New Census Report: Uninsured Up, Real Income Down For Men and Women, Poverty Unchanged
New Census Report: Uninsured Up, Real Income Down For Men and Women, Poverty Unchanged
This morning, the Census Bureau released new figures about health insurance, income, and poverty. It’s not a pretty picture.
The number of Americans without health insurance continues to rise at an alarming rate, men and women are earning less money and there are as many people living in poverty as there have ever been. Some key stats:
– In 2005, 46.6 million people were without health insurance coverage, up from 45.3 million people in 2004.
– The percentage of people without health insurance coverage increased from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005.
– For full-tim, year round workers, the median earnings of men declined 1.8 percent to $41,386, and the median earnings of women declined 1.3 percent to $31,858.
– In 2005, 37.0 million people were in poverty, not statistically different from 2004.
This helps explain why just 32% of Americans approve of Bush’s handling of the economy. Just 22% believe the economy is getting better, “the lowest level of public confidence in the direction of the economy seen in five years.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
84 Responses to “New Census Report: Uninsured Up, Real Income Down For Men and Women, Poverty Unchanged”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
<
Alot of people don’t have health insurance because they lost their job or the premiums and deductible are to high and cann’t afford them.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:07 amCome on people, we are at WAR and sacrafices need to be made!! By the poor, and the working class, and anybody who actually doesnt impact these decisions. (Sarcasm noted).
August 29th, 2006 at 11:08 amThey keep telling us the economy is strong and the media won’t tell people. You watch the cable news “business” shows and they trumpet a booming economy and wonder why on Earth the average person isn’t seeing the benefits. Well, now we have some numbers to directly refute those claims, even though many of us knew it was all BS anyway.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:09 amBush is drawing upon his prior experience running companies into the ground to destroy our economy as efficiently as possible.
If we don’t stand up now and do something about it pretty soon, we’ll find we won’t be able to afford to stand up in the future.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:10 amI wish Republicans loved Amerians and much as they claim to love America. I mean, they loath the people, love the dirt?
I am confussed..
August 29th, 2006 at 11:12 amHow come the phrase “heckuva job”, applied with maximum sarcasm, describes EVERYTHING the Bush administration does? Do these idiots try to be incompetent? Bush is simply a destroyer, a bad child who breaks all his toys and then throws tantrums.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:13 amUnions killed the textile and manufacturing segments of the US economy, which are the supports for the white collar and housing industries in the US. Our economy will continue to collapse, because technology and education will no longer maintain our productivity lead over the rest of the world. Unless and until US workers relearn accountability and a strong work ethic, the US is doomed to the de-evolution of other western nations, in which immigrant populations displace the native population by out producing them through hard work.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:15 amLemme get this straight Jason: We have 1 million more Americans without health insurance and it’s because they don’t have accountiblity and a strong work ethic?
August 29th, 2006 at 11:19 amAnd from Bloomberg.com
U.S. consumer confidence fell to a nine-month low in August as higher gasoline prices raised fears of inflation and a slowing housing market rattled Americans, a private survey showed.
The Conference Board’s index of confidence dropped to 99.6 from 107.0 in July, the New York-based business group said today. The decline was the biggest since last September, after Hurricane Katrina battered the Gulf Coast.
Americans are restraining their spending, which makes up 70 percent of the economy, as gasoline prices are kept aloft by violence in the Middle East and a slowdown in the housing market makes them feel less affluent. Minutes of the Federal Reserve’s August meeting today may show how worried officials are about slowing growth compared with the risks of faster inflation.
Hopefully this will have some impact on Nov elections???!!!
August 29th, 2006 at 11:19 amI see that Jason The Idiot Theorizer is back. Well, idiot, those Americans you say don’t have a work ethic work more hours than most people in the world, work more productively than most people in the world, and are pushing that productivity yet higher even in the face of falling income and a declining standard of living. So shut up, Jason. You are obviously the one who doesn’t have a work ethic.
What a dick.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:21 am#8, cynical,
To answer your question, I would have to retype my previous post.
UNION killed two key industries which were the pillars of the US economy, by destroying the American work ethic. Without those pillars, the WHOLE US economy suffers, especially in the area of creating jobs that provide the salaries and benefits Americans desire, including health care.
When one says UNION YES, they are saying please destroy the very foundations of the economy that gave us the great salaries and benefits we’ve come to expect.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:23 amFrom the Boston Globe:
Workers’ pay lags behind productivity
By Globe Staff | August 28, 2006
Despite a lengthy period of economic expansion, the current US economy has a chance to become the first period of sustained growth since World War II in which real wages for workers also failed to increase, The New York Times reported in today’s editions.
