Pew Report January 2020 on incomes and prosperity

It must have hurt to have to say good things about the Trump economy or the nation in general in this Pew (left of center) Report, which came out in Jan 2020 before Trump halted some travel from China in an attempt to stop the spread of the virus. (In hindsight lab leaked viruses laughed at those regulations, just like Pelosi did.) The report does take the long view going back decades to find slow growth and little change. But I did notice that the report noted the shrinking middle class--because people were moving up, not down.

"The unemployment rate in November 2019 was 3.5%, a level not seen since the 1960s."
". . . household incomes, which have rebounded in recent years."

"In 2018, the median income of U.S. households stood at $74,600. This was 49% higher than its level in 1970, when the median income was $50,200." (Incomes are expressed in 2018 dollars.)

"On balance, there was more movement up the income ladder than down the income ladder. [since 1970]"

"Since 1980, incomes have increased faster for the most affluent families – those in the top 5% – than for families in the income strata below them." (If you look at the inflation adjusted charts, this doesn't seem to be so, but if wealth creates wealth and there's been a huge increase in dual income families in the last 40 years, I would agree. In the long run, wealth transfers from the government from the middle class to the lower class may help consumption, but it doesn't build wealth to be passed along by generations.)

Several paragraphs in the report note the rising incomes of the upper income, without noting the disparity in marriage rates. Obviously a three person household of a single mother and two children, is going to be less than a three person household of a married mother, father and child. Income gaps between white and Asian households can usually be adjusted for marriage and number of family members. Childhood poverty can almost all be explained by the difference in marriage rates.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/?

How Black, Hispanic, Asian, White households compare in wealth | Pew Research Center

That explains a lot—church attendance restrictions, Pew survey

59% of Democrats who attended church this past summer either in person or on-line heard sermons about supporting Black Lives Matter.  29% of Republicans who attended church this past summer either in person or on-line heard sermons about supporting Black Lives Matter.  But did either group of Christians hear the truth about BLM, its mission statement, and its role in the destruction of liberty and property in Democrat run cities this past summer? Were they told that the three women who founded it are radical Marxist lesbians who don’t believe in private property or the nuclear family? 

Only 42% of Republicans who attended church this past summer either in person or on-line heard sermons in support of abortion, and only 28% of Democrats hear a similar sermon. And yet, about 1/3 of the abortions in the U.S. are for black women.  Who is the smallest and weakest and most needy among us?  Certainly not the adults rioting and looting on behalf of the mission of BLM—American blacks are the top 5% in wealth of the global population of blacks, most of whom live in Africa.

The headlines in this Pew article are very misleading.  About 42% of Americans never attend church, so when the story about accepting the rules imposed on churches includes “Americans” one needs to read the entire article.  No, the majority of church goers were NOT OK with the restrictions, some of which were far more restrictive than other gatherings. 

Actual numbers are not given in the Pew study, however, even in a 2015 Caddell poll, 46% of Democrats never attended church and 24% of Republicans never attended. And when separated by ideology, only 18% of liberals said they regularly attend church and 62% said they never go. For conservatives, 41% regularly attend and 34% never go.

https://www.pewforum.org/2020/08/07/americans-oppose-religious-exemptions-from-coronavirus-related-restrictions/

I don’t have a smart phone, but 8 out of 10 do

If telemedicine/virtual care were so wonderful, and it didn't mean poorer care and limited access why weren't they using it before to solve all those health care gaps we'd heard about? Almost all poor and minority groups have smart phones. According to Pew (in 2019) black and Hispanic adults have mobile devices such as smartphones in shares similar to whites. About eight-in-ten whites, blacks and Hispanics own a smartphone.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/20/smartphones-help-blacks-hispanics-bridge-some-but-not-all-digital-gaps-with-whites/

1960 was a long time ago

“The Democrats’ candidate [JFK] in 1960 headlined freedom as the issue defining his campaign. Sixty years later, Democrats are moving down the road to nominating a socialist, pushing freedom as an American ideal out of the picture.”

“It is a generation [18-29] to whom much has been given and from whom little is expected.

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960, America’s youth still faced a military draft. In 1960, 72% of Americans over 18 were married, compared with 50% today.

According to Pew, 78% of those ages 18 to 29 say it is acceptable for an unmarried couple to live together, even if they don’t intend to get married.

From 2009 to 2019, there was a drop of 16% among those ages 23 to 39 who identify as Christian and an increase of 13% of those self-identifying as religiously unaffiliated.”

Democrat youth believe socialism is their future. They are the direction of the Democrat Party.  Get out while you still can.

https://www.dothaneagle.com/opinion/commentary/young-democrats-lose-interest-in-freedom/article_ba70a141-9b74-55db-b513-1a1853c52409.html?

That pesky male female gap

The Pew Research Center found that 2019 will be the first year in which women will comprise the majority of the college-educated labor force in the United States. Women first received more than half of the bachelor’s degrees awarded in the 1981-82 academic year—almost 40 years ago.  Today they earn about 57% of bachelor’s degrees. The number of college-educated women in the adult population (ages 25 and older) surpassed the number of college-educated men in 2007. Does anyone fret about that imbalance created by loans, scholarships, affirmative action and unfair regulations?

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/20/u-s-women-near-milestone-in-the-college-educated-labor-force/ft_19-06-20_womenlaborforce_women-now-half-of-us-college-educated-labor-force-2/

So why are we still hearing about the “gap,” especially since for about 4 decades the college enrollment rate for females has exceeded males and for the younger demographic there is no gap given the same starting place and position? 

There’s a lot of mischief in gap statistics.  Especially college degrees.  Women, even in the same fields as men, may select different specialties—pediatrics instead of neuroscience, family law instead of corporate law, bibliographer instead of library director, or they may want to be an artist instead of a plumber or electrician. Women may decide to raise their own children and “stop-out” for 5-10 years, reentering the labor market with reduced value to employers.  Married women with husbands of equal education and financial status often have the luxury to leave the medical or law fields to start a business in a completely different direction such as interior design or selling craft items. 

Unfortunately, these “justice” studies rarely compare women with women—female doctors with female pre-school directors, or female TV hosts with female owners of bed and breakfasts, or female chefs with female dishwashers, female traffic court judges with female circuit court judges. Why not compare single women who are heads of household with married women who have no children?  In the universe of women employees there are gaps with men, but there are overlaps also, with low end of the bell curve  the men who clean the offices of  wealthy women politicians like Pelosi and Warren who are sitting at the high end of the bell curve.

What is concerning to me is that college educated women increasingly vote for Democrats, seeing themselves still as needing additional help from the government to manage their lives.

Can media survive the Trump presidency?

Journalistic standards were dropping 3-4 decades before Trump won, and the editorial bias was to the left. However, once the print media had to compete with the internet media things really got serious.  The media, both old school and new, are dependent on ads for income.  Sure, some have subscriptions, (one is actually owned by the richest man in the world and could care less about accuracy) but now it's all about the click count or full page ads of faculty names or companies supporting climate scares or fighting the rape culture. If you've noticed, some of the on-line content not only isn't information or commentary, but it's disguised advertising. Pew says newspaper print ad revenue fell by 2/3 between 2006 and 2016. But what brings on the clicks?  Any salacious and twisted story about President Trump.  They helped create his campaign by giving him so much coverage, and now they're still dependent on him while they attempt to destroy him, but in the process use him to fatten their sad bank accounts.

Yes, Trump blasts "fake news" and that gets journalists worked up who then fight back, but unfortunately they don't even see their own biases and some really believe they are being objective and fair. And then there are revelations like those of Andrew McCabe's book which just prove him right again.

Conservatives knew for years before the 2016 election that they weren't being treated fairly, that the intellectual "elites" in the media, academe, DC, the state houses, and entertainment were slamming, ridiculing and dissing them. So it's been a perfect storm--falling advertising revenue, loss of readership by customers who don't trust them (most people don't enjoy being insulted by someone who wants to sell them something), and a President who calls them out on their bias.

I would like to see the old print media survive, and the web media improve, but they've got a few miles to go to win back the country and become solvent again.



"If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable."  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html

Women in technology fields

I'm not the least bit concerned about the underrepresentation of women in the tech industry. Those companies hire those who can make them a profit, including a disproportionate number of foreign workers. They all lean heavily to the Left, so take it up with the protestors. Women also don't choose the same career track in college, and when they do get into tech/computer work, many don't like the culture, nerdy, male and strange. No one worried that in my career field (library science) women outnumber the men at all levels. Women outnumber men in almost all the professional colleges--law, medicine, pharmacy, veterinary medicine, and Dartmouth has reported finally women outnumber men in engineering. In many cities, women in similar age groups and education level earn more than similarly qualified men. Where are the protests? A capitalist will look at the bottom line, and if that bottom is on a woman, she gets the job.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/10/women-are-more-concerned-than-men-about-gender-discrimination-in-tech-industry/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2016/04/04/u-s-cities-where-women-earn-more-than-men/#5645bc4c4544

Many Democrats believe churches are the problem, but media are OK!

