E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIf you are older, Republican and living in the suburbs on the East coast, congratulations! Chances are higher you made it through the Great Recession relatively unscathed.
That's according to new data from the Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends project.
The report, "One Recession, Two Americas," found that overall about 55 percent of the country has lost ground as a result of the recession, because they experienced a job or income loss, foreclosure or other household financial crisis.
The other 45 percent were classified as having held their own as a result of the recession, because they largely did not experience major problems such as a job loss or difficulties paying the rent or mortgage.
Although the groups were divided almost equally, the demographic makeup of each side was quite different.
The researchers found that about 70 percent of people 65 and older held their own as a result of the recession. Almost exactly the same percentage of people ages 18 to 29 – 69 percent - lost ground because of the recession.
People who lived in the East Coast also were more likely to have held their own than those living in other parts of the country. In addition, rural and suburban dwellers were more likely to have held their own than people who live in big cities.
Also, although 49 percent of Republicans said they had lost ground as a result of the recession, a greater percentage of Democrats and Independent - 57 percent - said they had lost ground.
In addition, about half of the white people surveyed said they had lost ground during the recession, compared with about two-thirds of black people and 70 percent of Hispanics.
The one thing the recession has not divided us along? Gender lines. The researchers found 55 percent of both men and women said they lost ground because of the recession.
The data was based on interviews with nearly 3,000 people conducated in May of this year.
Leave a Comment:
These comments reflect not just the poor economy but also the bias of the reporters of the results. I'll bet that the same group characterized as white, East Coast Republicans are also better educated and older, both groups that nationally have done better, for both men and women, than manufacturing and trades jobs, which are typically Democratic. And are those on the East Coast or middle America to blame for the housing excesses of the West, and Southeast? Remember all those years when people from those areas with inflated property values lorded it over the rest of the country as they relocated or purchased second homes. Sometimes karma does catch up with you. As Mark Twain once noted, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
maybe its because of all the aid the traditionally red states get. one of these days democrats are going to take you up on your offer to stop big government spending. then we will see how the pull yourself by the bootstraps story holds out.
and as to your education claim...not true.
yes. i know. facts have a liberal bias, but thats okay. you can watch fox news. it is a 24 hour 'news' network. they dont have any facts there.
Actually, manufacturers and tradesman would be more likely to be Republican.
zaruski, here's a link that gives more information than that perennial favorite failed left wing "red states get more money" dogma. It's only true if you look at only one set of numbers.
http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/federal-spending-population
ND, for instance, ranks #9 in per capita Fed. expenditures.
Guess what? There are only 650k people in the state - and two large SAC airforce bases maintaining several hundred nuclear warheads, a relatively large Native American Indian population and a ton of other Fed activity in the form of parks and energy. It is a large state, geographically, with a sparse population.
Per capita, it seem like a lot, ranking right behind NY at #8. Total expenditure? $1.4 billion - a rounding error on NY expenditures of $44 billion.
And just a random question, zarusky. The article didn't mention Fox, the OP didn't mention Fox. Can YOU make a comment without bringing up Fox?
The comparison is tax dollars paid to the federal government vs tax dollars received by the federal government. Dollar for dollar, blue states pay more in tax, and dollar for dollar, they get less back.
If ND gets a lot of money from SAC bases, and federal money for parks and energy, well gee, then they ought to just love big federal government. Which is the whole point, these red states that are making bank in federal spending are the exact ones complaining about federal spending.
Wow, another one missing key parts of the issue by a pretty wide margin.
There are ONLY 650K people in ND, earning on average 90% of the national median - including the NAIs and the SAC base staff.
In NY, on the other hand, there are nearly 20 MILLION people, earning statewide about the national average. However, in the NYC metro area, where almost HALF the state's population lives, median incomes are 50% HIGHER than than the national average.
Now, pay attention AGAIN.
The PER CAPITA Federal expenditures for NY and ND are within A DIME of each other, and the vast majority of the expenditures in ND are funding a Constitutionally mandated Federal function - defense.
This survey is based on respondents view that they either lost or didn't lose ground. Most people haven't whipped out a calculator to actually check if they lost ground. Stock market tank, low interest rates, loss of home value. Everyone lost ground ground even billionaires. I think this survey just reflects the optimism or lack there of. On the other hand if you live off a pension or SS, and your house is paid for, then these time aren't so bad ..... Yet.
