S u p p o r t


Search for
This Site
The Web

Get a free search
engine for your site


January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004


Our goal is to continue providing free access to information related to the Asian/Asian Pacific American (aka Asians in the United States - US Asians) in our respective communities within music, history, films, media, sports, advocacy, grass root issues, etc.


If America Is richer, why are people and their families feel less secure. For the last 25 years, government and business have forced workers to take on mounting risk that was previously on the broad shoulders of business and government to the backs of working families like his.

The "Old School Way of Thinking" is that you work hard and give it your all, and the job will be there for you. It's different today. Over the last three decades, working families have faced ever- changing — and, for the most part, increasingly more perilous — risk- reward bargains.

Starting in the late 1970s, the nation's leaders sought to break a corrosive cycle of rising inflation and stagnating output by remaking the U.S. economy in the image of its frontier predecessor — deregulating industries, shrinking social programs and promoting a free-market ideal in which everyone must forge his or her own path, free to rise or fall on merit or luck. On the whole, their effort to transform the economy has succeeded.

But the economy's makeover has come at a large and largely unnoticed price: a measurable increase in the risks that Americans must bear as they provide for their families, pay for their houses, save for their retirements and grab for the good life.

A broad array of protections that families once depended on to shield them from economic turmoil — stable jobs, widely available health coverage, guaranteed pensions, short unemployment spells, long-lasting unemployment benefits and well-funded job training programs — have been scaled back or have vanished altogether.

Working Americans are on a financial tightrope. Business and government used to see it as their duty to provide safety nets against the worst economic threats we face. But more and more, they're yanking them away."

Nowhere is the risk shift of the last quarter century more apparent than in the widening swings in working families' incomes.

Although average family income adjusted for inflation has risen in recent decades, the path that most households have followed has hardly been a steady line upward — the historical norm for most of the post-World War II era. Instead, a growing number of families have found themselves caught on a financial roller coaster ride, with their annual incomes taking increasingly wild leaps and plunges over time.

In the early 1970s, the inflation-adjusted incomes of most families in the middle of the economic spectrum bobbed up and down no more than about $6,500 a year, according to statistics generated by the Los Angeles Times in cooperation with researchers at several major universities. These days, those fluctuations have nearly doubled to as much as $13,500, the newspaper's analysis shows.

This growing volatility — and the rising risk it signals — has cut a wide swath. It has touched families from the working poor to those, like the Fredos, near the top of the earnings pyramid. The shifting of risk, in other words, is proving to be a democratic phenomenon.

"On the whole, we have moved toward a freer market, a more
competitive economy and a richer one," said University of Chicago economist and Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker. "There has been a shift toward people taking more risk on themselves … and the economy has gained for it."

But there is another, less sanguine way to view what has unfolded.

The more that a family's income fluctuates, the greater the chance it will be caught in a downdraft when a crisis — such as a layoff, divorce or illness — strikes. Then, it can be extremely tough to bounce back.

Over the last three decades, working families have faced ever- changing — and, for the most part, increasingly more perilous — risk- reward bargains.

During the 1970s, families in the economic middle enjoyed a
comparatively favorable run. Although their incomes generally swung up or down as much as 16% a year, they ended each year an average of 2% ahead of where they began. The result by the decade's close was that the reward of extra annual income had more than covered the potential loss from a single year's sudden plunge.

But the story during the 1980s and early 1990s was basically the reverse. The volatility of families' income nearly doubled to as much as 30% a year. But now, instead of growing amid all the ups and downs, average family income dropped at an annual rate of 0.3% in the 1980s and an even steeper 2.3% in the early '90s. The bottom line: more risk for less reward.

Although volatility remained high in the late 1990s, with typical annual swings of as much as 27%, incomes finally began to grow again, improving families' odds of being able to get ahead. But the good times didn't last. Since 2000, incomes have reversed course and fallen about 1% a year, according to recently released census figures. In other words, things are back to the unattractive equation of more risk for less reward.

A separate analysis by Hacker, the Yale political scientist, found even more dramatic changes in income swings. In a study published in May, Hacker and a colleague reported that income volatility among households in the University of Michigan database had more than doubled between 1973 and 1998. The pair concluded that at its peak in the mid-1990s, volatility was roughly five times greater than in the early 1970s.

