[Changleen]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/opinion/30wed1.html?ex=1314590400&en=8d9e3cff1b9567a4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Editorial
Downward Mobility
Published: August 30, 2006

If you’re still harboring the notion that the economy is “good,” prepare to be disabused.

Even the best number from yesterday’s Census Bureau report for 2005 is bad news for most Americans. It shows that median income rose 1.1 percent last year, to $46,326, the first increase since it peaked in 1999. But the entire increase is attributable to the 23 million households headed by someone over age 65. So the gain is likely from investment income and Social Security, not wages and salaries.

For the other 91 million households, the median dropped, by half a percent, or $275. Incomes for the under-65 crowd were hurt by a decline in wages and salaries among full-time working men for the second year in a row, and among full-time working women for the third straight year. In all, median income for the under-65 group was $2,000 lower in 2005 than in 2001, when the last recession bottomed out.

Despite the Bush-era expansion, the number of Americans living in poverty in 2005 — 37 million — was the same as in 2004. This is the first time the number has not risen since 2000. But the share of the population now in poverty — 12.6 percent — is still higher than at the trough of the last recession, when it was 11.7 percent. And among the poor, 43 percent were living below half the poverty line in 2005 — $7,800 for a family of three. That’s the highest percentage of people in “deep poverty” since the government started keeping track of those numbers in 1975.

As for the uninsured, their ranks grew in 2005 by 1.3 million people, to a record 46.6 million, or 15.9 percent. That’s also worse than the recession year 2001, reflecting the rising costs of health coverage and a dearth of initiatives to help families and companies cope with the burden. For the first time since 1998, the percentage of uninsured children increased in 2005.

The Census findings are yet another indication that growth alone is not the answer to the economic and social ills of poverty, income inequality and lack of insurance. Economic growth was strong in 2005, and productivity growth was impressive. What have been missing are government policies that help to ensure that the benefits of growth are broadly shared — like strong support for public education, a progressive income tax, affordable health care, a higher minimum wage and other labor protections.

President Bush is unlikely to push for those changes, wed as he is to tax cuts that mainly benefit the wealthy. But the economic agenda for the next president couldn’t be clearer.

Seems to me the basic problem is not the economy itself, but how SS and taxation are spread and managed.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

i really wonder if the next president will have the balls to be the villain of the movie and cut back on bush reforms.

and if that happens (and the budget balances, the dollar gets stronger and the hopefully economy picks up), i wonder how many people will attribute that to bush, and how many will think the newfound improvement would have been greater if "the villain of the movie hadnt cut back on bush´s geniality".

 

[BurlyShirley]

All those numbers say to me are that more people are lazy now than before.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

All those numbers say to me are that more people are lazy now than before.

only if the world was simple like that...

btw, thats a pretty gay smilie. i love it!.

 

[BurlyShirley]

why couldnt that be the answer? That more people just decided to sit on their asses and do nothing?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

why couldnt that be the answer? That more people just decided to sit on their asses and do nothing?

hmm..
frenzy collective nut-scratching, bbq and beer guzzling on weekdays? or economic downturn as forecasted by some experts as consequences of higher order economic policies?

are you becoming a conspiracy theorist?

 

[Munster]

All those numbers say to me are that more people are lazy now than before.

Actually, the average hours worked has gone up. "Productivity" has gone up, corporate profits have risen, GDP has increased. So people are basically working harder for less pay.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?_r=1&fta=y&oref=slogin

Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity


Article Tools Sponsored By
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE and DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: August 28, 2006

With the economy beginning to slow, the current expansion has a chance to become the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that fails to offer a prolonged increase in real wages for most workers.

That situation is adding to fears among Republicans that the economy will hurt vulnerable incumbents in this year’s midterm elections even though overall growth has been healthy for much of the last five years.

The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable, economists say, because productivity — the amount that an average worker produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation’s living standards — has risen steadily over the same period.

As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the current period as “the golden era of profitability.”

Until the last year, stagnating wages were somewhat offset by the rising value of benefits, especially health insurance, which caused overall compensation for most Americans to continue increasing. Since last summer, however, the value of workers’ benefits has also failed to keep pace with inflation, according to government data.

At the very top of the income spectrum, many workers have continued to receive raises that outpace inflation, and the gains have been large enough to keep average income and consumer spending rising.

In a speech on Friday, Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, did not specifically discuss wages, but he warned that the unequal distribution of the economy’s spoils could derail the trade liberalization of recent decades. Because recent economic changes “threaten the livelihoods of some workers and the profits of some firms,” Mr. Bernanke said, policy makers must try “to ensure that the benefits of global economic integration are sufficiently widely shared.”

Political analysts are divided over how much the wage trends will help Democrats this fall in their effort to take control of the House and, in a bigger stretch, the Senate. Some see parallels to watershed political years like 1980, 1992 and 1994, when wage growth fell behind inflation, party alignments shifted and dozens of incumbents were thrown out of office.

