for inflation or population growth and according to Wiki but even after adjusting for those two factors you end up with doubling of wealth from 1970 to to day. As the wiki article illustrated while the rich clearly got much richer since 1989 (i.e the same time as the documentary) even those in the bottom 20% got richer. The only group that got poorer is those without high school diploma (like Mr. Stanley) and that it turn is a shrinking group.
But of course this type of context is never provided by the media.