When these are the facts....
- 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
- 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
- 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
- Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
- Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
- In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
(Business Insider, 7/15)
... Then people tend to get agitated when they learn that some part-time city employees are earning $100,000 a year.
Yes, it's another "can you believe this?" financial story of a California town -- specifically, a suburb where one in six live in poverty. The struggling taxpayers in this community have been footing the bill for outrageous city worker salaries. Investor's Business Daily (7/26) reports that:
"...3 officials quit city jobs in poverty-stricken Bell, Calif., amid an outcry over their combined $1.6-mil salaries. Residents threatened to oust the mayor and 3 city council members who still make $100,000 a year for part-time work."
The city manager of Bell, which is southeast of Los Angeles, earns a reported salary of $787,000 a year.
Public outrage was expressed at a recent city meeting. The basic message: "Throw 'em out!"
This episode comes at a time when the National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, and U.S. Conference of Mayors are teaming up to get the federal government to pick up the tab for local government payrolls. These three groups, says Reuters, are aiming "to press Congress on pending legislation that would give them $75 billion over two years to preserve jobs."
With the November mid-term elections only a few months away, this level of public anger at government officials could dominate the outcome at the state and national level.
The new science of Socionomics analyzes public mood -- such as the anger expressed in Bell, CA -- and forecasts events (such as elections) based on where social mood is heading. Here's an excerpt from the March 2010 Socionomist:
"Socionomics predicts that during a major social mood decline, four distinct political trends emerge. They all fall under the banner, 'Change'...
The electorate becomes increasingly polarized and splintered.
Third parties gain popularity.
Incumbents are voted out.
Women are more likely to gain office.
The anti-incumbent climate makes now a good time to run for office. The problem is with re-election. Just being in office during a major mood decline is bad for the legacy."
Social mood determines the outcomes of elections. And the lack of understanding of changing social mood can produce flawed analysis among political and military leaders.
In the June issue of The Socionomist, read about these "political and military analytical flaws" from our guest commentator who serves at a nuclear research reactor. Also read the description of what really drives the character of social events -- including stock market trends, elections, and even possible future military action.
Robert Prechter turns conventional thinking on its head in a recent interview, which you can also read in the June issue.