Thanks for this article Dave. These are things that I have known in my gut. It is nice to see them laid out in such a straight forward manner.

Thanks, Maurice. I'm still trying to get a hold on the total disconnect between the rhetoric coming from the left and the way things really are in the country. I didn't include it in the article, but the New York Times has been particularly agressive in hammering on this issue from the left-wing perspective. The final link I put in the article is to a report from economist David Henderson from the Hoover Institute. It's particularly interesting. He examines some claims made in the NYT and just totally explodes them.

This and their deliberate sabotaging of the various 'Fighting Dems' they recruited to run for Congress are two things the Democrats are doing right now which I find completely incomprehensible.

Dave

Ten of thousands of people are losing their jobs at Ford alone, not to mention other major employers nationwide. Then there are community businesses that depend on those jobs like grocery stores, gas stations, resturants and the companies that supply parts and maintance support for those plants and jobs etc.

How can you paint such a rosey picture?????

Ford Shuts Down 2 Plants
Sept. 15 - Ford is cutting more than 10,000 additional salaried jobs, offering buyouts to all of its 75,000 U.S. hourly workers and shutting down two more plants in a plan to end financial losses and remake itself into a smaller, more competitive car company.

The announcement from Ford came as Chrysler's parent said it would cut U.S. production through end of 2006 and follows big cutbacks at General Motors earlier this year. The cuts are all due to consumers shifting from trucks and sport utility vehicles to smaller, more fuel efficient cars and crossovers, many made by Asian automakers.

The blue-collar cuts at Ford are another blow to organized labor which has been losing members as the auto industry reshapes itself amid fierce competition from lower-cost, non-union rivals.

Ford Motor Co. said Friday that it would shutter a stamping plant in Maumee, Ohio, in 2008 and its Essex engine plant in Windsor, Ontario, in 2007. That is in addition to previous plans for 14 plant closures.

It will also close an assembly plant in Norfolk, Va., in 2007, a year earlier than previously announced and will cut a shift in January. An assembly plant in St. Paul, Minn., which is scheduled to close in 2008, also will have a shift reduction in 2007.

Ford said it would complete its cuts of about 30,000 hourly jobs by the end of the 2008, four years ahead of its previous target. Ford also said it already had cut 4,000 salaried positions in the first quarter of this year.

The new cuts would reduce Ford's total North American work force by 29 percent, from the current level of about 130,000 to about 92,000 by the end of 2008.

Ford's method of slashing its work force is similar to cuts made earlier this year by larger rival General Motors Corp. At GM, 34,410 hourly workers have accepted buyouts or early retirement offers this year. Figures on white-collar cuts were not available.

Ford, GM and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler unit are struggling with the need to reduce their so-called "legacy costs" of big pay and benefits packages for workers and retirees to compete more effectively with foreign automakers.

DaimlerChrysler said Friday its Chrysler division will make additional production cuts in the third and fourth quarters to reduce dealer inventories.

By 2008, Ford's North American factory capacity will be reduced by 26 percent compared to 2005 levels, the company said in the release.

It said the plan would cut about $5 billion in operating costs, mainly by offering early retirement and buyout packages to all hourly workers and to white-collar employees. Ford plans to expand buyout and early retirement offers to the company's U.S. hourly work force of more than 75,000 as part of the plan.

"The simple fact is that the business model that served us in North America for decades no longer works," Mark Fields, Ford's president of the Americas, said during a morning teleconference.

Todd Wiech, a 46-year-old Ford worker in St. Paul, said he's wrestling with his options, which include the buyout, going back to school or trying to transfer to the Dearborn, Mich., truck plant, where Ford plans to add a third shift to make F-150s.

He said it wouldn't be easy to walk away from 18 years with the company.

"Myself -- people that were hired in 1988 -- it hits us pretty hard because we've got a lot of time invested with Ford and we're getting a little older to go out looking," said Wiech, whose daughter will graduate from high school in two years.

Ford said it expects to achieve full-year profitability in its North American automotive operations no earlier than 2009. The company had previously pledged to make money in North America in 2008.

It also plans to suspend the quarterly dividend on its common and Class B stock in the fourth quarter of this year.

Ford shares fell 67 cents, or 7.4 percent, to $8.42 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Its shares have traded in a 52-week range of $6.06 to $10.09.

Ford lost $1.4 billion during the first half of this year and is under pressure from Wall Street to make further cuts and roll out new cars and trucks more quickly.

In July, the company pledged to accelerate its "Way Forward" restructuring plan, which when introduced in January called for the up to 30,000 job cuts as well as closing 14 facilities by 2012. The new cuts bring the total number of plant closures to 16.

"These actions have painful consequences for communities and many of our loyal employees," Executive Chairman Bill Ford said in the restructuring release. "But rapid shifts in consumer demand that affect our product mix and continued high prices for commodities mean we must continue working quickly and decisively to fix our business."

The company indicated that it is ready to accept a smaller slice of the market, focusing on profitable sales instead of sheer volume. It said that, with investments in new products and quality improvements, it expects market share of about 14 to 15 percent going forward.

This year, the company is forecasting Ford, Lincoln and Mercury market share in the low-16 percent range. The country's second-largest automaker has seen its market share decline steadily in recent years from about 26 percent in the early 1990s.

"Turnarounds of this magnitude succeed when capacity and costs are aligned with a realistic expectation of demand," Chief Executive Alan Mulally said in a statement. Mulally, who was named to the post last week, led a turnaround at the commercial jetmaking division of Boeing Co.

In another executive move, Ford said Thursday that Anne Stevens, an architect of the restructuring effort and one of the auto industry's highest ranking women, was retiring. Stevens, 57, had been at the center of Ford's turnaround efforts since October 2005, when she was named executive vice president.

The company also said it would roll out new or significantly upgraded cars and trucks in 70 percent of its Ford, Lincoln and Mercury brands, expanding in growing areas such as car-based crossovers. At the same time, Ford said it will try to maintain its lead in the truck segment by introducing a new F-150 that will go on sale in 2008.

Ford has acknowledged a need for drastic changes in its product lineup. Like other U.S. automakers, its bottom line is heavily dependent on high-margin trucks and large SUVs, but recently consumer preferences have shifted toward more fuel-efficient vehicles. Ford says the speed of that shift caught it by surprise.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved

I agree with everything Jet has said and I would add big companies going bankrupt so they can screw the workers out of their pensions and the fact that the average person cannot afford health Ins and needs the employer to pay for it and most of all WHY DOES IT TAKE TWO PPL TO RAISE A FAMILY WHEN I DID IT ALL BY MYSELF..

Ten of thousands of people are losing their jobs at Ford alone, not to mention other major employers nationwide. Then there are community businesses that depend on those jobs like grocery stores, gas stations, resturants and the companies that supply parts and maintance support for those plants and jobs etc.

Ok, first off, Ford is NOT just firing people. They're trying first to reduce their employee rolls with buyouts and early retirement. This means people leave with a lump of cash making it easy for them to retrain or move to where there are better jobs, or it means they can retire with enough to live on and live really well if they take on a second job. And even if some end up dead out of work, statistically they're relatively insignificant when more jobs are being created nationwide on a monthly basis than ford plans to cut.

The fact that the economy and the job situation and upward mobility and all of this are doing so well does not mean that there are not some individuals whose personal experience runs counter to the trend. But what it does mean is that if they wish to make the effort of retraining or moving to a more active area of the country they WILL find a job and they'll find it quickly and it may well pay better than they're earning now.

How can you paint such a rosey picture?????

Because it's TRUE, Jet.

Dave

Dang - I knew this was a Nalle Apologia for Bush as soon as I saw the title. Happy Days Are Here Again (Courtesy of BushCo) by D. Nalle; together with selections from Economic Slavery Is Actually Your Friend, and the Money Song from 'Cabaret'.

Dave, much as I admire & enjoy almost anything else you write, when it comes to economics, you're so full of fairy dust, wishful thinking, and trickledown Reaganomics you'll never find your way back to reality where most of us live.

