Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Countrydave55

Income Falls

Recommended Posts

I know that the present administration is proud of its economic accomplishments. They continue to point to the improved stock market (soon to be what it was when Clinton left office) Dow Jones History, job growth (estimated that within 4 years at the current rate of growth the number of jobs lost since Bush took office will be replaced by new jobs), household income, and number of homeowners as measures of their success. I am sure that they will tackle the debt (only 7 trillion dollars in July and 450 billion more debt expected this year) again someday. But I am wondering how they can explain the IRS data showing 2 consecutive years of decline in gross income for a 9.2% decline in in income?IRS Reports Gross Income Change

 

I don't want to advise the Bush campaign how to win but I do think that they need to stick to their successes like Iraq and any other foreign policy successes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems alot of those jobs are lost to outsourcing.The people that lose jobs are having to take lower paying ones.No one wants to address this. :nospys:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

The overall income that Americans reported to the government shrank for two consecutive years after the Internet stock market bubble burst in 2000, ...

That seems to explain the reported decline quite nicely. Hmmmm....who was President then? :lol:

 

Nonfarm payroll employment continued to rise in June, and the unemploy-

ment rate remained at 5.6 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S.

Department of Labor reported today.  Payroll employment increased by 112,000

in June, following larger gains in the prior 3 months.

 

  Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private

nonfarm payrolls increased by 2 cents in June to $15.65, seasonally adjusted.

Average weekly earnings declined by 0.5 percent over the month to $525.84.

Over the year, average hourly earnings grew by 2.0 percent, and average week-

ly earnings increased by 1.7 percent.  (See table B-3.)

 

Business

 

  Hourly compensation increased 5.9 percent during the first quarter of

2004, up from 3.8 percent in the previous quarter, as revised.  The first

quarter increase was the largest in the sector since an 8.5-percent increase

in the third quarter of 2000.  This measure of compensation includes wages

and salaries, supplements, employer contributions to employee benefit plans,

and taxes.  Real hourly compensation, which takes into account changes in

consumer prices, rose by 2.2 percent in the first quarter of 2004, down from

a 3.0-percent rise in the previous quarter.

   

 

Nonfarm business

 

    Hourly compensation increased 4.6 percent in the first quarter of 2004,

slightly more rapidly than in the previous quarter when it grew by 4.2

percent.  However, when the rise in consumer prices is taken into account,

real hourly compensation in the first quarter, which rose 0.9 percent, grew

more slowly than in the fourth quarter, when it increased by 3.4 percent.

 

 

Manufacturing

 

 

    Hourly compensation in manufacturing rose 6.2 percent during the first

quarter.  This increase reflects a rise of 5.5 percent in the hourly

compensation of persons in durable goods industries and a larger increase,

7.3 percent, in the hourly compensation of workers in nondurable goods

industries.  Real hourly compensation, which takes account of changes in

consumer prices, rose 2.5 percent for all manufacturing workers.

 

 

http://www.bls.gov/

 

Sounds pretty good to me. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That seems to explain the reported decline quite nicely.  Hmmmm....who was President then? :lol:

doesn't matter who was pres then,

 

 

.........Just blame it on the other guy.....

 

 

the favourite sport of politicians..

 

 

......:rocks::rocks::rocks::rocks::rocks::rocks:......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would have been Clinton in 2000.

 

So the argument is that Bush is able to transform the Clinton economy (which I think they describe as an economic bubble and not truly reflective of the economy) as one they can do slightly worse than?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

Naw, the argument is to refute the intended purpose of your initial post and that was to blame Bush for it. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that Americans only vote for multi-millionaires you'd think that your Presidents would be excellent economists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cosidering that Americans only vote for multi-millionaires you'd think that your Presidents would be excellent economists.

How can that be? They spend millions to get a job that pays$200,000.00 a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the real gravy train starts to whistle when they're out of office. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can that be? They spend millions to get a job that pays$200,000.00 a year.

They also get tons of cash from companys that want them to do things in their best interest. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So with an inflation rate of between 2 and 3 % and earnings increasing at 1.2% we are on average only making between .8 and 1.8% less per year. I find that comforting. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

So with an inflation rate of between 2 and 3 % and earnings increasing at 1.2% we are on average only making between .8 and 1.8% less per year. I find that comforting. :(

First you claim they are falling yet now admit they are rising, but at only 1.2%.

