The BAD news: worker wages are up

[Norman Bernstein]

From washingtonmonthly.com:




WAGES UP....FED IS WORRIED....Good news! Wages for ordinary workers are finally going up after six years of stagnation: (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/business/08wage.html?ei=5094&en=a06bab73a4abd4d6&hp=&ex=1165640400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all)
With energy prices now sharply lower than a few months ago and the improving job market forcing employers to offer higher raises, the buying power of American workers is now rising at the fastest rate since the economic boom of the late 1990s.
The average hourly wage for workers below management level — everyone from school bus drivers to stockbrokers — rose 2.8 percent from October 2005 to October of this year, after being adjusted for inflation, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Only a year ago, it was falling by 1.5 percent.

Boy, I sure hope the Fed doesn't do anything to put the kibosh on this. Workers could use a break. But I'm sure Ben Bernanke realizes....um, realizes that — what? He said what? Oh, this:
Wages have risen so swiftly that some economists worry that they could push inflation up on their own, by forcing companies to raise prices. Last week, the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, warned that the central bank might have to raise interest rates again. “One factor that we are watching carefully is labor costs,” he said.

Ah yes. "Labor costs." We can't have those rising, can we? Not only does it get the workers all uppity, but it drains corporate treasuries and puts a crimp in CEO pay increases. That would be a disaster.


... this reaffirms what I've believed for sometime now: the economy is managed for the benefit of corporations and CEO's, and the welfare of ordinary workers isn't even a terciary consideration. There are still plenty in positions of power who continue to believe the 'trickle down' theory of economics, namely, that any benefit to the lives of workers ought to be nothing more than a side effect of the benefits to corporations... and the people who control them.

[jack grebe]

From washingtonmonthly.com:


... this reaffirms what I've believed for sometime now: the economy is managed for the benefit of corporations and CEO's, and the welfare of ordinary workers isn't even a terciary consideration. There are still plenty in positions of power who continue to believe the 'trickle down' theory of economics, namely, that any benefit to the lives of workers ought to be nothing more than a side effect of the benefits to corporations... and the people who control them.well duh:rolleyes:

[geeman]

Trickle down effect,just how long does it take for this "trickle down " effect to get down to our level around here? It aint here yet, nobody I know has been trickled on in quite a while,,,,,,

[Norman Bernstein]

well duh:rolleyes:

Yeah, sure, it's obvious... but not to everyone. There's no limit of people who will disagree with the statement... most of whom (amongst those I know personally) are already part of management or otherwise in the topmost income/wealth tier here in the U.S.

[geeman]

I'll ask a few of the locals that I meet as we stand outside our local country store waiting in line to fill our kerosene cans ,to heat our houses with.I bet 100% will tell you they havent been trickled on in well over a year or 2 either.
As Norm says, I guess it depends on which line your standing in .

[George Roberts]

Most businesses report "same store" statistics.

It would be more useful if wages and other person statistics were reported in "same person" terms.

---

As usual I make the claim that the wrong property is being reported.

[PatCox]

A rising tide lifts all boats!

Always remember, the conservative movement is embarked on the most difficult intellectual endeavor in history, the construction of a moral justification for greed.

[Keith Wilson]

Most businesses report "same store" statistics. It would be more useful if wages and other person statistics were reported in "same person" terms. I think that would be misleading, unless one adjusted it for the normal increased earnings over one's life. People ordinarily learn more, have more job experience, and make more money as they get older. There are exceptions, but that's the norm.

Pat, here's the original quote:
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

John Kenneth Galbraith

[erster]

Its worse than I thought, taking good news and spinning it to be bad. I bet in some circles, it can be said that your expendable income on your luxuries could be more than some folks take home in a year in many parts of the U.S. So lets address this issue relating to your take in this issue.


Now if you work for yourself and have it set up as a corporation, or even as a sole ownership, you are charging way too much for your services since you enjoy a lot of goodies at the expense of others, or price gouging, so to speak, right?. If you have employees, then it could also be said that you are reaping the rewards of others also at their expense, a very simular tone that exists when discussing those evil corporations in this section of the forum. So whats your point and how can you post such spin and attack while reaping the rewards of said "corporations" working and operating for the sole intent of making a profit, no matter how absurb it is in your view.


In other peoples views, you have also made way too much money. Do you see any hypocricy in your continued attacks on so called corporations? In proportion, your expendable income may as well be a billion dollars a year to people that are taking home 20 grand a year, an average blue collar worker at your local hamburger joint in a large portion of this country, and I bet even in Mass.

Here is another article that I found that also is written by another Bernstein that also addresses and spins good news to bad news, a very simular trait for the ones that are always posting how bad it is for others while reaping numerous financial gains and enjoying prosperity in this country. The half empty glass folks continue to thrive while others suffer, or so it goes.:eek:
"Income grows, and poverty remains unchanged", it says. Well if poverty doesn't go down, than duh,, what the heck is going on. I will tell you what is going on, the same people are still sitting on their butts while people wishing to get ahead are also doing so in 2006, even ones that are being retrained in other fields such as has been done for many decades as the world advances and streamlines for efficency with technology. Its called self motivation and nothing new for those folks that operate as a small business or sole ownership. Right?




http://www.epi.org/webfeatures/econindicators/incompicthd.GIF
August 29, 2006
Working families fall behind
Although income improves for the first time in the current recovery, poverty remains unchanged and inequality rose in 2005
by Jared Bernstein (http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/economist#bernstein) and Elise Gould (http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/economist#gould)
After falling each year since the economic recovery began in 2001, the income of the median household grew 1.1% (or $509) in inflation-adjusted terms last year. Poverty rates, which have risen consistently over the recovery, were unchanged, according to today's release from the Census Bureau. Income inequality also rose in 2005, as households at the top of the income scale saw greater income growth than everyone else.
However, the median income of working-age households—those headed by someone less than 65—fell 0.5% last year, as has been the case consistently since 2000. In addition, today's report reveals that the median earnings of both men and women fell significantly in 2005, by 1.8% for men and 1.3% for women. Together, these facts suggest that working families fell behind in 2005.
In fact, the only households with significant gains in 2005 were those headed by someone 65 or older, whose median income was up sharply by 2.8%. It will take more analysis to evaluate the source of this growth, but given the negative earnings outcomes, it is likely their gains came from non-labor income, including Social Security (a benefit that is automatically indexed to inflation).
A longer-term view confirms the extent to which non-elderly families have fallen behind in recent years. Between 2000 and 2005, the real median income of households headed by someone under 65 is down 5.4%, twice that of the overall household median, which is down 2.7% over the past five years.


Tell me about this inequality thing anyway, which eludes to a very slanted and opinionated article written in the spirit of class envy, a continuing trait for the democrats. Aren't you also a bit ashamed at enjoying such success while others suffer around you?

[Norman Bernstein]

Now if you work for yourself and have it set up as a corporation, or even as a sole ownership, you are charging way too much for your services since you enjoy a lot of goodies at the expense of others, or price gouging, so to speak, right?

You might want to explain where in any of the posts on this topics I (or anyone else) said anything even remotely like that. If you want to create your own straw dogs, go for it.... but it comes at the cost of your credibility.


So whats your point and how can you post such spin and attack while reaping the rewards of said "corporations" working and operating for the sole intent of making a profit, no matter how absurb it is in your view.

What spin? It's merely numbers... the facts about income growth an inequality. It says what it says. If you want to interpret six consecutive years of stagnant or declining income among non-management workers as 'good news', go for it... just don't expect anyone who is a non-management salried worker to believe you.



In other peoples views, you have also made way too much money. Do you see any hypocricy in your continued attacks on so called corporations? In proportion, your expendable income may as well be a billion dollars a year to people that are taking home 20 grand a year, an average blue collar worker at your local hamburger joint in a large portion of this country, and I bet even in Mass.

And you can say this because you actually know what I make?


Here is another article that I found that also is written by another Bernstein that also addresses and spins good news to bad news, a very simular trait for the ones that are always posting how bad it is for others while reaping numerous financial gains and enjoying prosperity in this country. The half empty glass folks continue to thrive while others suffer, or so it goes.:eek:

Let me get this straight... I'm a well paid entrepeneur, self employed professional... therefore I don't have a right to have some concern and empathy for the people who are not as fortunate as me?



"Income grows, and poverty remains unchanged", it says. Well if poverty doesn't go down, than duh,, what the heck is going on. I will tell you what is going on, the same people are still sitting on their butts while people wishing to get ahead are also doing so in 2006....

Sitting on their butts? SITTING ON THEIR BUTTS? Could you possibly be any more insensitive and dismissive if you tried? We're talking about WORKING people here, not welfare recipients. The guy who collects your trash... the woman who drives a FEDEX truck.... the clerk at town hall... people woh WORK for a living!


Its called self motivation and nothing new for those folks that operate as a small business or sole ownership. Right?

I get it. The people who operate small business and are entrepeneurs deserve absolutely every increase in income and wealth, because they earned it...while the lazy slobs 'sitting in their butts' who have an hourly wage as an employee fully deserve to see thier buying power and standard of living (relative to everyone else) decline, right?

Wow... compared to you, Scrooge was a humanitarian.

[Keith Wilson]

The argument that corporations are making too much money, which is clearly stated comes with some price of others, correct, all well stated numerous times over. Uh . . . Oyster, is English your first language? :confused:

[Norman Bernstein]

I don't care how much you take in at all. The arugment that corporations are making too much money, which is clearly stated comes with some price of others, correct, all well stated numerous times over.

You need to read the posts a bit more carefully...nowhere in the initial post did it say that corporations are making too much money...and I certainly never said that.


Every thing is relative, correct? Each one that takes the plunge into a business venture does so for one stated reason at the end of the day.

You keep talking about entrepeneurship, self employment, and business ventures as if thy were the only meaningful or worthwhile ocupations in the country. Here's a clue: relative to the entire population, 'entrepeneurs' make up a tiny proportion of the workforce. What I'm talking about here are non-management hourly workers.... people earning near the median income. You keep changing the subject.



How can you daily condemn a corporation for the amount that they make at the expense of workers, or so you think as others do around here, and not see any hypocricy in your own daily persuit at the expense of others? Its 100 percent hypocricy.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about.. and clearly, you don't either. Personally, I am one of those entrepeneurs. Yes, I'm incorporated. No, I don't have any employees. I'm well paid for providing valuable services to my clients. So what?

None of that has the slightest thing to do with the topic of this thread, and there is no hypocrisy whatsoever.

[michigangeorge]

I've been a reciepient of "trickle down" AND ITS YELLOW!

[Keith Wilson]

I've been a reciepient of "trickle down" AND ITS YELLOW!At best.

[erster]

Uh . . . Oyster, is English your first language? :confused:
Have I told you lately that I don't care what you think? People that continue to condem businesses, corporations and anything in between can take the plunge and work for themselves. Heck even the Mexicans do it all the time, living in vans and school buses, driving brand new trucks with custom paint jobs. These people have no problems with going the extra mile to get ahead. And no I am not speaking up for them but their work ethics. I would be interested to hear when some of you folks leave those ivory towers and venture around the heartlands.

And people that also enjoy the perks of being a corporation, even though they work in a small setting, also enjoy many benefits that they continue to condemn in national firms. Yes its all relative. Sorry if these small details or facts irritate you when this is brought to light.

[Donn]

Uh . . . Oyster, is English your first language? :confused:

An odd question from one who starts a sentence with "Uh..." :rolleyes:

[geeman]

Erster and Norm are talking about 2 different subjects.Norm is discussing the average "guy" blue coller maybe that works for an hourly wage.Erster keeps harping on big/ small business owners as if THEY are the elite.Insinuating that people who work for a wage are "below" standard.And stating flatly that "wage earners are simply lazy,inept almost nonworkers.
Erster has in a few posts insulted a lot of very good ,hard working people that go to work every day,sometimes working long hours , all for a wage,and in a few keystrokes erster has said they are lazy.
Ersters utopian view based on HIS world,isnt the normal guy/gal out there working.Norm understands the real world, erster is out to lunch.

[Keith Wilson]

What followed was coherent, Donn. :rolleyes: If you would care to translate Oyster's posts into grammatical English, it would be much easier to understand what he's trying to say.
The argument that corporations are making too much money, which is clearly stated comes with some price of others, correct, all well stated numerous times over.

[Milo Christensen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Wilson
Uh . . . Oyster, is English your first language? :confused:



An odd question from one who starts a sentence with "Uh..." :rolleyes:

Ohhh, man, Keith, did you just get slammed to the dirt by the worm farmer or what! You O.K. buddy? Still counting to 10? Taking deep breaths? I know it's hard after such a witty and vicious put down.

[geeman]

So, the guy that goes to work everyday,day in and day out month after month,isnt working for himself?He's trying to stay ahead of the bills ,maybe have a little left over.If he's anything like a lot of people I know,he has no savings, he's too busy trying to get food on the table.A huge number of people are simply doing the best they can, to condemn them for not being in ersters "elite" is unfair and very biased.Their "nonstarters" according to erster.I submit that most people in this country according to erster would be considered lazy non workers.

[geeman]

I take issue only with your assertion that the average guy is lazy because he works for what is jokingly called a "living wage", the rest you an argue to your hearts content with others that know more then I do about such matters.I'm a lazy working guy,I'll be leaving for work soon and will put in about 11 /12 hours today before wife and I get back home after midenite tonite.

[geeman]

I no longer live there , but we are watching my home town self destruct due to furniture factories and textile industry going over seas.My home town for years was the capital of both industries.For the last 60 years or so, new industry would try and come in to take advantage of a hard working workforce,and the families that owned the large companies the textile and furniture giants would fight and manage to keep them out.
Now because these old companies got their way and kept "newcomer" companies out, and overseas now can make the clothes and furniture cheaper, these hard working people are left with no jobs,NOWHERE to get training for new jobs, theres no money available for such programs,their stuck.Its a very depressed area, I feel for these people,it was once a very vibrant prosperous area,now going to hell because of your great corporations that yes, are GREEDY.I know ,"why dont they go somewhere else"? Right,they cant sell their houses because theres nobody around that can afford them.Their stuck.

[Norman Bernstein]

We are at or around four percent now, which is considered full employment by most historical standards.

If 100,000 middle level management people lose their jobs, and end up wearing a Walmart blue smock for 1/2 or 1/3 the pay, the employment number doesn't change... which is why the unemployment number is meaningless: it's quantitative, but not qualitative.


Many people that fall behind, also can be traced to the single issue of retraining when they loose ther jobs, and need to start over.

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands who re-trained for the IT age back in the late 80's... only to see their new positions eliminated because some guy in India will do the same job for 1/5th the money. I know a bunch of those folks....is it their fault?


People that stay in low end jobs for decades have no one to blame but themselves. I will stand by that statement.

And that statement demonstrates just how uncaring and thoughtless you are. There isn't room in the economy for 150 million 'entrepeneurs'... someone had to drive the fedex truck and pick up the garbage. What you're telling those folks is that they don't deserve to participate in the economic growth that has made multimillionaires into mutlibillionaires.... you couldn't be more elitist than if you said 'let them eat cake'. Let's see those 'entrepeneurs' you talk about carry their own garbage... not bloddy likely!


These same people also have many programs to fall back on, which is never taken into consideration when articles are written such as the one I referenced either. Again few people are willing to also admit this and add these programs to the income of the lowend worker. Can you say Earned Income Tax Credit? This is one of the biggest income redistribution programs of wealth with a fancy name attached to it that this country has ever seen.

You're joking, right? People at this level aren't paying much in income taxes, to begin with; their biggest tax burden is Social Security and state sales taxes, both od which are regressive taxes, i.e., they hit the midle income and low income earners harder than the wealthy. Compare that to the slashing of dividend and capital gains taxes, which primarily benefitted (you guessed it) the already wealthy.... how many ordinary people derive a meaningful portion of their income from dividends and capital gains?

[geeman]

I'm going to take my "lazy " butt to work now, ya'll hava great day!

[Rick Clark]

I went to work for a company many years ago, with profit sharing.
The first year I had a good check at the end of the year, but as the years went by the company made more money and our profit sharing checks got smaller until they no longer gave you a check at all.
That's what is called greed....:(

[Meerkat]

Making too much money, which pays dividends to its shareholders, which can you agree is profit spread across a larger number of folks, CEOs or pays huge dividends[profits] to the small business guy, and in turn supports numerous luxuries is completely justified even if its liberals that continually complain about those other guys. What part is not factually correct?Hmmm... I'd sure like some luxury support! :D

That you think this is justified is not a fact, it is your opinion.

For a blue collar "man of the people" it's odd that you're in support of things like a CEO that makes more money than the 7,000 lowest paid workers at his company combined. IIRC, that was the figure mooted WRT Jack Welch's compensation as CEO of GE. I wonder how much shareholder payouts would have risen if he didn't get $700 million/year - and is anybody really worth that much?

[Meerkat]

The notion that you can selectively condemnYou do this all the time by ignoring facts that don't fit your preconceived notions. We all do it to some extent, but you seem to make a religion out of it.

[Meerkat]

I think you mistake your opinions for fact. Opinions are debatable, facts are not.

[Tylerdurden]

An odd question from one who starts a sentence with "Uh..." :rolleyes:

"Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel. He is the man who talks the loudest." Mark Twain - Education and Citizenship speech, 5/14/1908

Still fits! Donn

[Meerkat]

Why should businesses have tax breaks, except in limited circumstances?

[shamus]

It's like a Monty Python episode, this.

[erster]

Why should businesses have tax breaks, except in limited circumstances?

Thats not answering the question that addresses the daily attacks lodged at businesses. There are ebb and flows in business cycles associated with many decades of recessions and even trends and consolidations which cannot be predicted at all. IF you want unwarrented layoffs or even seasonal layouff worse than we see normally each years, during these cycles that are worse than ever, try to remove some of the measures put in place for businesses that keeps some operating capital to sustain improve and expand and also in some areas of businesses such as the larger drug businesses research and development, part of their yearly budgets that are not recouped for many years. But answer my question. The additional tax money that would be required to be paid under our current tax structure, how would it directly benefit the blue collar and hourly worker next friday?

All it would do is to make a bunch of people happy for a short period of time until the layoffs hit them. There would be some people really jumping out of windows for sure come the first of the month when their major credit cards come due and their mortgages fell behind. Oh well, gotta go, later.

[Keith Wilson]

It's like a Monty Python episode, this.Only not as funny.

Y'know, maybe we could recruit somebody who was actually against business to argue wth the bivalve; maybe a real communist if we could find one, or a serious lefty anti-globalization anti-corporate anti-capitalist type. It might be amusing to watch. Or not.

[Meerkat]

Why would you think that corporations having to pay taxes (many of the biggest pay none at all) suddenly cause layoffs?

Why should we have tax funded corporate welfare for many of our richest corporations?

BTW, most drug research is paid for by tax dollars. Of course none of the profits come back to the tax payer.

[erster]

Why would you think that corporations having to pay taxes (many of the biggest pay none at all) suddenly cause layoffs?[

Why should we have tax funded corporate welfare for many of our richest corporations?

Answer the question Merrkat. As usual you have no answers just bitching. Because a company that does business across state lines and is considered rich purely by the gross sales, does not make the business actually rich by comparison. There are many reasons which I have already listed. Try taking a real budget projection and have it turned on its head in a matter of a swip of a pin. Yuke.

Your tax dollars pay for the lawsuits that happen after many drugs react differently in the field and under diverse conditions unlike a lab setting? Your tax dollars pay for marketing and manufacture after approval and distribution? I think not. Some of you have no business discussing business issues. But the feeling of soaking anyone that has a dollar more than you do is so predictable these days. People with ten dollars are robbed by people that have one dollar as they are known to have more than they do.

[Meerkat]

If you could read clearly, you'd notice that I did answer your question in what you posted. To clarify: workers would pay less in taxes if corporations paid taxes too.

It's called inference and maybe you'd get it if your whole world wasn't suuuuck, wooosh, suuuuck, wooosh, mon cher bivalve.

[Memphis Mike]

Oyster, why do you hate rich people?

[erster]

If you could read clearly, you'd notice that I did answer your question in what you posted. To clarify: workers would pay less in taxes if corporations paid taxes too.

It's called inference and maybe you'd get it if your whole world wasn't suuuuck, wooosh, suuuuck, wooosh, mon cher bivalve.


Weekly and hourly workers do pay a lot less with little at stake than any employer or business operation does now. .The idea that the employer and employee should be on the same playing field shows your contempt for the ones that have taken the extra step or gamble to provide services and products for the community. Their main job is to show up. At the end of the work week the check is magically there no matter what they have produced, broken, e-mails swapped, coffee cleaned up after spillage or time allowed off during the day for smoking cigarettes, and they leave and go home. It magic. :eek: Carry on,,,,,,,,, This is a useless exchange. I got better things awaiting me.

[Memphis Mike]

It's because you're secretly jealous of them, aren't you?

[Meerkat]

Weekly and hourly workers do pay a lot less with little at stake than any employer or business operation does now. .The idea that the employer and employee should be on the same playing field shows your contempt for the ones that have taken the extra step or gamble to provide services and products for the community. Your first statement is quite simply false: many large corporations, like many rich individuals, pay no federal income taxes at all. Furthermore, I would not call their lives, their familes and posessions - all they have - as being "little at stake!" :mad:

Your second statement implies that those who "take the extra step" do so all by their lonesome and without any effort on anyone else's part. It's you that show contempt for working people.

now this may reflect your years as a business owner, but in the scheme of things, your business was a tiny fish compared to the big corporate whales. It's the whales that get all the breaks, not the minnows.

This country was founded on the principle of equality. Under that principle, how can you justify some people paying taxes and others not, especially when they're more than able to!?!?

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Canada is having a debate on raising the minimum wage... it's just starting to get some press now. I figure we need to make our minimum wage about 9.00 or so. I think it's 8.00 now.

[George Roberts]

Consider the following "business":

There are always 3 employees. Each year one quits to go elsewhere and a new one is hired. Starting pay remains the same forever - $100. Each year a 10% pay raise is given.

From the business's point of view the payroll is always $131 ( $100 + $110 + $121).

From the employee's point of view wages go up from $100 to $110 to $121.

The link in the initial post would report that wages are stagnent. Most workers would think their wages are increasing nicely.

So who is correct?

---

Keith Wilson wrote " I think that would be misleading, unless one adjusted it for the normal increased earnings over one's life."

Perhaps all numbers should be adjusted to reflect a person's changing needs over a lifetime. Increased needs when kids are presents. Another increase when kids are in college. Decreases as kids move away from home. A decrease for retirement. (I have ignored health care costs because I have no idea how they change through life.)

[mdh]

Corporations won't pay taxes. They'll just shift this expense to lower wages and benefits, or higher prices.

Since the beginning of time there have been the "haves" and the "have nots". Communism did not change it. The sociallist countries have their privileged. If you are a "have not" in this country, you can change. If you are a "have" and feel guilty about it, give till you feel good.

The idea of business is to make money. If you tax their profits away, they'll have lay-offs. Then there's more competition for jobs and wages go down.

How many of these poor underpaid are walking around with a cell phone, parking two cars in their own driveway, live in their own house and watch a TV that gets 90 channels? Want to really have fun? Compare the wealthy vs. the poor in two of our neighboring countries, Mexico and Cuba.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

I think what we're talking about is balance, and that is a difficult thing between corporate profit and fair labour practices. Canada has higher taxes, more social programs and hence a higher minimum wage. It also has higher corporate taxes. We also have a higher standard of living than the US, so socialism does have it's benefits too.

[jbelow]

I think what we're talking about is balance, and that is a difficult thing between corporate profit and fair labour practices. Canada has higher taxes, more social programs and hence a higher minimum wage. It also has higher corporate taxes. We also have a higher standard of living than the US, so socialism does have it's benefits too.

Peter , You can't compare the standard of living in Canada to the US . It's like comparing oranges to grapefruit . Some similarity but I believe that the US has a larger number of people on welfare that is averaged in that gives us that lower standard of living pluse we have a large number of people that don't like to work and draw unemployment benifits .

I do not like socialism and the redistribution of wealth . I like the competion in free markets that capitalism provides . The incentives to run faster and jump higher and be rewarded for it , is more in line with our human nature than socialism.

I cannot deny the benifits of collective bargaining that labor unions provide for workers but we must not forget that corporations have to be profitable to pay it's workers .
I like the Teddy Roosevelt square deal . Every man deserves a square deal , nothing more and nothing less .

[Meerkat]

But that's the problem: most people in the US are not getting a square deal.

Erster, I'm sorry that you were either such a bad judge of character or paid so low that competent people didn't want to work for you, but that doesn't mean that most people are like what you describe. If that were the case, the US would've been far worse off than it was. There may be more absentism and/or carelessness these days, but then again, many people are in fear of losing their jobs to markets they can't compete with and enjoy anything like the standard of living they have.

You may have provided the infrastructure and guidance, but it was the people that mixed the 'glass, cut the material and molded the hulls that generated the money that paid their wages.

[ljb5]

Their main job is to show up. At the end of the work week the check is magically there no matter what they have produced, broken, e-mails swapped, coffee cleaned up after spillage or time allowed off during the day for smoking cigarettes, and they leave and go home. It magic. :eek: Carry on,,,,,,,,, This is a useless exchange. I got better things awaiting me.

Does anyone remember the last time Mike made sense?

It magic.
This useless exchange.

[BrianW]

It is sort of useless, when unemployment numbers are so low, and we're a nation of consumers where even the poorest have more stuff than most 'average' world citizens.

[JimD]

...just how long does it take for this "trickle down " effect to get down to our level around here? ,,,,,,

First it has to trickle down to $3 a day barefoot ship breakers in Bangladesh before it trickles back to you. Call it outsource trickledown if you will.