"All other things equal," added Moffitt, who assisted The Times with its analysis, "rising income instability suggests that families from the working poor to those fairly far up the income distribution are bearing more economic risk."

Employers Break a Bond

For most of the post-World War II era, Washington had a partner in helping to shield working families from risk: corporate America.

Businesses considered themselves duty-bound to provide stable jobs and strong ties to employees, cushioning workers against the vicissitudes of the economy.

Employers must find ways "of protecting the individual against the more damaging effects of inevitable change," Standard Oil of New Jersey President Eugene Holman said in the late 1940s. "So far as the management of my own company is concerned," he added, "we have formed the habit of thinking in terms of … lifetime employment. That is our goal."

For decades, employers delivered on the promise of job security. "The workers of our parents' generation typically had one job, one skill, one career — often with one company," Bush said last month at the Republican National Convention.

Beyond that, businesses erected a bulwark against the risk of illness by raising the number of workers with employer-provided health insurance from 1.5 million before World War II to more than 150 million. They helped families deal with the economic costs of death by giving life insurance to 160 million of their employees, up from 9 million. And they offered seemingly ironclad protection against the insecurity of old age by boosting the number of workers with pensions from 4 million to 44 million.

But like the government's safety net, corporate America's began to fall apart in the late 1970s — shifting still more risk onto working families.

Twenty-five years ago, almost 40% of the nation's private full-
time workforce was covered by traditional pensions, under which the employer bears the risks and pays the benefits. That number has fallen to 20%. In the place of pensions have come defined- contribution plans such as 401(k)s, under which an employer may kick in some funds — typically about half what would have been spent previously — but employees alone bear the burden of ensuring that they have enough money to retire on.

• A similar shift is underway in health insurance. As recently as 1987, employers provided health coverage for 70% of the nation's working-age population, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute in Washington. By last year, that had dropped to 63%. The change translates into nearly 18 million people who would have been covered under the old system scrambling to make their own arrangements. What's more, even when employers continue coverage, they increasingly push more of the costs onto employees. Since 2000 alone, employers have raised the premiums their workers must pay by an average of 50%, or about $1,000 a family, according to a recently released study by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust.

• When it comes to job security, employers have largely broken the bond they had with workers. A late 1980s study by the Conference Board, a business research group, found that 56% of major corporations surveyed agreed that "employees who are loyal to the company and further its business goals deserve an assurance of continued employment." A decade later, that number dropped to just 6%.

• As a result, people are increasingly likely to be bounced from their jobs, with ever more severe financial consequences. In 1978, middle-aged men could expect to be with the same employer for 11 years, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. That's now down to about 7.5 years. Since the 1970s, the average length of an unemployment spell has risen by 50% to almost 20 weeks. The economic damage done when someone is laid off and his or her job is eliminated also has grown — even for those with college degrees. Princeton University economist Henry S. Farber recently found that college graduates laid off in the early 1980s suffered a 10% decline in income through a combination of forgone pay hikes from the old job and lower wages once back to work. In the last few years, laid- off college grads were taking a far bigger hit of 30%.

"For almost a century, business and government worked in tandem to expand the economic protections afforded working Americans through social insurance programs and career employment," said University of Pennsylvania economist Peter Cappelli. "In the last 25 years, we've stripped most of these away."

For a growing number of people, Cappelli said, the result is
unmistakable: "You're on your own."

Although the overall economy has become steadier — settling into a pattern of long swells of growth followed by relatively gentle dips — the incomes of working people have been beset by ever-larger fluctuations. Looked at in this way, "we haven't reduced economic risks" at all, said Harvard economist Martin L. Weitzman. "We've simply redistributed them from the economy as a whole to individual households."
Two Incomes, More Debt

Like Ron Burtless, millions of Americans have relied on two factors to help them handle the heightened risks of the last 25 years: the entry of women into the paid workforce and borrowing.

Today, more than 70% of mothers work outside the home, compared with less than 40% in the 1970s. Although women's arrival in the full- time workforce has been driven by forces as disparate as feminism and the triumph of brain jobs over brawn, their influx could hardly have come at a better time for millions of working families. It has provided households with the insurance of a second wage earner in case anything happens to the first.

Yet women's employment also has meant new costs — for day care, extra cars, more meals out. And most families have treated the additional income not as savings to be set aside in case of emergency but as a means of raising living standards.