"If you still wonder why liberal Democrats can’t get elected except in deep blue urban areas (hint: it’s not a Russian conspiracy) and why they seem so out of touch with everyday working Americans, a new Pew Research Center survey may hold a clue. It found that 36% of Democrats believe that churches have a negative impact on American society. Among liberal Democrats, that jumps to 44%. Only 40% of liberals think that churches have a positive impact on society. By contrast, just 14% of Republicans have a negative view of churches. And what do a majority of liberals think does have a positive impact on American society? Fifty-one percent said the national news media do. Enough said." Mike Huckabee

Marriage and wealth

Americans working in managerial or professional occupations boast an average net worth of $1.06 million and that's much more than roughly $269,000 net worth for people working in technical, sales, or services jobs. (Motley Fool, Jan. 2016) But also, that's household wealth--and managerial and professional people are more likely to be married (that's 2 incomes) than lower income people, to have graduated from college, and to save and invest. Marriage benefits for black couples are remarkable, but played down in government social studies (that said, black women benefit less than black men).

Marriage and education also provide health benefits, not only does education give them a boost, but even having children who go to college adds to their life span (Pew Research, July 2014). Professionals are less likely to be obese or smokers--maybe their kids nag them. Marriage provides other benefits like inheritance from 2 families even if it's a small amount like insurance or real estate. We have no control over our ethnicity, but Asian Americans are much better at checking all the boxes. 84% of Asian American children live in 2 parent homes.

What is common sense?

 The joke is that common sense isn't very common.  But what is it?

Pew Research has studied the effect of religion on every day life and decisions, and arranged it by state. The percent of adults in Ohio who say they look to religion most for guidance on right and wrong is only 33% and 47% say they look to common sense. However, in 2007 it was 27% look to religion and 57% to common sense. Maybe the recession sent a few of them back to church.  Only 32% of Ohioans say there are clear standards of right and wrong, whereas 66% says it depends on the situation. 

For my generation "common sense" probably was the values and ethics handed down by parents and grandparents, which they most likely learned in church.  My parents were born in 1912 and 1913, they both grew up on farms, attended one room schools, and neither one had any choice about going to church, and in those days that meant worship with adults.  They heard about how treat their neighbor and the poor, they knew from observation and lectures about an honest day's work, they were told the wages of sin is death.  My siblings and I heard a similar message either in church, at school, or from our parents and it was reinforced in club activities like Girl Scouts and 4-H or church choir practice and in our friends' homes.

   If you look at this topic on the internet, where I found this picture, you'll find all sorts of negative comments on how religion and common sense conflict.  I don't think so. Everything from saving for the future, to being faithful to family and friends, to working hard, to staying in the race, to the importance of cleanliness and good health, to speaking truth is covered in the Bible, and probably in most religions. If you're prejudiced and cherry picking, you can probably make your point, but if you look at how life generally works out, religion is the winner.   

I suppose it depends on your definition of wealth

Across racial and educational groups, households with children have fewer resources than those without.

• Typical white, college-educated couples without children have nearly three times more wealth than their peers with children.
• Typical black, non-college-educated couples without children earn 57 percent higher incomes than similarly situated black couples with children.
• Typical Hispanic, non-college-educated couples without children have 3½ times more savings than their peers with children.

The problem with this study is it doesn't always compare apples with apples. Notice, minorities don't have a comparative category for college-educated although I'm sure it's somewhere in the data.  Even going into the visual comparison (17 family types), the side bar explanations varied by group. You'll need to download the entire data set to avoid author bias.

 http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/analysis/2016/04/07/what-your-household-type-reveals-about-your-financial-security

Highly religious Americans are happier and more involved with family

Pew Research has determined this--but also says highly religious Americans are also no more likely to exercise and eat right or recycle than the not so religious.  Well, go for what's important and work on the less important stuff.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (April 12, 2016) – A new Pew Research Center study of the ways religion influences the daily lives of Americans finds that people who are highly religious are more engaged with their extended families, more likely to volunteer, more involved in their communities and generally happier with the way things are going in their lives.

For example, 47% of highly religious Americans – defined as those who say they pray every day and attend religious services each week – gather with extended family at least once or twice a month. By comparison, just 30% of Americans who are less religious gather as frequently with their extended families. Roughly two-thirds of highly religious adults (65%) say they have donated money, time or goods to help the poor in the past week, compared with 41% who are less religious. And 40% of highly religious U.S. adults describe themselves as “very happy,” compared with 29% of those who are less religious.