“It’s a dangerous time for any party to have control of the federal government — the presidency, the Senate and the House,” said Charles Cook, who publishes a nonpartisan political newsletter. “It all feeds into ‘it’s a time for a change’ sentiment. It’s a highly combustible mixture.”

But others say that war in Iraq and terrorism, not the economy, will dominate the campaign and that Democrats have yet to offer an economic vision that appeals to voters.

“National economic policies are more clearly in focus in presidential campaigns,” said Richard T. Curtin, director of the University of Michigan’s consumer surveys. “When you’re electing your local House members, you don’t debate that on those issues as much.”

Moreover, polls show that Americans are less dissatisfied with the economy than they were in the early 1980’s or early 90’s. Rising house and stock values have lifted the net worth of many families over the last few years, and interest rates remain fairly low.

But polls show that Americans disapprove of President Bush’s handling of the economy by wide margins and that anxiety about the future is growing. Earlier this month, the University of Michigan reported that consumer confidence had fallen sharply in recent months, with people’s expectations for the future now as downbeat as they were in 1992 and 1993, when the job market had not yet recovered from a recession.

“Some people who aren’t partisans say, ‘Yes, the economy’s pretty good, so why are people so agitated and anxious?’ ” said Frank Luntz, a Republican campaign consultant. “The answer is they don’t feel it in their weekly paychecks.”

But Mr. Luntz predicted that the economic mood would not do significant damage to Republicans this fall because voters blamed corporate America, not the government, for their problems.

Economists offer various reasons for the stagnation of wages. Although the economy continues to add jobs, global trade, immigration, layoffs and technology — as well as the insecurity caused by them — appear to have eroded workers’ bargaining power.

Trade unions are much weaker than they once were, while the buying power of the minimum wage is at a 50-year low. And health care is far more expensive than it was a decade ago, causing companies to spend more on benefits at the expense of wages.

 

[Ciaran]

why couldnt that be the answer? That more people just decided to sit on their asses and do nothing?

Because many of us were not sitting on our asses. Many of us worked ****ing hard and got squat from a company that despite having another year of record profits, decides to cut back their IT department so the big wigs can have more money. That's why.

You should try thinking before you type. You'll sound like N8 less often.

 

[jimmydean]

why couldnt that be the answer? That more people just decided to sit on their asses and do nothing?

That may be true for many Americans. But in my area, it's not so much the case.

I am better educated, more experienced, and lower paid than I was in 1999. I also work farther from my home (3 hour commute round trip) and work longer hours on average.

The "Silicon Forest " is no longer. There are about 3 companies in the area that used to contain more than 30 and a majority of the existing companies have relocated to the Downtown area.

Intel is a perfect example. The average contract at Intel in 1999 was $75 per hour, it is currently $25 per hour with higher requirements than before as well.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Because many of us were not sitting on our asses. Many of us worked ****ing hard and got squat from a company that despite having another year of record profits, decides to cut back their IT department so the big wigs can have more money. That's why.

You should try thinking before you type. You'll sound like N8 less often.

are you crying?

In the south, life is good. Economy is booming and I still see people sitting on their ass w/ no job or with a crappy job because they dont care. Maybe its different where you live, but I dont see why your piece of anecdotal evidence is any more convincing than mine.

Lighten up francis.

 

[Ciaran]

are you crying?

In the south, life is good. Economy is booming and I still see people sitting on their ass w/ no job or with a crappy job because they dont care. Maybe its different where you live, but I dont see why your piece of anecdotal evidence is any more convincing than mine.

Lighten up francis.

nah man. You just don't get it. You made a blanket statement that insulted people. You act like your version of life is the end all be all of everything and you apply it to every situation. After a while it gets old.

 

[BurlyShirley]

nah man. You just don't get it.

Meh. Im doing fine and really am not breaking my back to do so. Maybe I "just dont get it" but Im not going to blame the govt. for my lack of being rich.

EDIT: BTW, quit being insulted. It's the innernet and I really was making a joke, afterall. Relax.

 

[luelling]

Meh. Im doing fine and really am not breaking my back to do so. Maybe I "just dont get it" but Im not going to blame the govt. for my lack of being rich.

From what I've been reading lately it seems like the corporations will do anything for the bottom line, including screwing their workers. This IS a situation when the government should step in and start regulating becuase it will hurt everyone in the end (the government gets less money from taxes when wages stagnate as well).

Its funny that you mention the South booming.....my wife's mom has a masters in nursing management and she really wanted to live in the south (likes the culture or something). So she moved to northern Lousiana from Oregon (where she made around $115k) and the highest paying job she can find, doing the same thing mind you, is about $70k. Thats a pretty big pay cut. And to boot its expensive to live down there.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Its funny that you mention the South booming.....my wife's mom has a masters in nursing management and she really wanted to live in the south (likes the culture or something). So she moved to northern Lousiana from Oregon (where she made around $115k) and the highest paying job she can find, doing the same thing mind you, is about $70k. Thats a pretty big pay cut. And to boot its expensive to live down there.