The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. In contrast, economists report that productivity — the amount that an average worker produces in an hour — has risen steadily during the same period.
Jason, does your “research” contradict this?
August 29th, 2006 at 11:24 amPeople, lets not forget about 9/11…
August 29th, 2006 at 11:24 am/sarcasm
uh… jason? what do you do for a living? unions didnt kill the textile industry. greed did, and the unending pursuit of cheap labor. i dont understand why white collar or professional workers think that people who do manual labor dont deserve a living wage. is it because “why should he make $15 an hour? he didnt even go to college” ? and as for immigrants displacing the “native” workers, stop and think for a minute. it has nothing to do with work ethic. would you like to pick vegetables all day (back breaking work in case you’ve never seen someone do it) in the hot sun for $2 an hour? no? who would? oh thats right, people who make only a dollar a day back in mexico or guatemala.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:25 amOh, and everybody, let’s not forget that Mr. Accountability, Jason M. Hendler, has an unverifiable Masters Degree in something or other from that famous Ivy League institution Stanford. Despite this fantastic education allegedly earned by the allegedly hard working Hendler, Mr. Accountability And Work Ethic cannot distinguish between Michael Chrichton and a real scientist. Jason must be a Disability Act hire, wherever he works (assuming he works at all), because he obviously cannot distinguish reality from fantasy, which is quite a disability.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:26 amand jason? if it werent for UNIONS, you wouldnt have paid holidays, paid vacations, or 8 hour work days. maybe you’d like to return to the days when everyone worked 7 days a week, 10 and 12 hours a day just to scrape by. no paid time off, no medical or dental insurance… ? thats what it was like before UNIONS jason.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:28 amAnd Jason, to blow another gaping hole in your bizarre theory, union participation has fallen to 8% in this country. Yeah, the unions got lotsa power.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:29 am#10, real,
In the short span of my career, I have generated more real wealth for my coworkers and my industry, than any 100 minimum wage workers you could name, so don’t talk to me about work ethic. I work harder and smarter than anyone I’ve met, generating opportunities that supposed industry experts couldn’t even dream about.
Give me a handful of individuals who will meet their commitments faithfully, and I could provide them the wages and benefits they desire, but I can’t find American workers like that.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:29 amJason We need the unions to protect the worker. At least you get a decent wage.
We need union in every big business.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:29 amWhen one says UNION YES, they are saying please destroy the very foundations of the economy that gave us the great salaries and benefits we’ve come to expect.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — August 29, 2006 @ 11:23 am
How is so? Please, develop the idea.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:29 amJason,
Just go back to blaming Clinton. It makes a whole lot more sense than blaming this country’s virtually non-existent unions.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:30 amYou watch the cable news “business†shows and they trumpet a booming economy and wonder why on Earth the average person isn’t seeing the benefits.
You gotta wonder how many “trickle down economic” theories have to be disproven before people understand that it just doesn’t work? Given the choice of increasing shareholder revenue or paying employees more, what do you think corporations are going to choose to do with their huge profits? It’s not about rewarding those who actually do the work to make the corporations successful, it’s about rewarding those who had enough money to invest in the company to begin with. We live in a country that value wealth over work and Jason wants to blame it on the little guy not having a work ethic? Why would anyone have a work ethic knowing that their work is not valued?
August 29th, 2006 at 11:31 am#10, real,
In the short span of my career, I have generated more real wealth for my coworkers and my industry, than any 100 minimum wage workers you could name, so don’t talk to me about work ethic. I work harder and smarter than anyone I’ve met, generating opportunities that supposed industry experts couldn’t even dream about.
Give me a handful of individuals who will meet their commitments faithfully, and I could provide them the wages and benefits they desire, but I can’t find American workers like that.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — August 29, 2006 @ 11:29 am
Shut up, liar.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:31 amJason, please enlighten us as to which sector you have made such a tremendous contribution in.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:31 amIs it direct marketing of neocon fantasies?
RealoScientist sez:
Or, perhaps he works for the current administration, who demands a certain…shall we say…’flexibility’ in distinguishing the BushCo reality from the actual reality that we live in.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:32 amThe Key to Economic Progress for America’s Working Families: Restoring the Freedom to Form Unions
June 25, 2004
Without strong unions, our entire community pays a heavy price: Wages lag, race and gender pay gaps widen and insecurity and poverty increases. Democracy suffers, in the workplace and beyond it…
and be sure to check out “Additional Resources”
August 29th, 2006 at 11:33 am#17, real,
Union membership is down, because unions DESTROYED their respective industries. Next will be the automotive industry, as GM’s assets will be shut down or acquired by Asian manufacturers.
Yes, unions were helpful in the beginning, but once they realized that they could extort higher wages, instead of earning higher wages through increased productivity from training or other factors, those industries were doomed.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:33 amWhen one says UNION YES, they are saying please destroy the very foundations of the economy that gave us the great salaries and benefits we’ve come to expect.
Who knew that unions, groups who work to protect the rights and wages of workers (not investors,) would be the cause of declining salaries and benefits? This Jason twerp must be in Cirque du Soleil, he’s contorted reality so much.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:34 amreagan killed the unions.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:34 amunions didnt destroy GM… their awful product did. ugly vehicles….gas guzzlers… notoriously bad design…. lousy reliability .
August 29th, 2006 at 11:36 amI have generated more real wealth for my coworkers and my industry, than any 100 minimum wage workers you could name, so don’t talk to me about work ethic.
The good thing about all this issue is that you have nothing to do with it, no matter how expert you are at creating jobs. You dont run a government. Your argument about unions could possibly be understood under the neoliberal idea of privatize everything, let private companies run everything and destroy all unions because they are corrupted group of people damagin productivity. Thats the speech from technocrats since the 80´s (thank you, Harvard). However, unions (some, Ok) protect the rights of the workers. You would say that Parsons and the other Chicago Martyrs were corrupted and the poor, weak owners of companies back then were the victims of this evil group. Well, thanks to Parson´s group you get to work 8 hours a day, at least, if you want to. Funny thing that only US and Canada do not commemorate 1st of May.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:36 amHmm. Perhaps it’s not so much the unions as the retirement package issues??
from http://www.detnews.com/ apps/ pbcs.dll/ article?AID=/ 20060520/ AUTO01/ 605200422/ 1148
Japanese companies face little of this burden in Japan, where the government covers retirees’ health care and pays a bigger share of workers’ pensions.
Toyota expected to pay out about $700 million in pension benefits in fiscal year 2006, which ended in March. That’s less than a tenth of what GM expects to pay on its pensions this year.
In the United States, retirees of the Japanese companies pay part of their health care costs. And the Japanese companies’ pension obligations are a fraction of that of the American carmakers.
While GM paid $5.4 billion last year for the health care of its 141,000 workers, 449,000 retirees and their dependents, Toyota said in its 2005 annual report that its obligations to cover the health care expenses for its retirees “are not material.”
August 29th, 2006 at 11:39 am#24, RU,
I converted raw communications technology into commercially viable products that in turn enhanced and improved other high tech products, etc. There are few other endeavors in which you can enhance the US economy than that.
Today’s unions are, as you have admitted, PROTECTIONIST. They are not training and developing their members for “what next” scenarios. I unionized manual labor job should be a temporary pass through on the way to white collar work, but that goes against the purpose of unions which only want to sustain themselves.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:39 amJason Hendler - When you write that US workers need to relearn accountability, are you thinking of George Bush who is supposed to be serving all the people? Bush took an oath to uphold the Constitution, which sayss that our government iwill promote the common welfare. Why doesn/t he doo what the prople want him to do to promote the common welfare? Health care costs that support the for profit medical iinsurance and hospital companies are making American companies non competitive. The US is the only industrialized country with health care costs in the double digits of the gross national product,and a majority of Americans want a single payer system like Medicare for all Americans.Why doesn’t George Bush uphold his oath and support these things?
August 29th, 2006 at 11:41 am…I could provide them the wages and benefits they desire, but I can’t find American workers like that.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — August 29, 2006 @ 11:29 am
sounds like the INS would be interested in this…
or
you are a lying sack of bullshite.
probably both…
August 29th, 2006 at 11:42 amJason? You unionized manual labor job should be a temporary pass through on the way to …??? What happened to your writing skills?
August 29th, 2006 at 11:42 amIn reality Jason is a failure at his work, relentlessly mediocre, passed up for promotion again and again despite his brilliant ideas (for which he never gets credit). His response is to blame his coworkers for their poor work ethic, and he condemns management for not holding them accountable (you see, management is intimidated that the workers might form a union if they are held accountable, even though management destroyed the union years ago). In other words, Jason is projecting, and we all know how vital projection is to the Republican mindset.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:48 am#34 - JMH,
August 29th, 2006 at 11:50 amWhat high tecnology products are still being produced in the US today. Production of high technology products is moving to China, Mexico and, now, Viet Nam, faster then tax evasion schemes by the filthy rich. By your description of your accomplishments in #18, I thought that you had to be a lobbyist for Halliburton.
#12, the answer to your question is globalization. People in other countries will work for less than we do, and often times produce more. Employers provide jobs. That’s it. If an employee wants more money and benefits, it is up to the employee to increase their education level and skill set. That is not the job of the employer. It is up to YOU to make yourself more valuable.
The downward pressure on wages will continue because of globalization and increasing worker productivity. Get used to it. If you want to make more, it’s totally up to you. It always has been.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:51 am#33, RU, this is what I’ve been saying for a long time now. Why aren’t corporations demaning a National Health Care system? They complain about costs, yet the answer is so obvious. It’s one of the reasons foreign labor is so cheap.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:52 amJason,
August 29th, 2006 at 11:53 amGo back to the horror movies where the killer bears your name.
You’re kind of shit is just plain scary.
Have you ever had a psych profile?
It’s covered under your hospitalization coverage.
#40 - my data was in rebuttal of the productivity BS spewed by Herr Hendler. I was not posing a question, but thanks for your thoughtful reply!
August 29th, 2006 at 11:53 am#40, PS. how does increasing worker productivity place downward pressure on wages?
August 29th, 2006 at 11:55 am“I converted raw communications technology into commercially viable products that in turn enhanced and improved other high tech products, etc.”
Care to explain that further? I am in the telcom industry, so I will understand if you get technical.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:56 amI think the problem is that we’re not praying hard enough. So just ignore these statistics and go pray. That should solve everything.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:56 am#46 - Yes drill sergeant!
August 29th, 2006 at 11:59 amThe Bush administration was correct on a gross measurement of the economy. The economy has been growing at a steady pace. However, the Bush administration and the Republicans (in part due to the failure of the Democrats to properly define the issue) always fail to provide an appropriate set of metrics to measure the success of our economy.
First, the economy has been growing at a steady pace. However, an appropriate metric is a comparison as to how the economy has done historically during the recovery from other recessions. The research will show that in terms of overall growth, job creation and income distribution that the recovery has been historically weak.
Second, the economy encompasses more than the total growth of GPD. Income distribution, job creation and the sustainability of the economy are other factors involved in the equation.
Income distribution is a key metric as to the health of the overall economy and political stability for a country. Increasing inequality deprives the population as a whole of the ability to participate in the economy. Indeed, it will eventually undermine the work ethic of a population. (I have seen this in a number of other third world countries where the general attitude is one of “Why should I work hard, I will not get ahead”.) It will also lead to greater needs for a social safety net or to greater political instability if the country fails to step up to the plate. (Communism arose because of the failure of industrialized nations to correct growing income inequality. The same fate could have arisen in the United States, however, actions taken after the Great Depression and the rise in unions that continued after WWII led to less income disparity, a booming economy and greater political stability. By this metric, we are clearly failing.
Job creation must keep up with population growth. New and replacement jobs should provide for an overall growth in income across socio-economic strata. The metrics should include an accurate unemployment index. (I think it was Regan that chucked out discouraged workers.) It should also look at the percentage of the population engaged in the work force. This has been falling.
By any measure, this is not a sustainable economy. The growing deficit (thanks to those tax cuts for the wealth, corporate welfare and encouragement to wealthy investors) we are headed towards a train wreck.
Third,the United States was founded on democratic principles that recognized the danger of creating heredatary aristocracies based on birth or wealth. The increase of income disparity and the rather apparent power of financially powerful special interest groups indicate a very real decline in actual democracy. This is evidenced by the relation of money to election outcomes, corruption, corporate written legislation and special interest earmarks. I would suggest that the declines in voter participation also can be related to an attitude of: “My vote doesn’t count” syndrome that may well be justifies
August 29th, 2006 at 12:03 pm#44, Increasing worker productivity means that if it used to take 60 minutes to make 10 widgets, and now it takes 40 minutes to make 10 widgets, the company can produce more widgets with fewer hours of labor.
This could lead to a surplus in widget makers, as companies require less of them to get the work done. More supply of workers put downward pressure on wages. Companies don’t have to compete for workers.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:10 pmBush’s war on the economy:
In 2005, the National Debt under Bush has increased so drastically that it reached $8 trillion. This means that the average American’s estimated share of national debt will be $24,000 when he leaves office, compared to $500 when he took office.
Since March 2001, the economy has had the lowest job growth of any business cycle since the Great Depression. (http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/SOTU_ECONOMY.PDF)
Responsible for creating a $521 billion dollars budget deficit less than four years after inheriting a $200 billion dollars surplus.
Responsible for the highest US trade deficit ever, totaling to $43 billion dollars.
Of Bush’s proposed $2 trillion tax cut, 43% goes to the wealthiest 1% of Americans.
Proposed a plan to allow illegal immigrants and foreign nationals to work in the United States for up to six years before being sent home. Under the proposed temporary worker plan, an estimated 8 million to 11 million illegal immigrants in the country and foreign nationals outside the country could register with the government to work in the United States for three years which would require billions and billions of taxpayer dollars for the eventual immigrant exodus out of the country and back to their original homes.
Monthly job growth since 2003 is 50% lower under Bush than it was under Clinton (Since August 2003, job growth has averaged 160,000 per month. During Clinton’s eight years in office job growth averaged 236,000 per month).
Under Bush, net national savings have dropped from 4.9% when Bush took office to 1.0% last quarter– its lowest level since the Great Depression. [BEA]
The poverty rate has risen each year since Bush took office from 11.7% in 2001 to 12.7% last year as 4 million people fell into poverty. [Census, Aug. 2005, Table B-1]
Child poverty rate is on the rise—jumping from 16.3% in 2001 to 17.8% in 2004. As 1.3 million children under 18 have fallen into poverty [Census, Aug. 2005, Table B-2]
African American poverty has also jumped every year since Bush took office—from 22.7% in 2001 to 24.7% in 2004 as nearly 1 million (864,000) African Americans have fallen under the poverty line. [Census, Aug. 2005, Table B-1]
August 29th, 2006 at 12:11 pm14 says: as for immigrants displacing the “native†workers, stop and think for a minute. it has nothing to do with work ethic. would you like to pick vegetables all day (back breaking work in case you’ve never seen someone do it) in the hot sun for $2 an hour? no? who would? oh thats right, people who make only a dollar a day back in mexico or guatemala.
Of course, what would be even better is if we contracted with the Chinese government to have some kind of a work program for their “criminal”. They’ll work for $1.50 an hour, even less! Think of how many pennies we’ll save on the price of lettuce.
Alternatively, we might realize that exploiting desperate 3rd worlders isn’t very much in line with the American ideal. And, we might take a closer look at those forces who - no matter what else they say - end up supporting such exploitation, including not just the GOP leadership but this site and the leaders of the Democratic Party.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:12 pm#48, all of your points can be easily dismissed.
(1) The research will show that in terms of overall growth, job creation and income distribution that the recovery has been historically weak.
The nation is still at full employment. We’re not going to see large US job growth when unemployment is below 5%. In addition, we’re adding even more jobs overseas because there aren’t enough US workers to fill the roles. Oversea workers are also much cheaper, which puts downward pressure on US wages. Inflation is also very low, which keeps a lid on wages. (Part of the reason inflation is low is due to reduced labor costs - globalization!)
(2) You’re just repeating your #1 comments, which have been dismissed.
(3) Conspiracy stuff. Late night talk show stuff. You say wealth influences politics? is this new? Was John F Kennedy not from the rich Kennedy clan?
August 29th, 2006 at 12:17 pmI get the feeling that Jason is actually some fat kid living in his mom’s basement.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:25 pm#52, if we were at “full employment” wages would be rising. They are not.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:31 pmJason,
The Federal Government is a role model if they want to be or not. They are modeling incredible debt, ignoring of laws, no accountability, cronyism, ineptitude, lack of responsiveness, corruption, arrogance. This is the standard being set for the rest of the country. Then you have the gall to focus on unions. What an ass.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:39 pmWe live in a FREE MARKET SYSTEM!!!
Going the Free market route has many good things but also some negatives. The big one being that there are winners and losers. There will ALWAYS be poverty in a free market system. ALWAYS! The only to have no pverty is to go away from the Free Market and move towards Socialism like Europe and Canada. Of Course you then get crappy GDP growth and an overall decrease in the standard of living for all. Pick your poison people.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:40 pmNice strawman Roger_Roger. It is one thing to have some poor people in the country, that is what there will always be some of. Some people can’t handle money properly and some people just aren’t smart enough to be rich.
But, it is something entirely different when you have an administration thaat is systmeatically destroying our economy while at the same time using there media propoganda wing to tell the masses that everything is fine.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:49 pmTrickle Down Economics is proven not to work, time and time again. Yet here we are with another Republican majority and another Economic Disaster stemming from this FAILED policy
The American people know that tax cuts for Bush’s rich prep-school friends are not good for America.
