COL Gene COL Gene

U S Economy NOT Improving for the American Family

▼

U S Economy NOT Improving for the American Family

from JoeUser Forums


Yesterday the Dept of Labor reported that after inflation, the Average Hourly Earnings DROPPED .5% in 2005. That followed a .7% drop in 2004. Thus, during the past two years the Average Hourly Wage has DROPPED 1.2%. That means that for the average family the economy is WORSE not BETTER as Bush and company claim. The report said, "People see energy prices going up and they get a little worried about what they can afford to spend". Analysts said the wage weakness was having an impact on consumer confidence. This coupled with record high credit card balances being carried by the average American family show the Economic Boom that Bush claims is taking place is an illusion for the average American! The only place where a Boom is taking place is on the income statements of SOME companies such as Big Oil and in the net worth of the wealthy!
politics
37,928 views 144 replies
Reply #101 from JoeUser Forums Top
While computers did eliminate some jobs, the number of jobs that were created because of computers has been astronomical. The changes that are occurring now are causing us to lose jobs. Bush’s philosophy is the only thing that matters is profit for corporations and therefore, outsourcing jobs overseas is necessary. If he wanted to do what was right for the country, he’d do more to create and keep jobs here, like giving tax incentives to companies that create jobs here, penalizing companies that send jobs overseas, and closing the tax loophole that rewards companies for outsourcing jobs overseas.


At first, they didn't create this massive new industry of work. At first it was just an extension of electrical engineering, of which we had a LOT at the time. It wasn't until computers were much more established that a new sort of workforce was required. At first, it reduced jobs and made the same job take fewer people and less time. At first, every major economic change is negative because it disrupts the status quo.

I go back again to the watch maker. As a consequence of advancing technology, eventually that industry goes away. The watch maker must retool his skills to fit in with the changing market. Everyone has to do this several points in their life unless they stay an assembly line worker plugging widget A into widget B.

With IT, at first the only properly trained work force in the world was in the US (yes, they existed in europe etc, but the lion share of them were American) and the technology wasn't yet advanced enough to allow remote working. Computers and good computer software as a result were very expensive for a long time. Remember when an entry-level PC cost $5,000 and a CAD application was over $10k? A high-speed Internet connection could cost many many times more than what we get now etc... As technology improved and the rest of the world caught up, the work moved to the most economical spots. What you're losing to offshoring outfits are procedural jobs like answering phones, or doing coding to specifications. The electronic equivalent of plugging widgets together.

You'll notice that a lot of IT is staying domestic. Security, networking, high level coding (i.e. not maintenance and not spec coding), and a lot of IT services like perimeter email, network management etc. What we're seeing is IT coming in-line with how all other industries work now. The interchangable skills go to another country where it can be done for a fraction of the cost (and thus lowering sale price) and the more unique skills stay here.

Another thing to consider, especially in IT, is that the pay for these jobs is directly related to the applicant pool. It used to be that only a few people knew this stuff, so they were in high demand, thus higher salaries to attract people to a company. Now, everyone and their brother wants to do "computers" for a job because they think they'll make a fortune, this drives down the value of an individual employee when they're a dime a dozen.

You can only do so much to encourage jobs to stay domestic, but you can't force the laws of supply and demand to change, and ultimately that's what drives this. The end consumer is who, unwittingly, demands this.
Reply #102 from JoeUser Forums Top
Try some of these:

http://washingtontimes.com/specialreport/20050730-114005-1449r.htm

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1996/05/art1abs.htm


http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/BG791.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/BG791.cfm
There is a never ending series of articles that document the poor in America. They number over 35 Million!
CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #103 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ahhh, corporate welfare. You are the first leftist I have ever seen advocate FOR corporate welfare, COL. You might want to get on the same page as your cronies.
It's not welfare to motivate corporations to do what the nation is in dire need of.

It is always possible to make ends meet in this country if you work at it.
That is, if the spouse has the drive, too, along with one of them taking care of the kids--by your definition.
Reply #104 from JoeUser Forums Top
Here is the date for one of Col's links.

September 21, 1990


I see you have totally ignored everything posted to you. Although that is normal when you are proven wrong. Why don't you address them col?
Reply #105 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is, if the spouse has the drive, too, along with one of them taking care of the kids--by your definition.


You do what is necessary to survive, even if that means two working parents. Many churches will offer free daycare for those who don't have the money too. There are resources out there to help if people are willing to look for them, and aren't too prideful to ask for help when it's needed.
Reply #106 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is, if the spouse has the drive, too, along with one of them taking care of the kids--by your definition.


Steve, I normally don't reply to your replies because you tend to be a very inteligent person and have very good insites into politics that I lack. But Tthis one I can not let go. This is just proof of what I have been saying and what zoomba is trying to say: it's all about sacrifice. There are daycare centers , paid and free, there are friends that can use the extra bucks, parents that would love to take care of their grandchildren and the Govt also helps out in that Dept.

We all know that we live in a world were in many cases it takes both parenst to have a decent source of money to live and this has been going on since way before Bush was even president. I should know, I've been with my wife for 8 years and we have been in this situation since.
Reply #107 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes the poor have been around long before Bush. What Bush is doing is shifting money from the poor and middle income Americans to the wealthy. He is CUTTING help to the poorest and driving the country into debt which will limit the resources in the future to meet our needs. The money will be going to more and more interest payments on the national debt that his policies have made far worse then when he took office. Bush has made a difficult situation much worse and has created a structural deficit that will continue after he leaves office unless we have a drastic policy change!
Reply #108 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes the poor have been around long before Bush. What Bush is doing is shifting money from the poor and middle income Americans to the wealthy. He is CUTTING help to the poorest and driving the country into debt which will limit the resources in the future to meet our needs. The money will be going to more and more interest payments on the national debt that his policies have made far worse then when he took office. Bush has made a difficult situation much worse and has created a structural deficit that will continue after he leaves office unless we have a drastic policy change!
Reply #109 from JoeUser Forums Top
I see col you once again avoided all the replies to you and resorted back to the usual deficit bs.
Reply #110 from JoeUser Forums Top
#102 by COL Gene
Tuesday, January 24, 2006


Oh this is great stuff Col. There is no need for us to debate you and prove you wrong, you do a great job doing that all by yourself.

Let me explain. Your first link, the first sentence says this:

Incomes are growing smartly for the first time in years, spurring unexpectedly robust spending by consumers.


LOL, did you even bother to read these articles before you posted them as proof? The whole article speaks of those who got the most and do a nice job hiding the fact that even thoough those in higher positions got more or better raises than the average, the average still got raises.

Strike 1 Col. Next link, a may 1996 excerpt comparing people who are poor to those who are not poor (first sentence BTW):

An examination of a variety of measures of material well-being shows those individuals living in poor families, in single-parent families, and in families receiving welfare to be significantly worse off than those living in nonpoor families.


And we needed an examination to determine that those from poor backgrounds are worse off than those of non-poor backgrounds? This is ridiculous. Col, you got issues.

Strike 2 Col. And now to our 3rd link, which btw is the same as the 4th link. I'll give you a foul ball for that. They date? Sept 21 1990 as ID pointed out before. So I will not even bother with this one. Well maybe just a little bit (once again first sentence):

Next week the United States Census Bureau will release its annual report on "poverty" stating, as it has for many years, that there are some 31 million to 32 million poor Americans, a number greater than in 1965 when the War on Poverty began.


Keep in mind that this is a report from 1990, poverty has been over 11% since 1973 at times hitting above 15%.

Strike 3 Col, your out.

Look Col, it is agreeable that things are not that great today, that poverty has risen in the past 5 years, but what are we the American people doing about it? Why is it that it's the Govt's responsability to help them when it is also our responsability? After all, it is our tax dollars that are helping them. of these 35 million plus people most have families and why are they not being helped by them?

There are too many factors to calculate for you to go blaming Bush for something that has been going on for the past 40 years or so.
Reply #111 from JoeUser Forums Top
When your taxes go up to pay the interest Bush added we will see if you think it BS!
Reply #112 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes the poor have been around long before Bush. What Bush is doing is shifting money from the poor and middle income Americans to the wealthy. He is CUTTING help to the poorest and driving the country into debt which will limit the resources in the future to meet our needs. The money will be going to more and more interest payments on the national debt that his policies have made far worse then when he took office. Bush has made a difficult situation much worse and has created a structural deficit that will continue after he leaves office unless we have a drastic policy change!