[geeman]

Our local newspaper printed a letter I wrote to the editor recently.What I said in that letter was very close to what Meer said in his last post.
It was about the Rich people here that consider themselves "bluebloods" and how they treat their employees.I said also that it was the hillbillies that the rich here treat so badly that built this tourist town.I suggested to the hillbillies that everytime they drive into town that they admire what THEY built.My last statement was that someone else may hold the deed to this town but for the hillbillies to take pride in what THEY built.(BTW I didnt use the word "hillbillies")

[john l]

is it:
the united states of america?
or
the united corporations of america?
is it:
free market?
or is it:
government support (with the peoples dollars) of specific industries?
let's say the munitions/weapons industry?
could it be that everyone (meaning business and the poor) are on the take at the expense of diminishing middle class? how much longer is this sustainable? what value..make that what family values does this have in the land of the free and the brave? in the world at large?

[geeman]

I dont see much difference in the modern large corporations of this country, and the Robber Barons of times gone by.Both seem to be only concerned with profit no matter how they get it.
I also believe that the majority of the poor would prefer to live better and are willing to work for it.Unfortunitely thats NOT the sterotype that is perpetuated of the poor by the upper classes.The average poor person is classed as lazy and willing to take handouts to live.Its makes life easier for the upper class to live ,knowing the poor are poor because their simply lazy.Justification you see." I got mine, now you pull yourself up out of the gutter and get yours, or, you can starve."
Yes the middle class is shrinking,and quickly, the sad part is that most of the middle class isnt really middle class anymore, they just dont know it, like was said in another post.People are working more hours to maintain a lifestyle that they can no longer afford in an effort to keep up with their neighbors who cant efford their lifestyle either.
How many new construction do you see that are being built are truely AFFORDABLE housing? Most are built to sell to people who will do anything they have to to get that bank loan.Because THATS the lifestyle they have been seduced into believing they have to live. Like it or not,you ARE judged by the house you own, or the car in your driveway , thats where we went wrong,and the road to ruin we will continue to travel unless we as a country wise up.It aint gonna happen.

[Tylerdurden]

is it:
the united states of america?
or
the united corporations of america?
is it:
free market?
or is it:
government support (with the peoples dollars) of specific industries?
let's say the munitions/weapons industry?
could it be that everyone (meaning business and the poor) are on the take at the expense of diminishing middle class? how much longer is this sustainable? what value..make that what family values does this have in the land of the free and the brave? in the world at large?
If you break it down Corps have more rights than flesh and blood human beings. Something is terribly wrong with that picture.
The incremental breakdown of the middle class ensures not many will be left in a position to fight when the truth is revealed to the masses. Just exterminate the thinkers in the middle class and the job is complete. Whats going on in Mexico is a good example.
Of course you see nothing in the press about whats really happening there because you could get ideas. They will never stop illegal immigration because of it. Keep the young moving and they won't stand around pissed off and get ideas of fighting for their rights.
Some of the posters here still buy the rosy picture, just ask them which way to their America? As far as I can tell most of the roads are blocked and the ones still open are becoming impassable.
Of course they could give a f*#% that most cannot find the way.
Their fat dumb and happy so why worry about the other guy.

[geeman]

We are now a nation governed by the corporation,for the corporation.We passed the idea of free enterprise a good while ago.Now its I'll get it however I have to ,no matter what I have to do to get it.We are watching big Corps get by with breaking law right and left, with relative inpunity.
I submit that if a company is forced to break laws to survive that the company wasnt viable to start with.We WERE a nation guided by law,now if a law is in the way, its simply ignored.We cant continue this way.
It appears to me as if these people are in a state of panic ,maybe they know something the masses dont know?

[ljb5]

It is sort of useless, when unemployment numbers are so low, and we're a nation of consumers where even the poorest have more stuff than most 'average' world citizens.

Brian, I think that was the original point of the article that everyone seems to have missed.

Yes, unemployment numbers are low -- and we should be happy about this.

Wages are (finally) starting to move up, and we should be happy about this too.

The problem is, we've got this spoil-sport Federal Reserve which isn't happy about it. In fact, they're such sour pusses that they've decided that increasing worker wages are a bad thing, and they're rolling up their sleaves to do something about it.

Naturally, of course, they never felt that increasing CEO compensation was bad, just workers wages.

Definitely gives the impression that the Fed works for the corporations, not for the American people.