That’s why the majority of Americans don’t approve of Bush’s handling of the economy.
And that’s why Republicans are being voted out of office yet again.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:04 pmAmerica is not a so-called free-market system. Many people want it to be, but it is not nore has it ever been free market.
Just like we don’t have pure democracy, we have representative democracy.
The founders were smart enough to see what works and what doesn’t.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:06 pmThe average working American has lost more money in wages over the last 5 years than any tax cut could ever give back.
And to top iit off, the average working American also pays more in energy and healthcare costs than ever before.
These are all results of the failed theories of conservative governance.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:09 pmBush/Cheney, and their Wall Street friends could care less about the hard working Americans who voted for them.
They are Corporate Supremacists who look down on working class people.
They think they are so much better than most Americans, that’s why they could care less about the American economy.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:10 pm#56 - The only to have no p[o]verty is to go away from the Free Market and move towards Socialism like Europe and Canada. Of Course you then get crappy GDP growth and an overall decrease in the standard of living for all. Pick your poison people.
Those are my choices, huh? Honda Civics for everybody, or Lexus SUVs for the top and shank’s mare for the bottom?
No contest. That doesn’t even require thought.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:33 pmBush: “I hear the voices.”
August 29th, 2006 at 1:36 pm#48, all of your points can be easily dismissed.
Well let’s just take a look at that.
The nation is still at full employment. We’re not going to see large US job growth when unemployment is below 5%. In addition, we’re adding even more jobs overseas because there aren’t enough US workers to fill the roles. Oversea workers are also much cheaper, which puts downward pressure on US wages. Inflation is also very low, which keeps a lid on wages. (Part of the reason inflation is low is due to reduced labor costs - globalization!)
Key indicators (new housing starts, existing house sales, gas prices,)show inflation is rising, I think. Or is it stagflation, since wages are stagnant?
(2) You’re just repeating your #1 comments, which have been dismissed.
Have they now? See above.
(3) Conspiracy stuff. Late night talk show stuff. You say wealth influences politics? is this new? Was John F Kennedy not from the rich Kennedy clan?
Comment by muckdog
How about the fact that the whole push for repeal of the estate tax has been financed by the hundred richest families in the US, like Coors, Scaife, Dupont, etc. Definitely not “conspiracy stuff” unless you’ve had your head in a hole for the past decade.
So your take-down, wasn’t, Muckdog. Go play with your widgets some more.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:41 pm#54: Wrong. Because foreign labor is readily available. At cheaper prices.
So there.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:42 pmWe live in a FREE MARKET SYSTEM!!!
Comment by Roger_Roger — August 29, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
Here’s Roger, pushing GOP mythology again. Free market, my ass. And just how free are those markets for all the huge government contracts being awarded by the corrupt Bush administration to their cronies without competition? How free is that? How do billions and billions of dollars of earmarks directed at individual corporations constitute a free market? How does rampant supply manipulation by oil and natural gas companies fit into a free market?
August 29th, 2006 at 1:42 pmGoing the Free market route has many good things but also some negatives. The big one being that there are winners and losers. There will ALWAYS be poverty in a free market system. ALWAYS! The only to have no pverty is to go away from the Free Market and move towards Socialism like Europe and Canada. Of Course you then get crappy GDP growth and an overall decrease in the standard of living for all. Pick your poison people.
Comment by Roger_Roger
Social Darwinism becomes you, Roger. You’ve already exposed your hatred for the Social Security System, and America’s retirees. What next Roger, a spirited defense of Eugenics?
August 29th, 2006 at 1:46 pm#49
August 29th, 2006 at 2:14 pmIncreasing worker productivity means that if it used to take 60 minutes to make 10 widgets, and now it takes 40 minutes to make 10 widgets, the company can produce more widgets with fewer hours of labor.
They could then lower their prices and compete more effectively by selling more widgets. Where did you take your econ 101?
Because foreign labor is readily available. At cheaper prices.
Comment by muckdog — August 29, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
because of CORPORATE WELFARE… these companies are given tax breaks and incentives to MOVE their operations elsewhere… that’s gotta change…
oh, and she is correct…
August 29th, 2006 at 2:20 pmRUCerious sez:
I’ll wager that it was the same ivy-league Stanford that has produced such fine graduates as Jason M. Hendler. ^_^
August 29th, 2006 at 2:21 pmThere will ALWAYS be poverty in a free market system. ALWAYS!
Comment by Roger_Roger — August 29, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
Correct but inaccurate. In a free market society the only thing you produce is wealth out of poor people. Thats the basis of capitalism, the accumulation of wealth. So, at the end you will have very very few people with enormous richness and a lot of poor raging people in the streets. Wait and see.