Right, PragmaticToAFault. Sounds like you don't count indians as ND residents. Meanwhile, watch the ND congressmen and voters squeal if defense or interior tries to cut costs in their state. Much of the money that pours into ND is going into pockets of people in ND, and they're spending it, probably mostly in ND. To say that somehow there's no money per capita because government agencies are spending it is malarky. Your irrationalization is the confused thinking behind the government during the two Bush & Reagan administrations running up more public debt than the US government did in all of the preceding 200 years of the republic.
What a bunch of hogwash, John.
Look at the link I provided. I'm not surprised you totally missed the point, but I am surprised by the margin by which you missed it. None of this has anything to do with Bush or Reagan. Of course Federal money spent in ND benefits it's residents - the part you're missing is the fact that in the example of ND, without those two AFBs and the Native Americans (who are OBVIOUSLY citizens, but get MORE Federal money than a NON-Native American), the amount of Federal money going into the state would be significantly less - and skews the per capita spending because of sparse population. The same analysis can be done for any number of states.
You simply can't draw an conclusion of hypocrisy between a state being a "red" state and a state receiving a high per capita share of government spending, there are too many other factors in play, not least of all the actual AMOUNT of money being spent and more importantly, on what.
Unless, of course, you're being hyperpartisan and trying to make a point where this isn't one to make. Is that you, John?
Which means that without the federal government spending on those two air force bases, North Dakota would be getting a lot less money. So, they love and need that big government cash flow, paid for by liberal taxpayers in Illinois, California, New York, Massachusetts, etc.
That's on the macro scale. On the micro scale, how many tea party types are complaining about big government and entitlement spending... while collecting social security payments? Betcha its a bunch.
Follow the link, if your hyper-partisanship will let you.
You want to rant about big government, you need to get a freaking clue.
The majority of Federal money spent in North Dakota is on DEFENSE, one of the few things that is specifically MANDATED in the Constitution as a responsibilityof the Federal Government. The Federal government spends about 10x the amount spent on defense in ND in NY on welfare, WIC, HUD, etc etc etc.
Who EXACTLY is sucking on the government tit, NY or ND?
And the stupid "tea partiers collect social security but hate government" is a bullcrap red herring as well, which if you stopped and thought about it you would realize. People have paid into, BY FORCE, the social security system their entire working lives - they are, in theory, getting back their OWN MONEY. It's no one collecting SS now's fault that the government couldn't handle the responsbility, but once people have been FORCED to pay into it for 40+ years, are you suggesting they forfeit their benefits? Really?
Jabba, what would those collecting social security payments have to do with not liking big government or spending. Those receiving payments are merely receiving what they have paid in to the system. It's not a hand out - it's not "entitlement spending". Now, if you were talking about welfare or other entitlement programs, you might have a point. But,...you don't.
Cash me out of Social Security. I want no more of it. After the Republicans get control of everything their going to put 1/2 into Wall St and the other 1/2 into SS. Which will bust it even quicker than 2032. I have been in it since 1982, almost 200k into SS. Wall St will crash and the Government will be broke. Sure they can print more money but inflation will eat it up. SOCIAL SECURITY is the biggest PONZI scheme ever invented. I WANT OUT, QUIT STEALING MY MONEY!
More left wing bullcrap, Nukes and you bought it hook, line and sinker.
There are a scant handful of Republicans suggesting privatizing BY CHOICE a small PORTION (NOT half) of SS contributions - if AND ONLY IF you want to.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/sep/02/democratic-exaggerations-about-privatizing-social-/
Now, as far as cashing out and ending SS? I'm all for it. I firmly believe I could do a better job investing and saving my money than the government, and they do NOT have the right to play their massive ponzi scheme with my money.
Also all citizens of ND had great returns on oil production. If idoits in the dumbocrat party would hang up the envior green bull and drill in the Bakken-Williston Basin which has enough crude to last over 2000 years with present methods of drilling. Windmills cann't be used because it will be 25 years before permitting and studies will be done for the grid. Batteries you clowns need to be plugged in and past the Ohio River it is a lot farther driving than 5 miles or 19 city blocks, something beltway and metro idoits cann't seem t get their pointed skulls around!
Self-reporting polls are worthless.
Many of those described are now supporting adult children and their families, so they are not so unscathed after all.
