Some *Gulp* Insight From Ad Age?
There is a very intriguing read from Advertising Age, the industry magazine for the ad realm. Titled The Great Disappearance of Wealth, the article elaborates on how over a million households earning $100k+ were lost between 2008-09. There are some meaty tidbits for us to look at, so let’s dive in and see what they’re really saying.
Readily acknowledging we are in a recession, at least their heads are not up their asses. Spewing some numbers and percentages is par for the Ad Age course, nothing really juicy there. Wait a tic, here’s something I have not read before. “..1.2 million disappearing affluent households wasn’t bad enough, we lost 2 million households with incomes of more than $50,000.” They even attach a cute bar graph, to display household income changes. What exactly does that mean, lost 2 million households? How does Advertising Age magazine define a ‘household’?
The most current census data I can find is unfortunately from 2002. Sorry, my bad. Here the census bureau state the mean household consists of 2.58 people. That number feels familiar…..
2 million households, containing roughly 2.5 people per comes out to 5 million individuals who have fallen from one tax bracket into a lower one. There isn’t a lot of cryptojournalism there, but sheesh, that’s a number that lingers in the room like a stale fart. One map Ad Age provides proves to be of great intrigue, so let’s consider some of the information provided.
Maryland, West Virginia, Iowa and North Dakota were the only states that added high-earner populations, along with Washington, D.C. I’ve put three places in bold, because there is a real salient point hidden in this sentence. People who live around the district take this for granted, but this is not for you. If you have never been to Washington D.C. there is something you should understand. The exurbs stretch far and wide around D.C. It is not just Montgomery County and Alexandria, Virginia. People commute from all over the place, even (wait for it………wait on it…….now) West Virginia.
What I am personally reading into this article is, while the United States is enduring a crushing recession, the Metro Washington D.C. area is adding high-earners? Get the fuck outta here. Even Gallup is reporting unemployment over 10%. If you look at real U6 unemployment figures, which take into account people too unemployed for unemployment statistics, we’re talking over 17%. People who think Capitol Hill is out to take our money and run to the hills with it may be right.
Thank you, Ad Age. Hidden in a mundane article about the recession’s effect on the affluent, we catch a whif of information. Makes me understand why people truly hate the Federal Government. To a perceptive eye, it really appears they’re running game. It may be mere coincidence the only places not dying on the vine through these times are within driving distance to suckle off Capitol Hill. Doubt it.
Let me add a short post script. North Dakota was mentioned as a growth state for high-income earners. At this time, it has the only state-run bank. You could make a real strong 10th Amendment case with all this baloney. Another time, perhaps. For now, I’m just glad to have found something informative on the internet. Today is a victory for man!