Falling Fortunes of Wage Earners (no jobs, no wage increase econ growth)

[papau]

Falling Fortunes of Wage Earners
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

Published: April 12, 2005

<snip>Even though the economy added 2.2 million jobs in 2004 and produced strong growth in corporate profits, wages for the average worker fell for the year, after adjusting for inflation - the first such drop in nearly a decade.<snip>

The problem is not with the jobs themselves. Most economists dismiss as overblown the widespread fear that the number of jobs will shrink in the United States because of foreign competition from China, India and other developing nations. But at the same time many of these economists argue that the increasing exposure of the American economy to globalization, along with other forces - including soaring health insurance costs that leave less money for raises - is putting pressure on wages that could leave millions of workers worse off.

"We're in for a long period where inflation-adjusted wages will be under acute pressure," said Stephen S. Roach of Morgan Stanley. "That's a most unusual development in a period of high productivity growth. Normally, real wages track productivity."
<snip>
Whatever the explanation for Sprint's action, many economists, liberal and conservative, are perplexed by two unusual trends. Wage growth has trailed far behind productivity growth over the last four years, and the share of national income going to employee compensation is low by historic standards.

Mr. Roach of Morgan Stanley said wages were being held down by foreign competition; corporations that are moving jobs offshore; the uncertainty of businesses over demand; and management's ability to substitute computers and other devices to replace workers.<snip>


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/12/business/12wages.html

[fasttense]

1. This article is as blind to reality as the repugs are.

This repug article sure has some clear holes.

"Even though the economy added 2.2 million jobs in 2004." Yeah, but what they don't say is how many jobs have gone away and how many of those 2.2 million are McDonald workers.

"The problem is not with the jobs themselves. Most economists dismiss as overblown the widespread fear that the number of jobs will shrink in the United States because of foreign competition from China, India and other developing nations." Who are most economists? B*sh's buddies? Tell that to the textile industry in the Carolinas. Tell those textile workers that don't have jobs that it is an overblown fear.

"Whatever the explanation for Sprint's action, many economists, liberal and conservative, are perplexed by two unusual trends. Wage growth has trailed far behind productivity growth over the last four years, and the share of national income going to employee compensation is low by historic standards."

This liberal is not perplexed. Now over the last four years who was running the country? Now, let me see, hmmmm. Isn't this what you would expect when government provides an environment that is pro industry, anti-union and anti-middle class? Wages drop, profits go up. This is what the b*sh regime always wanted.

[mhr]

2. Worst Job Growth Since Great Depression

And The Experts Agree:

"Overall, this level of (job) creation represents the worst job performance since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began collecting monthly jobs data in 1939 (at the end of the Great Depression)."

http://www.jobwatch.org /

"In the previous five expansionary economic cycles the average increase in employment over the first 39 months was 10.1%. In the current cycle the increase is 1.5%.

If employment had climbed by 10.1 % since November 2001, we would have added 13.2 million jobs instead of the 1.9 million actually reported. That’s a difference of 11.3 million jobs."

http://www.comstockfunds.com/screenprint.cfm?newsletterid=1165

My Conclusion: The American middle class is fast approaching demise and will need life support to survive!

[dcfirefighter]

3. The economics of it are this, as far as I can see.

The average guy with a job spends 30% of his total income on housing expenses, mostly rent or a mortgage. A good 30-40%, or about 15% overall is going to pay the landowner or the bank for the right to occupy the land under the house. Believe it or not, this cost could be reduced by taxing the land value under the house. This occurs by two main paths: 1st it reduces the speculative value of land, which lowers land prices directly, and encourages 'infill' building, decreasing demand for exurb land. 2nd, it reduces the finance charge incurred by purchasing land on a mortgage, due to it's lower price.

He spends about 20% of his income on income taxes. This number could be reduced by paying for government, at least partially, out of the land tax.

He spends about 15% of his income on transportation. This could be reduced by increasing density. The closer you are to work, shopping, school, and liesure, the less you have to travel to get there. A land tax has this effect on urban areas. Overall density is limited by economic demand, and can be limited by zonign laws. It'd probably be good to limit overall density to about 10,000 / sq mi in urban areas. Note that generally this would mean that you'd have more city, less suburb, and more rural, by area.

He spends about 15% on health insurance and health costs. Having a universal insurer would not reduce this, it'd merely change it from a health cost to a tax. Having a market driven insurance program like Switzerlands would get everyone covered, reduce the likelihood of rationing, and cost less. Switzerland's system gives a subsity to low-income families.

[ElectricIron Sweeney]

4. What exactly has luck to do with it?

If I could get past numb brain headlines I might be able to do some reading. It is not fortune, though they might have you believe it. Too bad I was born in the working class. That was some bad luck there. I wish I was born a millionaire and then I wouldn't have no trouble at all. Consider this: In a slave society everyone is a slave. The oppressors and exploiters are just as bound, impeded, and retarded as every one else in society. Economic systems are only forms of human relationship. When they are new born they charm everybody, and when they grow they old hurt and make everyone miserable. The rich are just as miserable as us and just as much in need of a change. We don't gain an inch in that direction so long as we think wealth or poverty as a blessing or curse, or good fortune or bad. It is neither. It is labor, and the only question is whether the issue will be human or teratoma.

[teryang]

5. Stagnation - the story of my economic life

<Many economists say the nation may be returning to a period like 1973 to 1996, when inflation-adjusted wages stagnated or rose glacially. That era was a reversal from the golden years of 1947 to 1973, when wages marched steadily upward.>

I came into the labor market in 1973.