You have no idea what you are talking about do you???

I live in NW La....

 

[ElTORO]

Because many of us were not sitting on our asses. Many of us worked ****ing hard and got squat from a company that despite having another year of record profits, decides to cut back their IT department so the big wigs can have more money. That's why.

You should try thinking before you type. You'll sound like N8 less often.

WOW!!!! DO I WORK WITH YOU!!!!

 

[luelling]

You have no idea what you are talking about do you???

I live in NW La....

Do you know how to read? or are you stupid? I didn't just make that story up. It just happened......last month.

 

[DirtyDog]

And to boot its expensive to live down there.

Compared to where? North Dakota?

 

[rockwool]

"the number of Americans living in poverty in 2005 — 37 million"

These people fill a major purpose in your country. If they weren't poor, nobody would enlist in the army to go "be all they can be" for no cash at all while at the same time risking their lives and protecting the interests of the market players. If you live in a trailer park, "life is not an adventure" like it is in the navy...



"uninsured children"

That is sick.

 

[Silver]

"uninsured children"

That is sick.

Hey, that's the way Jesus wants it, you atheist communist slut.

 

[reflux]

"the number of Americans living in poverty in 2005 — 37 million"

These people fill a major purpose in your country. If they weren't poor, nobody would enlist in the army to go "be all they can be" for no cash at all while at the same time risking their lives and protecting the interests of the market players. If you live in a trailer park, "life is not an adventure" like it is in the navy...


"uninsured children"

That is sick.

The armed forces require certain educational and personal standards, the least of which being a high schook diploma and a minimal crimal record. In light of missing recruiting goals in recent years, the prior standards required have been "relaxed" to allow help meet recruiting goals. If my memory serves me right, at least one of the guys involved in the rape and murder of an Iraqi girl and her family, would not have qualified for the Marines had the standards not been changed.

My point being, I believe a majority of those living below the poverty line are uneducated. Society and the educational system have failed them. The poor and uneducated are stuck on welfare; the armed forces (gainful "employment") are a distant dream for many.

 

[reflux]

Hey, that's the way Jesus wants it, you atheist communist slut.

Ahh, so if Gawd wanted the children to be healthy, he would've born them into a middle-class family, or born them without any chance for illness?

 

[luelling]

Compared to where? North Dakota?

Salem, OR....trust me, it came as a shock. I was paying $690 for a super nice two bed, two bath w/garage townhouse in a nice part of town here and for the equivelant her mom is paying $800...how does that make sense? And she said food and everything else costs the same despite the pay being lower overall. Thats a generalization but from people I know that live down there, pay is lower than it would be in Oregon (and we are a pretty poor state as well).

 

[Silver]

Ahh, so if Gawd wanted the children to be healthy, he would've born them into a middle-class family, or born them without any chance for illness?

White too. Those mulatto mongrel kids bear the mark of Cain.

It's in the Bible, people!

 

[dhphoto]

The armed forces require certain educational and personal standards, the least of which being a high schook diploma and a minimal crimal record. In light of missing recruiting goals in recent years, the prior standards required have been "relaxed" to allow help meet recruiting goals. If my memory serves me right, at least one of the guys involved in the rape and murder of an Iraqi girl and her family, would not have qualified for the Marines had the standards not been changed.

My point being, I believe a majority of those living below the poverty line are uneducated. Society and the educational system have failed them. The poor and uneducated are stuck on welfare; the armed forces (gainful "employment") are a distant dream for many.

Once again, further proof the world is going down the s***ter. As for me, I'm going to pretend it doesnt concern me, drive my oversized suv to Wal-Mart, and buy lots of stuff I don't need that was made by underpaid overworked people in other countries. Yeah.

 

[rockwool]

Hey, that's the way Jesus wants it, you atheist communist slut.

Betta watch my mouth next time it's about to yap... :biggrin:

 

[rockwool]

The armed forces require certain educational and personal standards, the least of which being a high schook diploma and a minimal crimal record. In light of missing recruiting goals in recent years, the prior standards required have been "relaxed" to allow help meet recruiting goals. If my memory serves me right, at least one of the guys involved in the rape and murder of an Iraqi girl and her family, would not have qualified for the Marines had the standards not been changed.

My point being, I believe a majority of those living below the poverty line are uneducated. Society and the educational system have failed them. The poor and uneducated are stuck on welfare; the armed forces (gainful "employment") are a distant dream for many.

Wow, that was an eye opener for me, the armed forces a distant dream... I thought that was the effing bottom for anybody who's not on crack. Yeah, heard about the "realxation" resently. Man, **** like that makes me happy I live in Scandinavia. I can take the darkness and the cold any day...

White too. Those mulatto mongrel kids bear the mark of Cain.

It's in the Bible, people!

:biggrin: