You know, maybe some of the political geniuses and economists should stop talking about how great the economy is and actually get beyond the talking points of the White House and look at a tiny fact to get a clue about why people are angry: household wealth. After understanding those number, they'd also understand that part of the problem has been, in fact, bi-partisanship.
Wealth of households? It sucks and it's getting worse, per my friends at the Center for Economic and Policy Research:
Between 1989 and 2013, mean household net worth rose 54 percent—from $342,300 to $528,400. However, these gains are exaggerated by the fact that the population of the United States was older in 2013 than it was in 1989. Further, looking across the distribution of wealth it is clear that the gains were not evenly received; median net worth
fell over the 24-year period—from $85,100 in 1989 to$81,400 in 2013. Finally, these numbers do not include the value of defined-benefit pensions, which were much more common in 1989.
Taken together, the wealth numbers present a much more pessimistic view of economic progress in the United States than the simple average suggests.
...In general, wealth grew from 1989 to 2007 and shrank thereafter, as the bubbles in residential and commercial real estate burst, and the stock market fell. Though the stock market had nearly recovered in inflation-adjusted terms to its 2007 peak, house prices had not. Thus, housing equity rates for the highly leveraged households in the bottom three-fifths plummeted while residences represented a much smaller share of assets among those with greater net wealth. This dynamic helped increase the differences in wealth between the top and bottom.[emphasis added]
And:
When compared with the previous Surveys of Consumer Finance, it can generally be said that wealth grew in the United States from 1989 to 2007 and shrank from then on. At the time of the 2013 survey, the stock market had almost recovered to its 2007 peak. House prices had not. With house prices representing a larger share of assets for the bottom three fifths of Americans, this helped increase the differences in wealth between the top and the bottom. All in all, the results of the survey yield a pessimistic picture of economic progress since the end of the recession.
I've been amused and appalled (depending on whether I've had enough coffee) at the way in which political leaders and economist just can't get why Americans are not happier and why they don't share the apparent joy of the "strong economy" with all the "green shoots" of evidence.
Well, the above should tell us a lot: people don't feel wealthy because they aren't (yes, it's true, relative to someone living on a trash heap in Mumbai, people are better off in many ways.
Taken the above with the stupidity around the hype on job reports--elites, including Democrats, talk about “full employment”, which they mean 5.5 percent or so–which, back in the day, would be seen as unconscionably high; full employment, at worse, was pegged at 4 percent (and could probably go a bit lower). But, there is an acceptance of a certain level of desperation now and exploitation that would have been seen as immoral say 30-40 years ago.
And that's where we come to bi-partisanship: the desire for more "bi-partisanship" ignores the fact that there has been a huge amount of bi-partisanship...which has caused the poverty workers find themselves in today. Trade deals, tax cuts, the elimination of Glass-Steagall (which was a significant cause of the financial crisis and the loss in home values--thank you, Bill Clinton) and on, and on.
I'm not for bi-partisanship. More and more, I'm for breaking shit.