So according to what you just said (only what is within this reply) we should give more to the poor again and that will help the deficit? Do you even listen to yourself? Even if we did take what you claim we gave to the rich and give it back to the poor, the deficit will still ramain. Please do try to keep different topics from crashing and making you look, how do I say this nicely, not so smart.
Reply #113 from JoeUser Forums Top
I can understand when you say that the war in Iraq is causing the deficit to raise, no one can question that. But when you say that the Govt is taking from the poor and giving to the rich, wouldn't that mean that the money is still here and that it will eventually be put back in the economy? I mean big corporations don't just make money, they also have to spend money or materials, machines and paying their employees, insurance, taxes. So part of that money will always make it back to the economy and therefor not create a deficit. At least that's the sense I get, maybe I'm wrong and am willing to listen to anyone who can tell me why.

BTW Col if trully bothers you that our children will be paying for out deficits today, then I suggest you do not except SS when your time arrives. I mean you did the same to the people before you, people how pay SS today are helping pay the SS for those who are getting it today, so that means what ever SS you get now, when ever your time comes, will be paid by my children and the children of the rest of the American population. Sounds kinda hypocritical don't you think?
Reply #114 from JoeUser Forums Top
When your taxes go up to pay the interest Bush added we will see if you think it BS!


But isn't that what you want anyways?
Reply #115 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reguardless of statistics, reguardless of opinion, the U.S. is in serious turmoil. I have never seen things this bad. Capitalism will be the downfall of this once upon a time, great nation. This is a place where the rich get rich and the poor slave for them. I calculate that I will only be able to vacation if something else suffers financially. And retire, WTF is that. My dad retired from general Motors after 30 years, he is a Navy veteran and will soon be losing his home due to forclosure. His pension barely covers meds and food. So much for Big Brother. This society will use every last drop of your soul and then toss you aside. That's the American way.
Reply #116 from JoeUser Forums Top
When your taxes go up to pay the interest Bush added we will see if you think it BS!


I see you realize that you are losing this arguement as usual. I will ask again why you won't directly comment on the analysis that people here bring up to you?


Reguardless of statistics, reguardless of opinion, the U.S. is in serious turmoil. I have never seen things this bad. Capitalism will be the downfall of this once upon a time, great nation.


Wrong. I guess you want to go to a socialist system then.
Reply #117 from JoeUser Forums Top
djbandit

First every added dollar that helps the POOR is SPENT which helps demand, jobs, and corporate profits. Unlike tax cuts to the wealthy most of which ends up as a larger balance in their accounts, the poor will spend 100% of any added help. Those that are in the top 5% will not spend MOST of any added money keep from tax cuts. That is proven economics! "Marginal propensity to consume" is the factor.

If we balanced the budget and began paying DOWN the debt we would free money from the annual interest that we are paying on the growing national debt. That will require an end to many of the Pork and earmarks as will as restoration of the tax rates on the wealthy to generate more federal tax income. The most recent estimate from the CBO shows a deficit of over $400 Billion in 2006 AFTER subtracting the Social Security/Medicare surplus. That means a REAL deficit of about $575 Billion for FY 2006. We are heading for a $10 Trillion national Debt at the rate of deficit Bush is running by 2009. That will mean we will approach $500 Billion in interest payments EACH year. When Bush took office they were about $230 Billion per year!
Reply #118 from JoeUser Forums Top
Col, why do you keep avoiding the post? Everytime you get proved wrong you go back to the deficit.

Unlike tax cuts to the wealthy most of which ends up as a larger balance in their accounts, the poor will spend 100% of any added help. Those that are in the top 5% will not spend MOST of any added money keep from tax cuts. That is proven economics! "Marginal propensity to consume" is the factor.


Another analysis by the col against the rich. Why don't you just come out and say you want income redistribution?
Reply #119 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's not welfare to motivate corporations to do what the nation is in dire need of.


umm, but when that argument is used to give tax incentives to businesses to bring JOBS, then most leftists argue that corporate welfare is wrong. There's a double standard at work here, steven.

That is, if the spouse has the drive, too, along with one of them taking care of the kids--by your definition.


And there's something wrong with that...HOW? Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of a life of leisure sipping Pina Coladas out of a coconut on a beach in the Bahamas as much as the next guy...but the truth is that we have to make SOME sacrifices to live the life we want. I find it patently absurd to suggest that a middle class existence is OWED to every citizen...without any work or sacrifice on their part.
Reply #120 from JoeUser Forums Top
I see you have totally ignored everything posted to you. Although that is normal when you are proven wrong. Why don't you address them col?


No, he's created an alterego (or brought in a friend) under the guise of BenUser to cyber stalk bloggers who bring up intelligent, insightful comments with personal attacks and chase them off (I figured it out, Col...that's why I won't "go away").
Reply #121 from JoeUser Forums Top
(psst...why does it elude Col's attention that, following the Bush tax cuts, tax revenue has INCREASED?)
Reply #122 from JoeUser Forums Top
Solve the defecit! Eliminate all social programs! They cost a ton of money! Spending money is bad!

Doesn't sound so good when the money cut comes from something you personally agree with. I agree that the defecit is an important issue, but you can't tie every economic problem back to it. You always fall back to this one argument and ignore everything else people bring up as an argument. You start out complaining about jobs outsourcing and the average income dropping, and then you derail to federal spending which has NOTHING to do with the original issue.

I pity anyone who tries to discuss anything with you IRL. I imagine you're just as close-minded as you are online.
Reply #123 from JoeUser Forums Top
The increase in revenue has not offset the loss in tax revenue and increased spending. The bottom line is we are running $ 500 Billion difference between spending and revenue. There is NO combination of spending cuts that will cover a $500 Billion imbalance. Thus there needs to be a combination of tax increases and spending cuts (Pork). This has NOTHIONG to do with being against the rich. It has everything to deal with fiscal responsibility of balancing the federal budget and ending the policy of allowing the federal deficit to continue to grow!
Reply #124 from JoeUser Forums Top
This has NOTHIONG to do with being against the rich. It has everything to deal with fiscal responsibility of balancing the federal budget and ending the policy of allowing the federal deficit to continue to grow!


The part you left out is that the real reason the deficit is where it is is because of the war in Iraq. I find it interesting that you have not said anything about the amount of money being put into that war.

Unlike tax cuts to the wealthy most of which ends up as a larger balance in their accounts, the poor will spend 100% of any added help.


Maybe you should look up those extravagante parties these rich people throw, look at Micheal Jackson the mansion he has, the mini Disney World he has in his back yard, the zoo he has. Now just imagen the people he needs to maintain all of this. Col, them people have to get paid as well and the money has to come from somewhere.

Sure bank accounts get bigger, but isn't that the purpose of every person with a job? Some are just better at it then others. Poor people spend every penny they get, but maybe you should look into what exactly they spend it on. Let me give you an example:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Nintendo Co. Ltd (7974.OS: Quote, Profile, Research) said on Tuesday worldwide sales of its Nintendo DS portable video game player have hit 10 million worldwide, with about 4 million sales coming from the United States
Link

Not to mention all the games which is where the money is really made.

US PC market grew by 10% in 2005, with 64.089 mln PCs shipped in the United States in 2005. Dell, HP and Gateway were the market leaders in 2005, with Apple market share reaching 4% of the US market.
Link

Not to mention all the software and extras you can buy for PCs now adays.

The mobile phone industry had a record first quarter with worldwide sales totaling 180.6 million units, a 17 percent increase from the first quarter of 2004, according to Gartner, Inc. The previous high for mobile phone sales was 153.7 million units in the first quarter of 2004. Gartner analysts said mobile phone sales grew in all regions.
Link

Not to mention the ringtones, music you can download and all the types of service plans there are.

Get the picture? Or are you 100% sure that every poor person only spends the money on bills, food, cheap clothing and a rusty old car? Cause if that's what you believe, you are definitely deluded and completely out of touch with what real poor people do with their money. I know cause I am part of that world.
Reply #125 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have posted articles that showed about 1 Trillion of the 2.5 Trillion Bush added to the national debt was his tax cuts. The reminder was a combination of the Iraq war, the impact of 9/11 and the fact that non-defense spending under Bush has increased at an annual rate of 8% per year. The combination of all these factors has added 2.5Trillion to the debt since Jan 2001.

Regardless of the reasons, we NEED to end the deficit financing. We need to cut the pork and earmarks which have exploded under Bush and the GOP controlled Congress. We need to reduce the rate at which we are increasing non-defense spending. We need to end the Iraq War and we need to increase tax revenue by restoring the tax rates on the top 5% (the group that can afford a little more in taxes and the group that will not impact spending by a small tax increase).