The only to have no pverty is to go away from the Free Market and move towards Socialism like Europe and Canada. Of Course you then get crappy GDP growth and an overall decrease in the standard of living for all. Pick your poison people.
Oh, Canada, all the way. Who cares about GPD when you get to feed all your citizens?
August 29th, 2006 at 2:23 pmEven as we’re in what for corporate America is “the golden era of profitabilityâ€, Joe and Jane Average’s paychecks are falling behind, even when you count health-care bennies (which private employers are slashing anyway):
It’s actually worse than it looks, because the very few folks who are actually doing better are skewing the numbers:
What we really need is someone to have the guts to undo Bush’s tax giveaways to corporate America and the very rich. Then we could afford what most every other first-class industrial nation has: a working health care system.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:38 pmThe major problem with the theory that unions killed off the textile industry is that there was very little union representation of the textile industry in the US south, which is where it left *from*. Not that reality is an impediment to a good right-wing rant or anything, but there it is.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:43 pm#56 We live in a FREE MARKET SYSTEM!!!
Going the Free market route has many good things but also some negatives. The big one being that there are winners and losers. There will ALWAYS be poverty in a free market system. ALWAYS! The only to have no pverty is to go away from the Free Market and move towards Socialism like Europe and Canada. Of Course you then get crappy GDP growth and an overall decrease in the standard of living for all. Pick your poison people.
Comment by Roger_Roger — August 29, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
The USA, a free market, my ass. First, you have LOTS of federal welfare for your industries, be it food (help to your farmers to produce at a cheaper price than Africa, Brazil or any other third world country), military (giving TONS of federal money to giantic weapon programs and starting preventive wars all the time), forcing politically other countries to buy your GM crops or your crappy software against the will of their people and/or their laws, using third world appointed dictators to obtain favorable bussiness…
Roger_Roger, you’re delusional if you think you live in a free market country. You’re receiving welfare from the cradle to the tomb. And if the workers in your country is now taking the heat of global free market, isn’t the guilt of Unions, but of the enterprises who have more benefits (lesser wages) using 7 years olds to sew sneakers to sell to your people. And then, the enterprise moves the HQ to the Cayman Islands or some other trick and, alas, they can receive US tax breaks, but not pay taxes in the USA.
Roger_Roger, that’s not free market, it’s freeloading from the world’s people, and the lack of wise (and enforced) global market laws.
BTW, you’re saying that if a person doesn’t want to be poor, your country isn’t the best to live. I think that you’re damaging your defense of the free market system. Just saying.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:57 pm#72 The major problem with the theory that unions killed off the textile industry is that there was very little union representation of the textile industry in the US south, which is where it left *from*. Not that reality is an impediment to a good right-wing rant or anything, but there it is.
Comment by Mike Jones — August 29, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
Yes. The theory of the Unions killing the textile industry is simply crap. In my country, the textile industry also died long ago, and unions had nothing ado. But why? Because textile industry doesn’t need quality worders, and textile enterprise owners move the factories to India or China to weave or sew their products, paying far less than in the US, and selling the product in the USA.
Saying that if the USA workers wanted to earn less than the chinese or indian workers, the jobs will be kept in the USA is simply moronic. Life is far more costly in any place in the USA than in most of China or India. Working three weeks to fill a gas tank needed to go to work and then can’t buy food isn’t an affordable choice. No person (even illegals) can afford to have such a crappy job.
The rich countries in the world (the USA was the main one), in fact their elites, were too eager to create the WTO and produce the first rulings quickly to open the borders, before of evaluating the impact in the national workers first. Or maybe it was the plan from the start…
August 29th, 2006 at 3:08 pm[…] With the news today of a New Census Report: Uninsured Up, Real Income Down For Men and Women, Poverty Unchanged, and this press release from the CPPP, Poverty Continues To Plaque Texas, it’s clear that the Republican plan for Texas and the US is finally coming to fruition: They got theirs, now you get yours. […]
August 29th, 2006 at 3:41 pm#69, only if they needed more widgets. Otherwise, they could do with less labor and create a glut in the availability of widget makers.
August 29th, 2006 at 5:07 pm#45, cynicalgirl,
Read through these patents, and lemme know if you have any questions.
http://patft.uspto.gov/ netacgi/ nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=jason&FIELD1=INNM&co1=AND&TERM2=hendler&FIELD2=INNM&d=PTXT
August 29th, 2006 at 6:01 pmGood job Jason, now git back to work!
August 29th, 2006 at 7:30 pm“the lowest level of public confidence in the direction of the economy in five years”. Five years…what happened in 2001? Oh yeah, GW took office, at the country started down its glorious path of GOP domination in the Congress and the Whitehouse! I’ve been wondering a lot though about why things arn’t perfect yet. I mean, they have had five years. And all those countries that used to like us so much, seem to actually hate us now. The public thinks the economy is going downhill, and those folks who use to live on the Gulf coast are scattered across the country.
Well, I’m sure things will get better when we elect even more Republicans to Congress in November. If we can get rid of those Godless liberal Democrats, then things will be perfect.
August 29th, 2006 at 8:24 pmPerhaps the decrease in insured people is due to the insurance companies refusing to pay. Take katrina for instance, ohh, it’s flood damage, not hurricane damage, we don’t care that the hurricane caused the flooding.
Honestly, if you don’t have kids you should only have liability coverage for your car, as required by law. Anything more than that and you’re just lining their pockets, then when you need to use that investment you made in your security, it’s not there.
August 29th, 2006 at 10:10 pmYou’re not alone Jason Hendler! Good for you.
August 31st, 2006 at 7:09 pmThe U.S. became an Empire around 1912 or so when it became an Equal to the British Empire Financially and later became the Dominant Western Power after World War 2 because of the Destruction in Europe and Asia.
September 2nd, 2006 at 9:22 amBy the Early 1970’s Europe and Asia had totally rebuilt their economies and in many aspects began to surpass The U.S. Economy leading to the U.S. Government Totally Dropping the Gold Standard which was partially done in the 1930’s because we could not pay our debts any longer with Gold.
We started to Pay our debts by selling U.S. Assets abroad and than in America.
Industry, Land, Government Bonds,treasury Bills,etc were sold to the New Creditor nations of Japan, Germany,France, Saudi Arabia to name the big ones.
Fast forward 30 years later and we have become a huge debtor Nation basically controlled by Foreign Bankers and Corporations.
Most of our most advanced Industry has been bought up or bankrupted and much of our Western Lands our being used as collateral for our debts or Sold directly to the Creditors we owe.
Throughout the U.S. Economy we have debts approaching 50 trillion, within a very few years our total debts will surpass our total Wealth(Within 3 to 5 years).
At that point we will basically be bankrupted and totally under Europe and Asian control as any other Third World Country.
In 2005 we added 6 dollars in new debts to produce a 1 dollar advance in GDP.
We have no real economic Growth we are just indebting ourselves and selling the remaining assets that prior Generation Built.
Our Government has been totally corrupted and could care less what happens.
The Empire ended in the 1980’s and now will we survive as a Nation?
We have a yearly 900 billion Current Account Deficit and Growing.
Over 700 billion Governmental debts yearly.
Huge Consumer and Private sector debts.
The Bankers have taken control of the country and will make it a dictatorship. They are done using us as an economic Model and Military Protector against the Soviets since they disbanded in the 1990’s. America rose in the late 1880’s economically at the same time that Socialism and Communism were gaining power in Europe and other places.
They needed a home base of strength for their fight against this threat to them. Once the Communism disbanded 100 years later the U.S. began to decline at the same time.
Bush is simply the front man for those who truly control the economic power in America, the major corporations and select individualswho hold massive amounts of wealth. He’ll tell you anything as long as you believe it. America, sad to say, is turning into a deeply divided country, split by ever growing economic disparitiy. This is a grave threat to our democracy. While this tragedy is unfolding, Karl Rove will divert your attention by gay bashing or flag waving. There’s a sucker born every minute.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:03 pm[…] While in 90s the surging stock market was seen as emblematic of a fast growing economy, the two are separate and their conflation leads only to confusion. The average American does not have significant stock earnings, so a bull market often does little more than fill the coffers of executives and investors, generally the wealthiest section of the country. In theory their gains will trickle down to us in the form of higher wages and greater employment. Unemployment has already been low for a long time, but wages have absolutely stagnated for Middle and Lower Class America. Part of the reason is that corporations have chosen to convert their earnings into pure profit, hence the record CEO salaries and a windfall year for oil companies, or ship it overseas to invest in cheap labor markets. This disconnect between growth for the wealthy and growth for the average American is unsustainable in the long term. Income inequality is the biggest issue in America that nobody seems to want to talk about, but all the facts are laid out plain - the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and all of us have to pay the record debt we’ve accrued just to keep us where we are. […]
October 29th, 2006 at 7:45 pm