And maybe it has something to do with working 5 12 to 14 hour days a week. NO 2 week vacations, no extended lunch breaks(eat my lunch while reading this) and I don't belong to ANY union, or large group that conducts seminars every 4 months (gubmint guys) 1/2 my life BUILDING my own business-honestly. I resent the stereotypes I am made. Maybe we need a good laywer, and a discrimination suit. I do feel the way I'm being taxed amounts to " TAX slavery" Wrong is always wrong. Lazy in sometimes confused with other economic issues. Just one stupid person's opinion
This just in: Tea sales are up dramatically across the country!
As a somewhat older republican who lives in the suburbs on the East Coast - yes, we still own our home, we are both still employed, we are not under water on our mortgage. BUT, we absolutely did not get through the meltdown "unscathed." Our retirements savings took a huge hit and we are still recovering from that.
As for the rest of it. yes, we count our blessings. But most of our good fortune is due to the fact that we live within our means, drive second hand cars, didn't buy more house than we could comfortably afford, didn't treat our house like a piggy bank, and worked damn hard at our jobs. In fact, my husband got a promotion this year - and he never finished college.
And if being "republican" has anything to do with it - it's because we take fiscal responsibilty very seriously, don't expect other people to support us and didn't have more children than we could afford.
Amen - I haven't reached retirement yet, but I've been politely made fun of by family over my prudence. We had a simple budget plan that necessarily called for all but very little of our money to just get us by in our earliest years. When a long-used car was paid off, that money went into savings. It's sad to hear others complain when they have no idea how we lived and managed with very little. We now have no debt, a home and, apparently, don't deserve any of it to hear the envy and whining.
I should have added that we lost a great deal of our home value as well - our home was assessed (by the town) at a high of $439,000 and now it's assessed at $385,000. But we knew that there was a housing bubble and we knew that a lot of the appreciation on our home was phantom and artificial, we weren't in a position to sell and move to a cheaper location when the house was at it's highest assessment, we have a young son who is thriving in our local school system - so we're not torn up about it. And we owe less than a third of the present value of the home.
Fiscal conservatism is its own reward, isn't it?
Too bad it's gotten all tangled up with totally NON fiscal conservative Republicans.
I understand why the left wing is confused - people still call G. Bush a conservative, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Yes, exactly. Don't get me wrong - I thought George Bush was a decent guy with character. But I disagreed with a great deal of his policies and he was absolutely not a fiscal conservative.
this elderly democrat learned a bitter lesson when half my 401K disappeared in the dot-com meltdown. from that time on all my savings stayed in money market accounts. and when i retired in 2003 i paid cash for much less house than i wanted. zero debt is the way to go.
i feel sorry for those who drank the koolaid and thought that leverage, credit, whatever you call it, was somehow different from debt
andy, from a fiscally conservative individual - good for you. In the current climate, don't be surprised if your acquired "wealth" ((rich will be dumbdowned) is not a tax target in the future.
Well that is probably because they were living off of social security and pensions...duh!!! Why don't we pull those progressive liberal and union related benefits from them and see how they fare. It is nauseating that those that soak up the good life from the progress of social programs always want to take them away from others. I wish they had to live by their own ideals and then they could feed on cat food like they think that everyone else should when times get hard.
People over 65 held their own better during the recession and were generally better of.......because....
Older folks(over 62 ) can start collecting social security and Medicare at 65. Their safety net is still holding.
Despite federal defecits, government run programs(SS and medicare/ medecaide) and such, older folks are the largest benefituaries of government programs. Yet, they are the same ones at tea party rallies blasting government "entitlements" or over-spending!!!!!!!
And you wonder why older folks are better of and still have time to attend tea rallies!!!!!!!
Richie - I'm not even close to retirement, I will probably never get to collect social security and yes, I am against taxpayer funded "entitlements". And you know what? I would happily relinquish my claim to social security - if the gov't refunded ALL of the money I have paid into it since I was SEVEN (worked for a family-owned business) - WITH COMPOUNDED INTEREST. Same with medicare.
In truth, I would guess that EVERYONE has been affected by the Great Recession in some way. Those that have saved and invested and lived prudently likely have been able the weather the storm better than others.
I was fortunate enough to have lived through the Great Depression--I'm not actually old enough but all four of my grandparents made sure that I learned their lessons! What were those lessons?
It's funny how many people assume that because someone is educated then they are republican. I'm from Boston and as I see it, a high majority of the people around here are college educated. It seems that in this area anyway, the more education you receive, the more your mind is open to new ideas and other ways of living, i.e. progressive liberals. I believe that education helps to open your mind and keep you from being ignorant aka republican.
And the most ignorant, close-minded and judgmental people I know are "progressives."