 

Did you read this?

 

Business

 

  Hourly compensation increased 5.9 percent during the first quarter of

2004, up from 3.8 percent in the previous quarter, as revised.  The first

quarter increase was the largest in the sector since an 8.5-percent increase

in the third quarter of 2000.  This measure of compensation includes wages

and salaries, supplements, employer contributions to employee benefit plans,

and taxes.  Real hourly compensation, which takes into account changes in

consumer prices, rose by 2.2 percent in the first quarter of 2004, down from

a 3.0-percent rise in the previous quarter.

   

 

Nonfarm business

 

    Hourly compensation increased 4.6 percent in the first quarter of 2004,

slightly more rapidly than in the previous quarter when it grew by 4.2

percent.  However, when the rise in consumer prices is taken into account,

real hourly compensation in the first quarter, which rose 0.9 percent, grew

more slowly than in the fourth quarter, when it increased by 3.4 percent.

 

 

Manufacturing

 

 

    Hourly compensation in manufacturing rose 6.2 percent during the first

quarter.  This increase reflects a rise of 5.5 percent in the hourly

compensation of persons in durable goods industries and a larger increase,

7.3 percent, in the hourly compensation of workers in nondurable goods

industries.  Real hourly compensation, which takes account of changes in

consumer prices, rose 2.5 percent for all manufacturing workers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we had a breakdown by income groups, for example by quintiles, we might find that the BLS and IRS data are in agreement. For example, the stock market bubble probably benefitted the top quintile so they may have "suffered" the most from the crash. Yet manufacturing wages could have gone up during the same period. Especially if the lowest paying jobs were offshored, taking the low end out of the average and making it appear that workers got a raise when they actually didn't. We could guess about this for months and not know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

alot of our economy is out of bush's hands. People got scared after 9/11, its gonna take time to rocover. The great depression didnt end in a year, it takes time to turn things around.

 

I think bush is trying to stimulate the economy, and i hope we keep on working to getting this country thriving again.

 

And alot of our jobs are lost to outsourcing, but what can bush do, tell business's they cant do this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well he can do things that make it more appealing to keep jobs within the US but then he has to deal with other countries calls of protectionism and unfair economic practices. Neither would really be true but you would hear it over and over again. The thing with an open world economy is that those on top will continue to lose jobs until their income suffers enough that companies are forced to bring jobs back just so the population maintains purchasing power. Its a circular motion just like our own economy just on a longer and larger scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of that is the fault of the government and the media - scaring the crap out of people so they're on edge. When you think some tragedy might befall you, you generally start saving money instead of spending it, which the economy relies on. When spending decreases, businesses cut costs, which involves lay offs that further add to the problem. It's a downward spiral that the government should be able to turn around with certain government-funded construction projects and such that create many jobs that, even if temporary, stimulate the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And alot of our jobs are lost to outsourcing, but what can bush do, tell business's they cant do this?

I don't see why not. Companies should only be allowed to outsource if the job cannot be filled by the domestic workforce. One2's comment is true enough but how long does that cycle take ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is this the great depression? I dont think we are at the point that government sponsered building projects are a necessity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather stop the problem before it gets that far. Maybe he only likes to do preemptive things when they're violent. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why not.  Companies should only be allowed to outsource if the job cannot be filled by the domestic workforce.  One2's comment is true enough but how long does that cycle take ?

I dont think anyone knows because the cycle has yet to be completed. The open world market is relatively young and new to many countries. The US economy goes in about 7-10 year cycles on average. I could only imagine how long a world cycle would take, 50+ years is a good place to start, though Mexico is already starting to lose the manufacturing jobs they gained due to NAFTA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why not. Companies should only be allowed to outsource if the job cannot be filled by the domestic workforce

 

Americans refuse to work for $1 to $2 per day. So all of these jobs cannot be filled.

 

 

Are you willing to pay $10,000 or more for your computer??

 

Or how about $10,000 for your TV or Stereo system???

 

The working people will not stand for the gov mandating that companies keep jobs here. We are all spoiled rotten and we demand the $1/day labor supplied by many developing nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While you do make a good point, your point would be invalid if the businesses weren't so damn greedy in the first place. Selling a product that costs you a couple bucks (or less) to make for 10s or 100s of dollars is really shady, IMO. Just look at the sneaker industry for an example. How much do you think those $200 Air Jordans cost them to make? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...