However, in several other areas of day-to-day life – including interpersonal interactions, attention to health and fitness, and social and environmental consciousness – Pew Research Center surveys find that people who pray every day and regularly attend religious services appear to be very similar to those who are not as religious.

For instance, highly religious people are about as likely as other Americans to say they lost their temper recently, and they are only marginally less likely to say they told a white lie in the past week. When it comes to diet and exercise, highly religious Americans are no less likely to have overeaten in the past week, and they are no more likely to say they exercise regularly. Highly religious people also are no more likely than other Americans to recycle. And when making decisions about what goods and services to buy, highly religious Americans are no more inclined to consider the manufacturers’ environmental records or whether companies pay employees a fair wage.

Additional key findings in the report include:

Three-quarters of adults – including 96% of members of historically black Protestant churches and 93% of evangelical Protestants – say they thanked God for something in the past week. And two-thirds, including 91% of those in the historically black Protestant tradition and 87% of evangelicals, say they asked God for help during the past week. One-third of religiously unaffiliated Americans say they thanked God for something in the past week, and one-in-four have asked God for help in the past week.

Nearly half of Americans (46%) say they talk with their immediate families about religion at least once or twice a month. About a quarter (27%) say they talk about religion at least once a month with their extended families, and 33% say they discuss religion as often with people outside their families. Having regular conversations about religion is most common among evangelicals and people who belong to churches in the historically black Protestant tradition. By contrast, relatively few religious “nones” say they discuss religion with any regularity.

One-third of American adults (33%) say they volunteered in the past week. This includes 10% who say they volunteered mainly through a church or religious organization and 22% who say their volunteering was not done through a religious organization.

Three-in-ten adults say they meditated in the past week to help cope with stress. Regularly using meditation to cope with stress is more common among highly religious people than among those who are less religious (42% vs. 26%).

Nine-in-ten adults say the quality of a product is a “major factor” they take into account when making purchasing decisions, and three-quarters focus on the price. Far fewer – only about one-quarter of adults – say a company’s environmental responsibility (26%) or whether it pays employees a fair wage (26%) are major factors in their purchasing decisions. Highly religious adults are no more or less likely than those who are less religious to say they consider a company’s environmental record and fair wage practices in making purchasing decisions.

Three-quarters of Catholics say they look to their own conscience “a great deal” for guidance on difficult moral questions. Far fewer Catholics say they look a great deal to the Catholic Church’s teachings (21%), the Bible (15%) or the pope (11%) for guidance on difficult moral questions.

When asked to describe, in their own words, what being a “moral person” means to them, 23% of religious “nones” cite the golden rule or being kind to others, 15% mention being a good person and 12% mention being tolerant and respectful of others.

These are among the latest findings of Pew Research Center’s U.S. Religious Landscape Study. Two previous reports on the Landscape Study, based on a 2014 telephone survey of more than 35,000 adults, examined the changing religious composition of the U.S. public and described the religious beliefs, practices and experiences of Americans. This new report also draws on the national telephone survey but is based primarily on a supplemental survey among 3,278 participants in the Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel, a nationally representative group of randomly selected U.S. adults surveyed online and by mail. The supplemental survey was designed to go beyond traditional measures of religious behavior – such as worship service attendance, prayer and belief in God – to examine the ways people exhibit (or do not exhibit) their religious beliefs, values and connections in their day-to-day lives.

What Americans really think about the recovery

According to a Pew Report on what the American public believes has happened in the economy, “72% say that, in general, the government’s policies since the recession have done little or nothing to help middle class people, and nearly as many say they have provided little or no help for small businesses (68%) and the poor (65%). These opinions have changed little in recent years, and differ only modestly across demographic and income categories. There are significant partisan differences in these views, though majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents say that government policies following the start of the recession have done little or nothing for the poor and the middle class. Similarly, more think household incomes have recovered than did so two years ago. But while 51% say there has been a partial recovery in incomes (up from 42% in September 2013), just 4% say they have fully recovered. About four-in-ten 42% think household incomes have hardly come back from the recession.”

Many believe that banks, corporations, the wealthy have benefited from government policies since the “Great Recession.”  I personally think politicians have said very little about the poor in recent years, and increasingly emphasize the middle class not making progress.  And if they do move ahead, then they complain about a gap.

“The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted February 18-22, 2015 among a national sample of 1,504 adults, 18 years of age or older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia (526 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 978 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 559 who had no landline telephone).”