The number of those having to work two or more jobs to make ends meet has increased dramatically in the past few years. Jobs have gone overseas or disappeared entirely: the airline industry by itself has eliminated almost 38,000 jobs in the past year; those that remain are being paid at a rate the equivilent of part-time jobs; airline workers can no longer afford to make a career of it with the airlines. Ford just announced it's closing down plants & eliminating tens of thousands of jobs - which means, as Jet pointed out, all the ancillary jobs & businesses that depend on the former employees & their paychecks. The number of Americans without health insurance has increased 12% since 2005. The number of children currently living in poverty has increased by 10% a year EVERY YEAR for the past 3 years. The number of families who are homeless, because they can't afford housing prices, and they can't afford to rent, or rentals have been sold out from under them, has also skyrocketed. Meanwhile, major corporations like Enron & WorldCom fold, with their executives making off with millions if not billions which they're able to stash away in their wive's bank accounts while justice is delayed for years by their conniving batteries of lawyers and their connections to good ol' W, ever the friend & champion of the ultra rich & powerful. And the ones not fucked over by business have gotten it in the neck courtesy of nature, compounded by our Fearless Leader's own beloved & much vaunted FEMA - most of N.O. is STILL without housing, not even the stupid FEMA trailers which are still in storage because the friggin idiots who work for FEMA/BushCO can't figure out how to release them, and Bush is not making it a priority to order them to do so. No photo ops in that, after all. Meanwhile, these same people of New Orleans will be expected to PAY BACK IN FULL any funds they were 'loaned' by FEMA, yet not a penny of the billions and billions we're pouring down the rathole of Iraq is expected to be repaid, and no demands for same have been made or will be - again, courtesy of Dubya, who thinks he can buy the gratitude & affection of the ragheads & terrorists of Iraq.

Contrary to what you've read about the state of the national debt, the national debt has actually increased by almost 67 billion this year. Y'see, when yer dealing with statistics, numbers can be manipulated like crazy, and that's exactly what BushCo is doing: lying like crazy, tying those numbers in knots, trying to keep his left hand from knowing what his right is doing. In HIS case, that's easy, since he doesn't know his ass from his elbow to begin with; unfortunately for him, there are apolitical analysts who do, and they've spilled the beans on our Fearless Leader and his fraudulent figures.

You can talk paper figures all you want, til you turn blue; but the facts follow the people on the street (not pretty theories), and the FACTS are, if you actually talk to regular folks, that they're feeling a lot of pain all around. Despite the lies of W. Bush & the rosy fairy tales you promulgate.

I agree with everything Jet has said and I would add big companies going bankrupt so they can screw the workers out of their pensions

This is indeed reprehensible, but again as I said to Jet, the number of people impacted is small in proportion to the amount of new job creation.

and the fact that the average person cannot afford health Ins

Which is utter bullshit. Most of those not covered by health insurance are that way by choice. The actual number who earn too much for medicaid and yet genuinely can't afford to buy insurance is tiny - probably less than 1% of the population. Certainly not the 'average person'. The average person can easily afford basic health insurance if he or she chooses to. Average household income is pushing $50,000 a year and at that income you CAN afford health insurance for your family. I wrote an article on this a while back on this topic. Perhaps it's time to revisit it and lay out the facts again. I'd been planning to do a more detailed piece on my solution to the problem of the uninsured eventually anyway.

and needs the employer to pay for it and most of all WHY DOES IT TAKE TWO PPL TO RAISE A FAMILY WHEN I DID IT ALL BY MYSELF..

It doesn't. The average single wage earner income is certainly enough to raise an average family, but you're not going to be living a lush life. People choose to have two working parents because they want to live a BETTER life. This is a good thing. It's what America is all about.

I've also observed a major trend for people to work longer and not retire. A lot of people actually LIKE to work and they like the kind of money they can earn when they're older and more experienced or when they combine a pension with a part-time job.

These are not BAD things, they are good things. They're people taking advantage of the opportunities which are there for them to work so that they can live a better life.

Dave

you're really trying to say that the average person is making $2.40/hr more than he was five years ago? is this adjusted for inflation or any other factors?

24.5 million is 1/5th of the total population? of what? are you talking about families? canada?

and i've seen some political ads from dems here... not too many of them mention the economy except in mentioning the price of gas. or when they are from a farming district.

maybe you live somewhere where you don't actually see the poverty that exists in this country, but i suggest you get out a bit and take a look around.

btw-a friend's family is moving to austin. i think they are apolitical. land is so fucking cheap there! maybe the reason why you don't see trouble is because the price of housing isn't out of control there.

Dave, if one parent is working stacking canned goods at the local grocery, and the other is cashiering at McDonald's, they aren't working for a better life, they're working to survive - and probably NOT making it, either, given the facts I've cited about homelessness & poverty & jobs. There are a helluva lot more jobs that have disappeared than just the ones at Ford & the airlines. And maybe 150,000 jobs are small change to YOU when one company folds while the execs walk away fat with cash, but I can guarantee you, it makes a difference to those who got screwed, and to all those peripherals who depended on THEM in turn for their business. Jeezus, Dave: all I can say about your theories of economics is there are none so blind as those (you) who will not see. Open your eyes and LOOK at the ordinary people who DON'T live in your gated community.

you're really trying to say that the average person is making $2.40/hr more than he was five years ago? is this adjusted for inflation or any other factors?

I'm not saying it, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is saying it. And that's the unadjusted figure. Adjusted for inflation it's about half of that. I calculate it at $1.23 in 2006 dollars.

24.5 million is 1/5th of the total population? of what? are you talking about families? canada?

Typo. Meant to put 'working' population, not total population.

and i've seen some political ads from dems here... not too many of them mention the economy except in mentioning the price of gas. or when they are from a farming district.

Then your Dems are sharper and more sensible than the NYT, but that doesn't take much.

maybe you live somewhere where you don't actually see the poverty that exists in this country, but i suggest you get out a bit and take a look around.

Of course poverty still exists. Nothing will make poverty go away completely. It's built into the capitalist system. But the point of the article is that most people don't stay in poverty and the nation as a whole isn't suffering or doing badly.

btw-a friend's family is moving to austin. i think they are apolitical. land is so fucking cheap there! maybe the reason why you don't see trouble is because the price of housing isn't out of control there.

Land values here have about tripled in the last decade, and housing prices have skyrocketed. I think they've increased more than everywhere but Florida, but they were at a lower starting level. But it remains a good place to live and there's decent housing still available at fairly low prices because of all the new home construction.

Dave

There. You see? You live in a VERY atypical area, Dave. I suspect in more aspects than just real estate/housing prices, too.

dave: "that's the unadjusted figure. Adjusted for inflation it's about half of that. I calculate it at $1.23 in 2006 dollars."

so why don't you put that in your article, so it doesn't look like you are trying to spin the statistics your way?

fix that typo. maybe you did already. dunno.

people do stay in poverty. some move up. some move down. that's how it is.

Dave "This means people leave with a lump of cash making it easy for them to retrain or move to where there are better jobs,"

Someone with 25 years doing the same job is offered a lump sum to make it through 6 months worth of bill payments and feeding their families, and then has to reenter the job market at the age of 50?

Unable to afford 'retraining' the best job these people are able to get is minimum wage jobs at McDonalds.

However a minimum wage at McDonalds is counted as A job just like their old job was paying 10 times as much, so the unemployment figures don't reflect that... Just that they have a job.

Dave says... Most of those not covered by health insurance are that way by choice.


OHHHHHHHH DAVE you don't piss me off very often, but when you do..............WHOAAAAAAAAA
EVEN WHEN I WAS WORKING I COULDN'T AFFORD GOODHEALTH INSURANCE!!!

If you buy a minimal amount of health insurance and we're talking $110 A MONTH (apparently pocket change for you) there are so many loopholes THE SIZE OF THE WHITEHOUSE, and acceptions for preexisting conditions that they won't pay for that it's like burning money you could've put towards the electric bill that you didn't pay last month to make your health insurance premium.

Health insurance is on par with all those poor people in New Orleans who paid out so much money thinking they were covered only to discover that homeowner's insurance didn't include flooding caused by a hurricane!!!!!!!!!

I'll give you a perfect example from my life right now. The plan I have covering my insulin supplies covers my insulin... but not the expensive needles I need to inject it with!!!!

There is no such thing as affordable health insurance unless you make over $75,000 a year and don't have a family to support.

Dang - I knew this was a Nalle Apologia for Bush as soon as I saw the title. Happy Days Are Here Again (Courtesy of BushCo) by D. Nalle; together with selections from Economic Slavery Is Actually Your Friend, and the Money Song from 'Cabaret'.

Nancy, there's not a single word in this article about Bush or his tax cuts or anything else he's done being in any way responsible for the economic situation. The fact that I'm pointing out that the Dems are wrong doesn't mean that I'm saying Bush is right or gets all the credit.

Dave, much as I admire & enjoy almost anything else you write, when it comes to economics, you're so full of fairy dust, wishful thinking, and trickledown Reaganomics you'll never find your way back to reality where most of us live.

Not sure I've ever actually written anything supporting the trickle down theory, which I think is rather simplistic. As for my positivism, it's the only logical conclusion from an analysis of the facts, sorry.

The number of those having to work two or more jobs to make ends meet has increased dramatically in the past few years.

This is just not true, Nancy. The number of multiple job holders nationwide has decreased by 3.9% in the past decade. This info is available from the same BLS link I give in the article.

Jobs have gone overseas or disappeared entirely:

As we've discussed before, every job sent overseas is replaced with almost two higher paying jobs here in America.

the airline industry by itself has eliminated almost 38,000 jobs in the past year; those that remain are being paid at a rate the equivilent of part-time jobs; airline workers can no longer afford to make a career of it with the airlines. Ford just announced it's closing down plants & eliminating tens of thousands of jobs - which means, as Jet pointed out, all the ancillary jobs & businesses that depend on the former employees & their paychecks.

While these industries are certainly having problems and have been horribly mismanaged, the total number of people involved is tiny relative to the total national workforce and plenty of decent paying jobs are available for them to take if they are willing to retrain or move.

The number of Americans without health insurance has increased 12% since 2005. The number of children currently living in poverty has increased by 10% a year EVERY YEAR for the past 3 years.

Where do you get this data from? The national poverty rate has hardly increased at all (1.3%) in the last 5 years and is actually down over the past decade. And I have this info from a report produced by House Democrats. And again, let me go to a leftist source - the Center for American Progress shows a 12% increase in the uninsured not in the last year, but in the last SIX years. This is almost entirely due to the baby boomers moving into the higher age range where it's harder to get insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

The number of families who are homeless, because they can't afford housing prices, and they can't afford to rent, or rentals have been sold out from under them, has also skyrocketed.

I'm having a hard time finding verifiable nationwide statistics on homelessness, but the states I've looked at certainly don't bear this out, and neither do the general economic statistics.

I'm just going to ignore the lengthy rant on how all businesses and/or successful people are evil because of a few obvious malefactors.

Contrary to what you've read about the state of the national debt, the national debt has actually increased by almost 67 billion this year.

Odd, I'd read that it has increased by over $582 billion this year.

Ranting about lying and manipulating statistics by the administration also being ignored as irrelevant since nothing I've written here is based on their claims.

Dave

people do stay in poverty. some move up. some move down. that's how it is.

True enough, but the significant fact is that only 14% remain in poverty after a decade, about the same percentage who will in that same decade move from the lowest income group to the highest.

Dave

Dave, if one parent is working stacking canned goods at the local grocery, and the other is cashiering at McDonald's, they aren't working for a better life, they're working to survive - and probably NOT making it, either, given the facts I've cited about homelessness & poverty & jobs.

According to the BLS, the people who are in the circumstance you describe are a VERY small portion of the population. But I never said there weren't poor people, but as I pointed out previously, 86% of the people who are living as you describe will improve their lot in life and be earning substantially more within a decade.

There are a helluva lot more jobs that have disappeared than just the ones at Ford & the airlines. And maybe 150,000 jobs are small change to YOU when one company folds while the execs walk away fat with cash, but I can guarantee you, it makes a difference to those who got screwed, and to all those peripherals who depended on THEM in turn for their business.

When 150,000 jobs disappear and are replaced with 300,000 new jobs I have to think that the people who lost their jobs won't have much trouble finding another.

Jeezus, Dave: all I can say about your theories of economics is there are none so blind as those (you) who will not see. Open your eyes and LOOK at the ordinary people who DON'T live in your gated community.

Nancy, I don't live in a gated community. I live out in the country in a house with a gate surrounded by a variety of rich and poor folks. I also have a lot of contact and activities in my community, and if I were to base my article on that experience rather than statistics it would be even more positive than it is.

Dave

Apparently Dave's idea of the poor are those who don't have enough pocket change for steak and lobster at the country club after 18 holes of golf with Texas oil executives, and instead go straight home to Trixy and a home-cooked meal cooked by the maid.

Someone with 25 years doing the same job is offered a lump sum to make it through 6 months worth of bill payments and feeding their families, and then has to reenter the job market at the age of 50?

Jet, I've actually left a job and cashed in a pension. After only 10 years of pension payment at a terrible rate of return and a much lower salary than an auto worker, I still walked away with enough money to support myself for more than 6 months.

As for the Ford offers, read this article. Employees with as little as a year on the job get $100,000 in a lump sum. Those who have more than a year get that much or more PLUS whatever pension benefits they've qualified for. The guy you describe with 25 years at Ford would get about $25,000 a year PLUS $140,000 in a lump sum payment. I'm pretty sure I could handle any kind of transition, retraining or starting my own damned business with a deal like that.

Unable to afford 'retraining' the best job these people are able to get is minimum wage jobs at McDonalds.

Or they could come down here to Texas and instantly get a job paying $18 an hour or substantially more working in industries which demand similar skills to the auto industry.

However a minimum wage at McDonalds is counted as A job just like their old job was paying 10 times as much, so the unemployment figures don't reflect that... Just that they have a job.

Go to the BLS sometime. They have ALL sorts of employment and unemployment figures and they make it very clear that your description is just NOT accurate.

Dave

Jet, your situation is entirely different from the statistical norms I'm writing about. How many times do I have to say that these trends may not be applicable to every individual in the nation? There are certainly plenty of people who have it hard as hell, you being one of them. But no matter the intensity of their individual suffering or the outright wrongness of their circumstances, they don't change the aggregate figures or the the trends nationwide.

Do you honestly think that your unique and horrific experiences in any way typefiy what the majority of people in the nation are dealing with, Jet?

I absolutely agree that we need a better system to deal with those who genuinely can't afford health insurance or who can't qualify for it, but that's not the issue being addressed in this article at all.

The basic point of the article - and it in no way even relates to your situation - is that this canard of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is incorrect and what's actually happening is that more people are moving up in wealth than ever before, especially in the transitional areas of the upper middle class.

Dave

those who move up (out of poverty) are just replaced by those who move down. and those who die don't count.

those who move up (out of poverty) are just replaced by those who move down

Actually, they aren't. If you check the report I link to you'll see that the number who move down is significantly smaller than the number who move up.

Dave

ok, so poverty is going to take care of itself? how long has this been true? why do we still have poverty?

the real question is, how is it that the numbers suggest poverty will go away, when we both know this is not true? what's wrong with the numbers? are they asking the wrong question? are they quanifying the wrong things?

Good lord zing. I never, ever, ever said poverty was going to take care of itself. Not only is it not going to take care of itself, it's never going to go away. There will always be poor people. The point is that for most of the poor there's a way out and they take it. Some will always remain behind, and that's what we have our social welfare institutions for.

Dave

ok, follow my logic here... if "the number who move down [into poverty] is *significantly* smaller than the number who move up," then one would have to assume that after some amount of time poverty would eventually disappear, or would eventually affect such a small portion of the population that it would be almost invisible.

that's logical, right? that given enough time, poverty would be chipped down to a bare minimum...

if there is "a way out" for "most of the poor," and MOST people are getting out of poverty, then why is there still such poverty, and such constant poverty?

Zing, you had the nubbin of the answer in an earlier comment. The difference, I suspect, is the number of people who move up in income and then die before they go back down.

Dave

i think it's more likely that the number of people PERMANENTLY escaping poverty is not "significant" as the numbers would lead you to believe. that, in fact, the poor stay poor.

Then there's me Dave. An upper middle class who is falling, but the problem is I'm climbing up a moving down escalator.

Rather that having help climbing off and over to the up escalator before I sink to the bottom, the government insists that I fall all the way back to the floor financially before they'll help me get back on the right one.

I make too much money for food stamps
I make too much money for welfare
I have to get charitys to pay bits and pieces of my mendical bills
Social Security won't let me on Medicare because I'm too young.

Only until I've lost everything will they help.

I guess you could see I've seen it from "both sides now"

Sometimes I see you the way I used to be...

I'm telling you Dave that I've looked down on people like me and scoffed that they should stop feeling sorry for themselves, dust themselves off and get back to work...


....easy said

I've worked as a janitor for 35 years. My wife stayed home and raised my kids. Then the company outsourced janitorial services to a contractor that hires nothing but illegal aliens. The company gave me a gold watch. My retirement that started out with them paying for has been altered and frozen 9 times since 1986. They told me to contribute to a 401k. I had my money in a mutual fund that has earned interest of about 5% for 10 years annual. The companies matching contribution of 25% went into a dot.com fund that ended up costing me about 35% of my own mutual fund that I had to transfer out. I am only 55 years old and my kids are no longer dependant upon me. I bought a condo 3 years ago using a negative amortization loan and now the bubble is starting to burst. My wife has health problems and she has no health coverage in her job as she works at Walmart as a full time temporary. My cobra covered me for a while, but to cover my wife and I both they want $210.00 per month. My condo payment jumped from $975.00 per month to $1695 and I am renting it out to my son and his wife and two kids. My wife and I are now living in a motor home that we park around in town. I am doing handy man work for cash, but I can't find anyone willing to hire me on as a maintance worker full time. Life isn't easy, but it was easier.
I'm glad I read this article because I must be one of the few that's suffering. The author that lives in Austin says that there are no problems in this country and that everyone is well off. I keep wondering what's wrong with me. I raised a family, I worked hard, am I just too stupid to have taken advantage of all the mobility in this country?
I suppose I could start blogging full time on here and maybe the editors of BC will pay me some royalties or endorsements through Amazon so I can live in a modest compound in Austin.
Is everybody wrong when there's nobody right?

Dave,

you have the patience of Job. I just read throught the entire thread and searched for real rebutal. I see only anecdotal evidence presented. Not one person provided a different site with different numbers. Nobody has provided evidence that the economy is bad.

Jet, I am sorry about your situation.

Maurice or should I say Clavos,
Dave does have the ability to refute common sense with dredged up facts from right-winged-wacko websites that "fuzzy math" the reality on the street.

Note that no mention has been that the figures started after 2001 which was after the crash of a huge boon in the economy. Dotcom bust anyone?
All of the mega mergers of the early century were about job eliminations or what we like to call "synergies" in the business. There is no mention that we have how many jobs related to

- homeland security
- war in Iraq

I'm sure none of these two industries have anything to do with inflated job figures or how about

REAL ESTATE

do you think maybe an increase in wealth is due to an increase in appreciation?

Just a few points that since they are not backed up by links, Dave can obliterate from inside the confines of his "modest" compound.

Then there's me Dave. An upper middle class who is falling, but the problem is I'm climbing up a moving down escalator.

Which isn't at all easy, but at least you haven't given up. And your situation is fairly unusual and hardly the result of any failing of your own.

Rather that having help climbing off and over to the up escalator before I sink to the bottom, the government insists that I fall all the way back to the floor financially before they'll help me get back on the right one.

I make too much money for food stamps
I make too much money for welfare
I have to get charitys to pay bits and pieces of my mendical bills
Social Security won't let me on Medicare because I'm too young.

Only until I've lost everything will they help.

In many ways you're the definition of the class of people who the current system genuinely fails. Aid should be proportional to need, not to income or other arbitrary considerations, and we need to particularly focus on addressing the needs of those who don't qualify for existing programs.

I guess you could see I've seen it from "both sides now"

Sometimes I see you the way I used to be...

I'm telling you Dave that I've looked down on people like me and scoffed that they should stop feeling sorry for themselves, dust themselves off and get back to work...

Jet, when have I ever said anything like this? I don't hold people accountable for the hardships which chance and outside forces impose on them. That's hardly fair. And as I've said before, the overall trends DO NOT and CANNOT take into consideration those unique examples like yours which run counter to all trends.

Dave

i think it's more likely that the number of people PERMANENTLY escaping poverty is not "significant" as the numbers would lead you to believe. that, in fact, the poor stay poor.

You can think that if you like, but it's not in any way supported by the evidence.

Dave

Maurice or should I say Clavos,

My editorial powers tell me that Maurice is not Clavos. They just have similar levels of good sense.

Dave does have the ability to refute common sense with dredged up facts from right-winged-wacko websites that "fuzzy math" the reality on the street.

Right wing whacko websites like the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Democrat Joint Economic Committee, the Department of Labor, Parade Magazine and CNN - all of which are cited here. Or I guess you could mean the non-partisan Hoover Institute which I cited in a comment. And anyone can do the same math with a pen or a desktop calculator and get the same results. Give me a break.

Note that no mention has been that the figures started after 2001 which was after the crash of a huge boon in the economy. Dotcom bust anyone?

Do you REALLY want me to factor in the 5 years before that when the same trends were present but even stronger?

There is no mention that we have how many jobs related to

- homeland security

Which mostly combined agencies, leading to little increase in jobs because the combinations reduced duplicate positions - at least i theory.

- war in Iraq

A drop in the bucket statistically.

REAL ESTATE

do you think maybe an increase in wealth is due to an increase in appreciation?

I think that's certainly a factor in some parts of the country, but other areas have never really had a real estate boom and some are now having substantial deflation.

Dave

the "evidence" you have doesn't explain the reality. how does a system that loses more than it gains maintain itself? why have levels of absolute poverty remained fairly constant for the last 30 years?

A lot of big corporations are making cuts, this is true, but haven't more small business popped up in the last 10 years and succeeded better in relation to business size?

the "evidence" you have doesn't explain the reality. how does a system that loses more than it gains maintain itself?

It doesn't lose more than it gains if you add in the factors of a growing economy and wealthier, older people dying. It's a cyclical system. People climb the ladder, die and then others come up behind them. And wealth as a whole is not finite, as we've discussed before.

why have levels of absolute poverty remained fairly constant for the last 30 years?

I think this is because a certain level of poverty is built into a capitalist system. Plus we keep redefining the poverty level upwards every year to make sure the number of poor people remains about the same.

Dave

Homeless Man, I don't want to make light of your difficulties. But you sound like a success to me.

You raised kids on one income, enabling your wife to stay at home. You've got a successful marriage and grandkids in the area. You have a roof over your head, a home computer, an investment property, and a retirement account. All this despite the fact that your previous employer may have terminated your employment illegally (I'm not a lawyer).

Jet, great comments. Do you use ctrl+C, or Alt-Edit-Copy?

As for me, I've stacked my share of cans. But the difference between "working for a better life" and "working to survive" is mental. I've got better health care than I had 10 years ago, because the treatments I'm on didn't exist 10 years ago. My car is safer. My CPU allows me to kill space invaders 140x faster than a decade ago. And I get to talk to you fine folks. I'm doing ok.

Jet,

Social Security won't let me on Medicare because I'm too young.

I don't understand that. As you know, my wife is a paraplegic. She has been receiving SSDI since she was 53, and qualified for Medicare a couple of years later, but that was because you have to be on SSDI a couple of years before you can get Medicare, not because of her age.

Many economists have pointed out that the poverty rate is calculated with an overly simplistic formula that hasn't changed since the 1960s, and does not include the effect of factors like taxes, home ownership, health care and child care costs, etc.

According to Bob Greenstein, executive director of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, (a nonpartisan research organization and policy institute) the average person living below the poverty line actually earned $3200 less in 2005 compared with the previous year.

In the first Half of 2006, wages and salaries captured the smallest share of income on record with the share going to corporate profits at the highest level since 1950. And THE NUMBER OF UNINSURED AMERICANS IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH.

Hardly millionaire status.

Baronius, I use Control C and you'll note that credit is given at the bottom and in no way did I attempt to say that I wrote that... if that's what you're implying

Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, (a nonpartisan research organization and policy institute)

Excuse me for not commenting more quickly, but I had to get up off the floor and stop my hysterical laughter at this characterization of one of the most activist left-wing groups in America.

Do you think the Heritage Foundation's claims of neutrality are legit too?

But I do agree with the general point that the methodology of determining who is actually poor is probably pretty questionable. Of course, I'd go the other way and suggest that many of the working poor are now LESS poor because recent tax changes took them completely off the tax rolls.

Dave

I had to get up off the floor and stop my hysterical laughter

That's similar to what I went through when I read your reference to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. By all means, let's only consider as fact that which is published from a completely unbiased government agency.

Frankly, I've never put much store in statistics to begin with. You can make statistics say almost anything.

That being said, quoting government statistics in an attempt to convince Americans who are making under $50,000 a year (who find themselves at the end of the month with insufficient money, being forced to make choices between making their payments and buying food) that the economy isn't failing IS insulting the voters' intelligence.

That's similar to what I went through when I read your reference to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. By all means, let's only consider as fact that which is published from a completely unbiased government agency.

Sounds sensible to me An unbiased government agency seems like a better source than a partisan policy group. But as I mentioned in the article, even the sources the doom and gloom democrats are using don't support their arguments.

Frankly, I've never put much store in statistics to begin with. You can make statistics say almost anything.

A common misconception. When you have access to the statistics themselves it's much harder for someone to misrepresent them. That's why I always provide links to my sources.

That being said, quoting government statistics in an attempt to convince Americans who are making under $50,000 a year (who find themselves at the end of the month with insufficient money, being forced to make choices between making their payments and buying food) that the economy isn't failing IS insulting the voters' intelligence.

It's indisputible that the economy as a whole isn't failing. That doesn't mean that there aren't people who are earning less than they want to and having to scrape by. That's the nature of life in a capitalist system. Despite the somewhat hyperbolic title of the article, I didn't actually say that everyone in America is becoming instantly rich. But there's no question that opportunity is there and that people ARE advancing in wealth at all levels of society. Life doesn't come with a guarantee of success, but that doesn't justify the politics of bogus despair and discouragement.

Dave

poverty means not being able to afford everything you need to get by. like food, shelter, electricity. they up the number every year because it gets more expensive to live every year.

i once lived on less than $8,000 a year. of course, i augmented my money with several illegal activities. still, i could get by quite easily. i don't require much. but if i had a kid...

"Which mostly combined agencies, leading to little increase in jobs because the combinations reduced duplicate positions - at least i theory."

Dave, how many new government jobs were created? Hell, the TSA alone employees ..... how many? These were jobs that didn't even exist before 9/11 so my point is where would those people be working if they didn't strip and search us?

"- war in Iraq

A drop in the bucket statistically."

A drop in the bucket? What the hell are you talking about? These soldiers are getting combat pay now I hope and that's going to their wives I hope and therefore their incomes are up (isn't war a great thing?). Not too mention all the jobs that have been created for the war effort. I mean we have to get new Humvee's, bullet proof glass, new armor plating (steel from Japan I presume) new armored vests, more bullets, transportation etc........

I guess this is the first war that's never been an economic boon for the US huh?


"REAL ESTATE

do you think maybe an increase in wealth is due to an increase in appreciation?

I think that's certainly a factor in some parts of the country, but other areas have never really had a real estate boom and some are now having substantial deflation.

Dave"

Another discounted theory huh Dave? Some parts of the country.....REAL ESTATE has gone up everywhere just about and it's certainly not tanking overnight......soft landing mainly, but the deflation isn't hitting your "statistics" yet.

"why do we still have poverty?"

Because the definition simply changes as we become wealthier. Being 'poor' is about jealousy more than anything else. Capitalism fosters jealousy.

In sociali-t countries ala Venezuela the poor, uneducated peasants don't have two nickels to rub together or clean water, or food, or access to anything but basic first aid kit type healthcare but they're happy as clams that at least nobody else has more than them.

In the US, people get 1000+ square foot of government provided housing to themselves, most in 'poverty' outside the inner city have their own personal vehicle, they get enough food aid and televisions that the biggest problem is obesity, then on top of it all we pay the thousands of dollars a month to treat all the diseases their obese useless existence causes. Diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, chol---terol med----s, joint replacements, etc.

Show me a person in poverty and one of two things will be true. A, medical or mental condition beyond their control or B, dumb as a stick and lazy.

You don't have to be smart and hardworking to succeed in America, one of the two will easily suffice.

you're talking about relative poverty. i'm talking about absolute poverty, wherein you cannot afford the basic necessities. i'm not talking about a car. i'm talking about food or housing or heat.

i happen to live in the neighborhood in seattle where the city decided to plop down all the homeless shelters. during the day, they are emptied out. you can't walk a city block without being asked for food or change or a smoke five to ten times. you can smell the piss and shit on them. i've seen men and women walking down the street with no shoes, shit stains on their pants and blood coming from their mouths. if it were uncommon, i wouldn't be so damn used to it. most of them aren't insane, they've just given up hope.

"you can smell the piss and shit on them."

Sounds like signs of mental problems to me. I have seen studies that show a very large percentage of the chronically homeless have serious mental problems. Which is the cause and which is the effect is the question?

Millions of illegal immigrants risk their lives to come here with nothing but the stink of sweat and the shirt on their back. Many manage to succeed which encourages more to come.

The point is this, if you're not lazy or mentally ill/incredibly stupid you can succeed. I have known far more business owners seeking hardworking honest employees and finding them in short supply than I have known hardworking honest people who couldn't find a job.

For a while outside of my career I've renovated and managed rental properties. When I was young and idealistic I believed everything I heard in college about how the poor were that way because of prejudice and lack of opportunity, blah, blah, blah. Then I decided to do something you've probably never actually tried, to help them.

I bought houses in 'ghetto' areas to renovate and improve, I tried to hire the poor beggars and pay them well to do simple tasks like throw excess materials into dumpsters or paint fences. I found the majority to be nothing more than theives, con men, liars, and lazy to boot. There were a few gems worth working with, but that phase convinced me more strongly that poor people are that way because of serious flaws that can't be explained away as simply 'lack of opportunity'.

I always hear people say that if you would just spend time with those in poverty you would have more compassion for them, in my life it has been exactly the opposite. Most of them are hopeless because they ARE beyond help. Throwing money and services in front of them is like throwing it down a hole.

Providing assistance to the working poor is a horse of a different color however, but then we're back to relative poverty. Most workers have enough to eat, clothing, and a roof over their head.

Where's Tommy Thompson when you need him? Letting him go and never attempting to create a federal 'workfair' type program was one of the first major failings of the Bush administration.

GEORGE BUSH is GOD and he has never failed at anything, what's wrong with you???


I must be stoned...

never mind

Again, Jet. Not one word mentioning Bush or his policies in the article. And not by coincidence or accident.

Dave

If you're tryint to convince me this isn't an anti democratic article with or without mentioning Bush-you've failed miserably, and it certainly deserves a rebuttal...

...but that's only my opinion
© 2006 Jet in Columbus

Okay, I figured you guys had enough of me and my politics, so I wandered off and my latest article is on Paramount pictures fucking over Tom Cruise by offering Brad Pitt Mission Impossible 4.

To paraphrase the Godfather, I kept trying to get out but they kept pulling me back in, by name yet..

I've writen a bunch of political stuff and it takes a brad pitt article to even wake up Arch conservative to start making smart ass remarks on my strings again.

I'll go back to writing political stuff so all of you can go back to ignoring me...



sheesh

...but that's only my opinion
© 2006 Jet in Columbus

If you're tryint to convince me this isn't an anti democratic article with or without mentioning Bush-you've failed miserably, and it certainly deserves a rebuttal...

I didn't say the article didn't address the Democrats bogus misrepresentation of the state of the economy, just that I'm not crediting Bush with much if any responsibility for the good things that are happening in the economy. The Demcorats can be lying bastards and it still doesn't mean Bush is wonderful as a result. The two are unrelated.

As for rebutting it, you or anyone else is welcome to do the research and write a rebuttal. But since I used the best sources the left can come up with for their already established arguments and demonstrated how they distort the significance of the data, I don't think it will be an easy job.

If you want to back up the doom and gloom perspective you'd do a lot better focusing on the deficit.

Dave

If you want to back up the doom and gloom perspective you'd do a lot better focusing on the deficit.

There you are, Jet. He's even handed you the gun. Now go find the ammo.

Regarding the deficit, this administration does not include the money they lift from the SS fund in $53billion chunks! Huh? It's a real debt, fair and true. Do they intend to never pay it back, thus defrauding SS?

Blif

not the administration - but certainly the purse holders have been doing that for years(congress). That is one of the very strong arguments for abolishing SS.

Good lord, you mean there's still money in the SS fund? I thought it had all been raided out years ago.

Dave

SS produces a net surplus every year. Money intended for retirees. It's a sort of insurance or annuity program. You put the money in while working, then withdraw an income when retired. Pretty simple idea. Taking the money for other purposes is thievery, near as I can tell.

Yes, Bliff. We all know how SS works. The theory on taking the money out is that you replace it with IOUs drawn on the government credit.

There IS a solution to this problem, of course. If SS were privatized then the government would have no access to the money and would be unable to steal it. Plus people would get a much better return on their investment than the pittance they get now.

Dave

They don't need to abolish SS; they just need to enact a law removing it from sticky congressional fingers & enforce it!

They don't need to abolish SS

But they DO need to revamp it big time.

they just need to enact a law removing it from sticky congressional fingers & enforce it!

Remember who enacts the laws, Nancy! Good luck with that idea...

"Not one word mentioning Bush or his policies in the article. And not by coincidence or accident."

Purposely Dave?
How coy you are....

"just that I'm not crediting Bush with much if any responsibility for the good things that are happening in the economy"

Then what are you crediting Bush with or what are you crediting the good economy by?
Make sense?

"Lying about the economy and talking it down when prosperity is so widespread it's practically obscene just makes you look like an idiot."

Since you apparently didn't write this article to give the republicans credit for the growth, but only to prove democrats of being idiots because they are lying about the boon, then I guess you would have no dispute with my comments regarding this statement you made:

"If you want to back up the doom and gloom perspective you'd do a lot better focusing on the deficit.

Dave"

Well how about the WAR MACHINE?
Is it possible that this swoon is self inflated?
I don't seem to recall having thousands of federal workers on the payroll a few years ago manning airport check ins. How about guys making bullets, bombs, flak jackets, food for Iraqi's, medicine for Iraqi's, guard dogs, prison hoods, water, transportation half-way around the world, trucks, walkie talkies, bombsniffers, cell phones, ......

Dave you said it yourself, the democrats would do better to focus on the defecit and I say the deficit that is fueling the economic growth for the current privitization and outsourcing of most of our military war maching.

It's the WAR STUPID!

They don't need to abolish SS; they just need to enact a law removing it from sticky congressional fingers & enforce it!

And if we do that, whose fingers do we trust with it? Frankly the only fingers I trust are my own and I suspect that most people feel the same way about their money.

Dave

"And if we do that, whose fingers do we trust with it? Frankly the only fingers I trust are my own..."

In the end one has to trust someone, even if he's a banker or S&L exec.

I never get tired of typing this in:

I pay $5580 and my employer matches that amount. I work for 40 years. Total paid in is $446,400. If I receive 15K per year I would have to live to 97 years of age to BREAK EVEN. I don't want to spend that kind of money just to breatk even. Also I highly doubt that I will live to be 97.

No rational investor would put a dime into Social Security.

Maurice - Social Security is not an investment plan to allow you and Dave to profit (or to break even for that matter)...it is a systematic redistribution of wealth from workers and owners to the elderly and disabled

if you don't like living in a Socialist State too bad...America - love it or leave it

or should I say lock 'n load - ?

Troll,

I like the idea of Social Security and take advantage of it. My oldest son is severely handicapped and lives in a group home. What I don't like is the fact that this money is stolen by the government. We send people to jail for robbing pension plans. Why are the congressman allowed to steal money from our 'pension plan'? Also the no growth thing is a killer. That 400k should turn into twice that amount over the course of 40 years. No excuses!

Social Security would be much better if it were privately operated. Just like the DMV would be much better if it were run from a kiosk in Walmart.

"Maurice - Social Security is not an investment plan to allow you and Dave to profit (or to break even for that matter)...it is a systematic redistribution of wealth from workers and owners to the elderly and disabled"

Very accurate and succinct description of the program.

the money that the Congressional raiders 'misappropriate' is used to grow America's economy and international power base

what are you...some kind of America hater or what - ? (wink)

Troll,

I about crapped my pants until you winked at me. The scary thing is some people really believe what you were saying!

...I'll take the dry tasteless burger...

while Dave might say 'great minds think alike' I'd say some things don't change - see this '95 presentation

That 400k should turn into twice that amount over the course of 40 years. No excuses!

Double in 40 years? Hardly. If invested conservatively over any 40 year period in the last 200 years it would have doubled 5 times in 40 years, turning into about $12 million. The government could invest it themselves and get close to that kind of return on it. Hell, if they had actually held onto the money paid into the system since 1933 and invested it they could have paid all of the benefits off of the interest and had money left over - which was kind of what legislators were told was going to happen in order to convince them to support it.

the money that the Congressional raiders 'misappropriate' is used to grow America's economy and international power base

While this may be true, the way it's done is extremely inefficient. It could do the same thing and do it better in private hands or even if it was just invested in the private sectory by government.

Dave

troll,

What's your point in #73?

Does it have anything to do with the authors, who currently write "Powerline?"

only in so far as they made Dave's whinny points about the prapogandoids on the left in a similar article...eleven years ago

Or could it be that the "propagandoids" of the left are still singing the same old tired tune??

like I said - some things don't change

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

Dave

No people - Dave is right on this one.

Wal-Mart has been hiring most of the unemployed. Mr. Sam is a hero!!!!

Recent economic news -

Manufacturing jobs at a statistical all time low.
Service sector jobs are booming.

Someone has to wait on all of the new millionaires!

BriMan, Mr. Sam has been dead for several years.

As for the sectors of the job market which are booming, they're jobs in information services, phone support, nursing and every other medical field. Hardly low-wage service sector jobs.

Dave

Here are some interesting tidbits buried in the same BLS statistics that Dave chose not to mention (or maybe he accidentally overlooked):

"A number of factors must be considered in order to understand the severity of the current
labor slump:
• The record length of time that jobs have failed to recover--Prior to the current slump, jobs had
never fallen over a two and a half year period since monthly job numbers began in 1939. After five
months of job gains, payroll jobs in January remained 2.3 million below the level of March
2001.
• The growth in the working age population since the recession began in March 20011--Even as
jobs were shrinking by 1.8%, the working age population (i.e., the number of people of working
age) was growing by 3.7%. Had job growth kept up with working age population growth over that
period, 7.1 million more payroll jobs would have been filled in January 2004.
• The effect of the "missing" labor market on the unemployment rate--The unusually prolonged
period without adequate job growth has caused an unprecedented number of people to refrain from
actively looking for work, and therefore to be excluded from the unemployment measurement.
• The loss of wage and salary income--Although real hourly wages have grown since the start of the
recession, those gains have been more than offset by declines in the number of jobs and the amount of
hours paid per job. Although hours of work have increased, in recent months real hourly wages
have stopped improving.
The U.S. labor market has remained mired in a slump since the recession began in March 2001.
This Briefing Paper compares the severity of the current labor slump with that of earlier slumps in terms
of both depth and duration, and in terms of both absolute decline and the decline relative to a target
based on keeping pace with population growth. Because of the extended period of job loss, the current
labor slump is the most severe on record by several important measures:
• This slump saw the longest duration of job loss--29 months.
• This slump is the first time in which there was not a full recovery of jobs within 34 months
after the recession began.
• This slump is the worst in terms of the rise of the unemployment rate (after adjustment for the
"missing" labor force) 34 months after the recession began--up 2.8 percentage points.
• The current slump has also been unique in terms of the actual loss of aggregate real wage and
salary income 33 months after the recession began--down 0.7%."

Copied verbatim from a BLS paper entitled "UNDERSTANDING THE SEVERITY OF THE CURRENT LABOR SLUMP"

Sure Dave - whatever you say...

Statement of
Kathleen P. Utgoff
Commissioner
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Friday, August 5, 2005

Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 207,000 in July,
and the unemployment rate held at 5.0 percent. Over the
year, payroll employment has increased by 2.2 million, of
which 2.0 million was in the private sector. In July, job
gains occurred in many service-providing industries.
Retail trade employment grew by 50,000 in July, with
gains widespread among the component industries.
Employment in retail trade has increased by 352,000 since
its recent low in June 2003. In July, employment rose in
clothing and clothing accessories stores and in building
material and garden supply stores. Automobile dealers also
added jobs, as special incentives to buyers raised sales
volume.
Employment in food services and drinking places
increased by 30,000 over the month and has expanded by
262,000 since July 2004. This industry accounted for the
vast majority of the job growth in leisure and hospitality,
both over the month and over the year.
Health care employment rose by 29,000 in July and has
increased by 256,000 over the year. Over the month, job
growth continued in hospitals, nursing and residential care
facilities, and ambulatory health care services (which
includes doctors' offices and outpatient clinics).
Elsewhere in the service-providing sector, employment
increased by 23,000 in professional and technical services.
Job gains continued over the month in architectural and
engineering services and in management and technical
consulting services. Financial activities employment also
continued to grow (21,000). Within finance, employment in
credit intermediation remained on an upward trend,
increasing by 93,000 over the year. Real estate employment
rose by 10,000 over the month and by 54,000 over the year.
In July, temporary help services employment was flat and
has shown little net change since April.
In the goods-producing sector, construction employment
continued to trend up. Thus far this year, job gains in
construction have averaged 21,000 per month, about in line
with the average monthly increase during 2004. Employment
in manufacturing was flat in July. A decline in motor
vehicles and parts manufacturing (-11,000) reflected
larger-than-normal shutdowns for annual retooling. The
factory workweek was unchanged at 40.4 hours in July;
factory overtime rose by 0.1 hour to 4.5 hours per week.

And some more fun facts that are a little more recent - you still didnt get it right Dave...

Statement of
Kathleen P. Utgoff
Commissioner
Bureau of Labor Statistics
before the
Joint Economic Committee
UNITED STATES CONGRESS
Friday, March 10, 2006
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I appreciate this opportunity to comment on the
employment and unemployment data that we released this
morning.
Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 243,000 in
February, and the unemployment rate was little changed at
4.8 percent. February's employment increase reflected
gains in construction, mining, and several serviceproviding
industries.
Within the goods-producing sector, construction
employment increased by 41,000 in February, following
another sizeable gain in January. Over the past 12 months,
job growth in construction has totaled 346,000. In
February, employment continued to rise in mining, mainly in
support activities, especially those for oil and gas
operations.
Manufacturing employment overall was virtually
unchanged in February. There were, however, offsetting
movements in several industries. The largest job losses
were in motor vehicles and parts and primary metals. Job
gains occurred in machinery, petroleum products, and
computer and electronic products. The manufacturing
workweek (at 41.0 hours) and factory overtime (at 4.6
hours) each rose by 0.1 hour.
Over the month, financial activities added 22,000
jobs, reflecting increases in depository institutions and
in insurance carriers. Health care employment expanded by
18,000, with continued growth in hospitals, doctors'
offices, and home health care. Professional and business
services, private education, food services and drinking
places, and government also had job gains in February.
Average hourly earnings for private production or
nonsupervisory workers rose by 5 cents in February,
following increases of 7 cents in both December and
January. Over the year, hourly earnings increased by 3.5
percent. The average workweek was down by 0.1 hour in
February to 33.7 hours.
Turning to data from the household survey, both the
number of unemployed persons (7.2 million) and the
unemployment rate (4.8 percent) were little changed over
the month. The number of persons unemployed for 27 weeks
or more returned to its December level of 1.4 million,
after declining in January. These long-term unemployed
constituted 19.0 percent of all unemployed persons, down
slightly from a year earlier.
Total employment and the labor force continued to trend
up in February. However, the employment-population ratio
has held steady in recent months, and the labor force
participation rate has shown little movement for about 2 1/2
years.

Dave-
I have yet to see where Ms. Utgoff is pointing out all of the millionaires.

Statements like "labor force participation rate has shown little movement for about 2 1/2 years" dont engender the sort of effusive attitude you have about this economy.

Methinks thou doth cherry-pick to fit thine ideology.

BriMan, do you not even read the things you post?

First off, the article "Understanding the Severity of the Current Labor Slump" isn't from the BLS as far as I can tell, but from a well known socialist propaganda mill called the Economic Policy Institute. In addition, it specifically addresses the rise in unemployment associated with the recession, and has little or nothing to do with the current situation.

On to your posts from the BLS. Can you perhaps clarify what you were trying to demonstrate with them? They support quite specifically what I was saying earlier, including where I pointed out that healthcare is one of the growing higher wage areas of employment.

As for your final out of context quote, do you even know what it means? The labor force participation rate has to do with those people who choose not to work, particularly housewives and students. What she's saying there is that the number of housewives who went out and got jobs has remained stable for 2 1/2 years. That's not a bad thing. In fact, it suggests that families are not under pressure to add a second income.

And all of this is interesting, but this article isn't about unemployment, it's about the movement of people from the middle class into higher income brackets. They're two separate discussions, really.

Dave

Dave-
Way back up there in #15 & 17 or so you were doing all kinds of talk about jobs and the middle class. If this isnt applicable then WTF?

I know the first article isnt from the BLS website but it cites BLS statistics. It is at least as accurate in its "perspective" as your article is.

Of the 240K jobs created in the 3/06 article, 40K were from the healthcare & financial sectors. Construction, mining & several service providing industries were cited as the main sources of new jobs. That doesnt jibe with your statement about booming healthcare/good-paying jobs does it? The 3 main sources of job growth are labor-intensive jobs. Not those that would support a healthy middle class brother. How's that for my point?

As for your statement about labor participation. you dont know what you are talking about. It is actually a way of measuring optimism in the labor market. High participation is a good thing. Here is what it has looked like under Bush:

Several economists have suggested that the ratio of employment to the civilian adult population (let EP = E/P) is a better measure of the strength of the labor market. EP was 64.4% when Bush took office but fell to 62.2% by August 2003. For many months, EP remained virtually constant even as the Employment Survey was showing moderately strong employment growth. Some have suggested that employment growth has barely kept pace with population growth, but we noted earlier that the Household Survey was showing less growth for 2004 than the Employment Survey. We also noted, however, the jump in the Household Survey measure in July offset this tendency. So the 62.4% EP ratio reported as of August 2004 can be reasonably compared to the 62.2% figure a year ago to note that there has been a very modest improvement in the labor market situation. I shall also suggest that this measure is a better measure than the unemployment rate because of the decline in F/P, which was 67.2% as of January 2001 but only 66.0% as of August 2004.

F/P -
The civilian labor force participation rate is the ratio of F (civilian labor force) to the civilian adult population (P).

In other words Dave if F drops so do unemployment %'s even though there was zero improvement in jobs created.

How is all of this relevant - what it says is that your article is cherry-picked and your perspective is not shared by the very same people you get your statistics from. You didnt research any of the expert analysis. You try to draw conclusions from bits and pieces of data. And I thoroughly suspect you think two data points makes a trend.

Way back up there in #15 & 17 or so you were doing all kinds of talk about jobs and the middle class. If this isnt applicable then WTF?

Just because we had the diversion before it doesn't make it any more relevant now. Not that it isn't a good topic for discussion, but this issue about jobs has nothing to do with the millionaire issue.

Of the 240K jobs created in the 3/06 article, 40K were from the healthcare & financial sectors. Construction, mining & several service providing industries were cited as the main sources of new jobs. That doesnt jibe with your statement about booming healthcare/good-paying jobs does it? The 3 main sources of job growth are labor-intensive jobs. Not those that would support a healthy middle class brother. How's that for my point?

You think that labor-intensive jobs won't support a healthy middle class brother? What do you do for a living? Do you have any real idea what people earn at the various jobs where growth was strongest?

Here are the top areas of growth listed in the more recent BLS Report:

Construction: 41,000 jobs - average hourly wage is $20.40 or $42K a year
Financial Activities: 22,000 jobs - average hourly wage is $19.26 or $38.5K a year
Healthcare: 18,000 jobs - average hourly wage of $17.49 or $35K a year

The older report you cite has most of the growth in lower paid jobs in food services and retail trades, so you can see that the trend is for the jobs created more recently to be better and higher paying. That seems like a good thing. And yearly earnings in the $35K to $45K range are pretty respectable.

As for your statement about labor participation. you dont know what you are talking about. It is actually a way of measuring optimism in the labor market. High participation is a good thing.

That's not what it is, that's a way of describing what it means. You do define what it is later - it's the ratio of the workforce to the general population. But your characterization of it as defining 'optimism in the labor market' is pure interpretation. Growth can just as easily represent the need for more income because single income households are not able to meet their goals.

How is all of this relevant - what it says is that your article is cherry-picked and your perspective is not shared by the very same people you get your statistics from. You didnt research any of the expert analysis. You try to draw conclusions from bits and pieces of data. And I thoroughly suspect you think two data points makes a trend.

How do you draw this conclusion? My article has nothing at all to do with unemployment, except that I mention that there's a general trend of unemployment going down and wages going up. The article is about upward mobility in the middle class and unemployment is only mentioned to put the main topic in the context of general economic improvement. This ought to have been obvious.

Plus it draws on expert analysis as well as source data - did you check the links? Feel free to critique my article on its merits, but don't make stuff up and then try to hold me accountable for it.

As for the cherrypicking, can you explain what the hell you're talking about? I've included all the data I've been able to find relevant to the topic I'm discussing. The fact that I'm not discussing every aspect of work and the economy isn't cherrypicking, it's called having a topic and staying on it.

Your quotes from the BLS don't contradict anything in the article. They don't even address the same subject matter.

Never mind. Trying to respond to you is getting too surreal.

Dave

Dave-
You have cherry-picked along the same lines that Bush cherry-picks - one foot in ice water and one foot in boiling water does not mean that on the average I am comfortable. You are citing statistics (that although popular) are what many economists (who do not have jobs that rely on gleaming economic forecasts) consider unreliable and not indicative at best and just downright misleading in the worst case.

For instance, average (hot-cold) wages going up is a meaningless statistic w/o context. What were the hours worked to make those wages? How much overtime is included? If my employer forces me to work 3 extra hours of overtime, my average wage for the year goes up. Did he fire someone and give me part of his job? That is where productivity plays a role - did you mention that? Because based on productivity - wages are actually down right now. Look it up. Your article.

Your article doesnt mention the huge gap between workers and executive compensation which would certainly skew any average upwards.

You said labor participation rates measure the # of people who choose not to work. I said it is a measure of job market optimism because that is how Ms. Utgoff defined it. Again - look it up.

Your article has everything in the world to do with employment and wages as well as unearned income, etc. It is all relevant to who is becoming a millionaire and how and why. We all know the dotcom bubble made more millionaires but you have failed to show how this economy is making more millionaires. You say tax cuts sure but I see no evidence of a direct correlation. You cite BLS statistics but the BLS commissioner doesnt agree with your conclusions (or rather - yours with hers). I am just calling you on your BS and you are frankly not handling it well.

If you are going to write articles full of holes, I will point them out.

I agree with Jayson - you form a premise, cobble together facts to rationalize your line of reasoning, and then take umbrage when we point out that given more pieces of the puzzle, some of your pieces are obviously out of place. This generally has the effect of undoing your premise and we have to explain to you that you are not seeing or choose not to see other parts of the picture.

BriMan, you don't seem to grasp certain basic concepts here.

The information on wages was provided as context, and the figures are NOT for total wages, but for average hourly wages. No overtime figured in, no productivity adjustment. Just what you multiply times the hours worked to figure out what you made that week. It's a simple, straightforward bit of information and the various things you try to tack onto it inorder to distort it aren't relevant.

Particularly irrelevant is the correlation between executive salaries and worker salaries. People on the left always bring this up as if it's some sort of magical conjuration. But it's just meaningless. Executive salaries are not based on what workers earn and worker wages are not based on what executives earn. Each job is paid based on the market. You pay your workers what you need to in order to hire them and retain them. You do the same with executives. If you pay too little you lose good employees at both levels. If you pay too much at either or both levels your bottom line is impacted negatively. If you cut all the executive salaries at a corporation by 30% that wouldn't result in a single penny of increase for the hourly workers because the two types of earnings are not balanced off against each other in some sort of equilibrium. That's a bizarre misconception which keeps getting perpetuated.

Your article has everything in the world to do with employment and wages as well as unearned income, etc. It is all relevant to who is becoming a millionaire and how and why.

Sure, but it's not necessarily germain to the thesis of the article, which is to point out the end result and some of the obvious contributing factors. There may be other factors as well, and that's great. If you'd like to write a more comprehensive article, feel free. But that doesn't change the basic facts that this article presents.

We all know the dotcom bubble made more millionaires but you have failed to show how this economy is making more millionaires. You say tax cuts sure but I see no evidence of a direct correlation.

As I pointed out to Nancy earlier, there's not ONE single word about tax cuts in the article. This is typical. You're responding to what you expect me to be saying rather than to the actual content of the article. I didn't attribute upward income mobility or increases in net worth to tax cuts because I think that's a dubious and transient factor.

You cite BLS statistics but the BLS commissioner doesnt agree with your conclusions (or rather - yours with hers). I am just calling you on your BS and you are frankly not handling it well.

You said this before, but I read her comments and I just don't see where we disagree. The comments you posted from her don't apply to my main thesis in the article and don't contradict my secondary point about wages. I asked you before to show me exactly what you think she said that contradicted anything I wrote in the article and you've failed to do so - for obvious reasons.

If you are going to write articles full of holes, I will point them out.

Let me know when you start.

Dave

If you are going to write articles full of holes, I will point them out.

Let me know when you start.

ROTFL!!