Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity

[cal04]

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

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

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

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?hp&ex=1156737600&en=e16f89a89d62998c&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[marmar]

1. America the f..ked...

:scared:
How much longer before a return to the indentured servant era?

[pooja]

2. hmmm.. the richest get richer.... hmmm

creating a nation of welfare...hmmm

[gratuitous]

3. Gee, I wonder . . .

Where did the wealth created by that increased productivity go if not into the pockets of the workers who created it? And does this have anything to do with the Bush administration's relentless hyping of the economy despite so much evidence to the contrary?

[1932]

4. Shift in wealth. Bottom to top. Thank you Republican party for your

family values (the families of CEOs that is).

[Bozita]

5. hmmm... "Outsourcing seen boosting wages at home: study"

That was the heading of a Saturday LBN thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2476161

[cyberpj]

6. But when you read it: "by about a quarter of a percent per yr 1997-2004"

WAIT!
What?...
"by about a quarter of a percent per yr 1997-2004" ?!?

snip...
"They presented evidence that the productivity effect had helped raise real wages for the least skilled among U.S. blue collar workers -- those who do jobs most likely to be shipped overseas -- by about a quarter of a percent per year between 1997 and 2004."

And they're claiming this as a GOOD THING??
And they're getting away with it??

So how much did the CEOs and management wages increase during that same time period?!!!!!

These people need to be called out on this bullshit.

Is it ME???????????????

[Bozita]

7. It's not you. ... It's them!

Playing with the numbers.

[YankeyMCC]

8. "...voters blamed corporate America, not the government..."

Somehow the message has to get through that the government enables corporate American to rob people of their wages like this.

[PinkyisBlue]

10. The government IS corporate America.

They're now one and the same. We need to demonstrate that our government has been bought and paid for by large corporations. Our constitution no longer states "We the people" but "We the corporations". Our politicians no longer represent the interests of the people but the interests of the corporations. The mass media, owned by a few large corporations, filters and screens all information that is released to the public. There is no public good any longer, there's only corporate greed. Our national parks, infrastructure, schools, all are at risk here.

[YankeyMCC]

12. A quote I came across in "A people's history of the United States"

I don't have it handy so my apologies for the inaccuracies and lack of attribution but it went something along the lines of

"People don't need their rights written down on paper, they know what their rights are and will take care of themselves, it's the corporations that need their rights enforced by law."

It was from a single mother and activist I think, her point being that the system is really set up to protect the corporations not the people.

[CrispyQ]

14. Ahhh, but corporations are people!

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

snip...
Our Bill of Rights was the result of tremendous efforts to institutionalize and protect the rights of human beings. It strengthened the premise of our Constitution: that the people are the root of all power and authority for government. This vision has made our Constitution and government a model emulated in many nations.

But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's by establishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings.
=====

Some more good reading on this very critical topic:

The Hijacking of the 14th Amendment by Doug Hammerstrom
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/fourteenth_amendment_hammerstrom.pdf

Santa Clara Blues by William Meyers
http://www.iiipublishing.com/afd/santaclara.html

[cosmicdot]

15. Thom Hartmann's "Unequal Protection"

http://www.bodhitree.com/lectures/hartmann2.html

~snip~

Then I walked a few blocks to the office of an old friend of mine who is a lawyer in town, and laid the copies out on his desk. "I want to ask you about the 1886 Santa Clara County case," I told him, and he answered, "Oh, you mean the one where corporations become persons." Really, that is how lawyers inevitably respond. Then I asked him to take a look at the last paragraph of the case. He read it, and said, "That's interesting." But when I had him read the first sentence of the head notes, his response was "Holy Cow!" or actually, something a little stronger. "Clearly," he said, "the head notes don't say what the ruling says." "Which means . . . ?" I asked. "Which means there is a mistake," he answered.

"A mistake?" I said. "A hundred and twenty years of American law based on a mistake? The World Trade Organization is based on a mistake?" And he said, "Calm down, I'm not an expert on constitutional law. Why don't you call somebody who knows this stuff?" So I went home and called Deb Markowitz, who is the Secretary of State for Vermont - "Hello, I'd like to speak to Deb Markowitz." The answer was, "this is Deb." That is one of the advantages of living in a small state! I told her that I had a question about the 1886 Santa Clara County Case, and she replied, "Oh, the one where corporations became persons." I said, "Yes, that one," and asked her if she had read it. She said she hadn't, although she had studied the case in law school. So I read to her from the end of the case, where the court declines to rule on the constitutional issues, and her response was about the same as my friend's - she was shocked. And when I asked what it meant, she said it showed that the Court never said that corporations are persons, and never granted them constitutional rights. ~snip~

[CrispyQ]

16. Oh how I love that book!

My copy is written up & dog-eared & always by my chair! I give it :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

For anyone who wants a detailed history of how corporate personhood came to be, Thom's book is tops. The awful (& deliberate?) misinterpretation of court ruling is the key to reversing corporate personhood & reigning these behemoths in. I also recommend "The People's Business: Controlling Corporations and Restoring Democracy" by Charlie Cray, Lee Drutman, Ralph Nader? It offers more advice & suggestions for how to reverse this awful misinterpretation of court ruling.


The People's Business
http://www.amazon.com/-Peoples-Business/dp/1576753093/sr=8-1/qid=1156857331/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-4550177-3714357?ie=UTF8

Some other great corporate watch/personhood sites:

http://www.corpwatch.org/index.php
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/
http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/
http://www.citizenworks.org/
http://www.poclad.org/
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/


It's Time to Overrule the Supreme Court
Overturning Buckley v. Valeo is an essential step toward enabling a democratic republic
by Jeff Milchen
Published July 18, 2006

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/money_notspeech.html

snip...
The U.S. Supreme Court once again made itself a roadblock to political equality last month when it struck down a Vermont law that attempted to protect the political voice of average citizens.

Vermont's Act 64 was passed in response to growing public concern that money could dominate election outcomes and inordinately influence state office-holders. The act limited how much money a single wealthy person could invest in candidates for state elected offices and capped overall spending by those candidates.

In its Randall v. Sorrell opinion, the justices told legislators and reform advocates, who possess first-hand experience of political corruption, that their concerns are merely theoretical. The justices struck down spending limits and, while not forbidding contribution limits entirely, made themselves the arbiter of what dollar amount is acceptable. They declared Vermont 's $200-$400 limits "unconstitutionally low," even for a tiny state of just over 600,000 citizens (and where $200 can buy multiple TV ads across the state).

The Court effectively prohibits states from leveling the political playing field between the wealthy citizens and everyone else. Though the ruling does leave room for ever-more cautious limits that might win the court's blessing, sensible people don't keep playing a rigged game.

The court clearly is interpreting the Constitution in a way that prevents representative democracy, so it's up to citizens to rewrite the rulebook, not keep pleading their case to a biased referee. That rewrite is amending the Constitution itself to make clear that First Amendment-protected speech is the expression of ideas, not the purchase of political power.

===

Sort of got carried away here! ;) But it's such an important message & so many people I know are not aware that corporations share the same constitutional rights as humans. I think this is an excellent issue to rally We the People behind. ~~sigh

[izzybeans]

9. What the market wants it gets.

Law of supply and demand...and other free-market ideology nonsense.

That's all market apolotists will be able to reply with. No substance...all thin platitudes.

[Barrett808]

11. Isn't UBS a Bush family property?

I recall they bought Enron's treading records, safely moving them out of the US and making them much less available for discovery.

[agio]

13. Golden era

gilded, that is.