Internet users say they are better informed than 5 years ago

I'm definitely better informed about some rather specialized things than I was 5 years ago--my 2nd cousins once removed, Beyonce and the Kardashians, crazy scandals of the Obama administration, but I think I know less local stuff since we no longer get a newspaper. I did all my research for my new kitchen appliances on the internet, and they still are not properly installed and we're looking at January 2015 (purchased in September). I don't use a cell phone except to call my son, but I saw a woman at Kohl's this morning doing amazing things with hers that I didn't even know were possible. I'm using the internet more for recipes, and my own file less. Data isn't information isn't knowledge isn't wisdom, as the sign in my office used to say.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/12/08/better-informed/

Report is based an online probability survey conducted September 12-18, 2014 among a sample of 1,066 adult internet users, 18 years of age or older.

Promise zones instead of jobs?

Obama's retread speeches are snooze-worthy, the income gap, class envy, "investments" (aka more taxes) in promise zones (with Democrats in trouble)--anything to avoid the elephant in the room--Obamacare. How does raising the minimum wage and allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the country help unemployed black youth, whose work prospects are already dismal? The unemployment rate in December fell because of the numbers leaving the labor force and disproportionately for blacks, "with the labor force participation rate for African Americans dropping by 0.3 percentage points to 60.2 percent, the lowest rate since December of 1977."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2014/01/unemployments-slow-drip-top-economists-on-the-2013-jobs-record.html

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/unemployment-among-black-youth-393-higher-national-rate

People of little or no faith more likely to vote for Obama

Religious/faith people voted for Romney if they were white evangelicals, but not enough voted, period. It's one of the flaws of being a conservative. Let someone else do it. Or, God will take care of it. Black Christians overwhelmingly voted for Obama, even with all his failures and inattention to them these last 4 years.  (Unemployment in October was 14.3% for blacks.)  "Other" and "unaffiliated" voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

And now the finger waggers are saying the Republicans (remember the ones who didn't boo God?) are too religious. I'd say the weren't religious enough if they didn't vote their values. Cafeteria Catholics went for Obama.

Pew Forum on Religion

Pew Report on the 2008 “Lessons of the Election”

Very little in depth journalism; little investigative punch; reporters drowning in information from various IT sources; newsroom cutbacks hurt.

“But the bottom line is this: In 2008—and much the same could be said in 2000 with the election of President George W. Bush — we elected a president about whom we knew remarkably little, and most of it came from the impression they wanted to create, not from things the press uncovered. That was less true in the elections of Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.”

Link here.

Polling the pollsters

I asked Google if Pew Research Center was liberal or conservative, because I've been reading Pew research since the late 80s and have always seen it tracking a bit to the left--not horribly, but certainly there. While I was looking for some evidence (haven't found it yet) I turned up this:

Good Morning America on Wednesday reported on a new Quinnipiac poll that highlighted leads for Barack Obama in Florida and Ohio, but completely skipped the network's own national poll that found a tight race. A September 30 ABC News/Washington Post survey concluded that Obama leads Senator McCain by four points -- 50 to 46 percent. In contrast, GMA last week trumpeted an ABC News/Washington Post poll that showed Obama with a nine point lead. On September 24, former Democratic aide-turned journalist George Stephanopoulos touted the larger lead and asserted, "...You have to go back to 1948 for the last time when a candidate having this kind of a lead, in late September, lost." He mentioned that on the issue of the economy, the Illinois Senator is "blowing away John McCain." An onscreen graphic proclaimed: "Obama Surges Ahead." But, just a week later, GMA not only ignored findings suggesting a closer national race, the morning show highlighted a rival poll's state numbers. CyberAlert (which tracks liberal media)

The search developed because I had been listening to an NPR program which interviewed a Pew Research person who reported that confidence in the media was as low as it had been since 1973, and people didn't believe what they were being told about the bailout. But he said the media were misleading us about the bailout--at least I think that's what he said, and that calls and e-mails to Congresses were politically driven. Only the most vocal and political contacted their Congressional representative. Imagine! Wouldn't that be true of bloggers and the foot soldiers in the campaigns, too? On what basis should the electorate be contacting their representatives?

I didn't spend much time looking through the results, because Pew has set the rules for polling and it's difficult to accurately assess your own bias. But I did rediscover (used to know this) that the U.S. has the lowest voting turnout of functioning democracies. 2004 numbers were higher (60%), but usually it's about 50% (The Psychology of Media and Politics By George A. Comstock, 2005).

Everyone who says she doesn't pay attention to polls, including me, is always happy to see her own team go up in the polls.