An analysis of two decades of the government's Consumer Expenditure Survey, Washington's tally of what Americans buy, shows that the fraction of spending going toward big-ticket items such as houses, cars and schools has increased to more than 50% as the number of earners within families has grown.

The situation "puts families in a bind," said Raj Chetty, a UC
Berkeley economist who specializes in studying risk. "It means that if they are hit with an economic shock, they have to adjust to it by making bigger changes in the part of their budget that is still not locked in."

In other words, people have ended up leading lives that are both more prosperous and more precarious.

To help cope, many Americans have borrowed. Arguably, borrowing has become for this generation what unemployment compensation, the GI Bill and government-guaranteed mortgages were for a previous one — a way to tide over one's family during bad times and reach for a better life.

The traditional measure of household debt — calculated as a
percentage of a family's after-tax income — has climbed from 62% a quarter century ago to almost 120%, according to Federal Reserve statistics. Much of that increase is from the rush of mortgage lending during the last decade. But non-mortgage debt, including credit cards and auto loans, also has risen, from 15% to almost 24% of after-tax income.

Economists and policymakers have generally applauded the growth of borrowing as a boon to the economy and a blessing for average Americans. They have portrayed the extension of credit to families
further and further down the income scale as part of a sweeping
democratization of finance.

But even upbeat commentators such as Dean M. Maki, a former Fed
economist now with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. in New York, acknowledge
that families' growing reliance on debt exposes them to new risks,
especially if interest rates rise. Maki estimates that the interest
cost on about one-quarter of household debt is now variable and
prone to swell if overall rates go up.

The borrowing boom has already produced one disturbing trend — a
sixfold increase in personal bankruptcies since 1980. Bankruptcy
filings reached a record 1.625 million last year and were up again
through March of this year. Two decades ago, they totaled 288,000.

"We've allowed bankruptcy to become commonplace in America," said
Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law School professor who, with her
daughter, Los Angeles business consultant Amelia W. Tyagi, has
written an influential book on bankruptcy and people's financial
strains called "The Two-Income Trap." "Last year more people filed
for bankruptcy than filed for divorce or were diagnosed with cancer
or graduated from college."






Listed within this section, in support of US Asians, a personal invitation is extended to take advantage of the services of the various entities. We have utilized all the products and services of the companies listed while enjoying many benefits that we would like to share to our supporters.

If there are any questions or comments, please feel free to contact us.



At Quixtar, one has the opportunity to have the following option to control one's future in their own business:

  • Make your own decision on how much time one wants to spend to develop another income stream
  • Have the ability to purchase products at competitive prices, in a similar fashion as a member-based customer of a store like CostCo
  • Provide opportunities to help others save money by providing the opportunity to purchase everyday products at excellent prices
  • Be in a position to support creative artists and/or causes of your choice through your participation.

For more information, please feel free to contact us by clicking HERE.

To start now, please feel free to click HERE. (Note: Upon entering the website, submit "3651535" in the "IBO" box and "LEE" in the other box.


At HOTWIRE, one will have the ability to obtain the best prices for those romantic excursions, business trips, tour for your music group, travel plans for actors/directors supporting their respective film projects and/or vacations . Start saving monies by clicking on the banner listed below.



At Amazon, one can support Asian/Asian Pacific American artists by purchasing their respective music, films, books, video games, etc. - in addition to have the ease of ordering online and supporting US Asians. We welcome your visit to Amazon, by clicking on the below-listed banner, for your online purchases of media-related products


At 1-800-FLOWERS, one has the ability to either send flowers to your loved ones (i.e. Wife/Husband, Girlfrind/Boyfriend, Parents, Relatives, Friends, etc.) and/or business associates (i.e. to your favorite entertainers/performers, in support to fellow artists, openings/closings, etc.) with a personal floral approach that can provide a personal touch to your greetings. An open invitation is extended to utilize this means to show support and love by clicking on the banner listed below.

Birthday Flower Cake 468x60 (Best Sellers)


Dell Electronics provides the option of acquiring the latest in computers, computer-related equipment and pda's for one's use. In addition, Dell has the reputation of having one of the best customer service reputation in the industry. In this day that requires having the ability to communicate effectively on the Internet, clicking on the banner listed below provides one of the best alternatives to take advantage of this factor.


Any questions regarding the content, contact Asian American Artistry
site design by Asian American Artistry

Copyright 1996-2003 - Asian American Artistry - All Rights Reserved.