|
Post by noetsi on Aug 13, 2006 10:54:10 GMT -5
A general economic thread. Probably should dedicate it to frenchman, where ever he is these days. ;D Given that I am a commie liberal on economic issues even I am hard put to explain what will apparently be the conclusion of the Census Bureau numbers when they are released for 05 in a few weeks. That adjusted for inflation most Americans lost ground in terms of wages last year. If that is the case, its what the Labor Department stats types say, then in the third year of a supposedly major recovery most Americans continue to lose ground. That is strange and a serious problem if it turns out to be true. One sign that this is seen as a major issue is that the new, quite conservative, Treasury Secretary has listed decreasing disparity as a key goal. Of course his methods of addressing it, things like free trade, are what caused the disparity in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Nighthawk on Aug 13, 2006 11:05:38 GMT -5
I suspect we might get a response from him in coming days.
|
|
|
Post by noetsi on Aug 13, 2006 11:17:21 GMT -5
Somewhere in suburban NJ there probably was a primal scream of rage at my last post lol ;D
In honesty even radical lefty me can't understand with the employment rates so high and productivity booming why real wages are so sluggish for all but the very top income groups. It seems to defy common economic wisdom, or perhaps to suggest that globalization has changed that wisdom.
|
|
|
Post by pacino on Aug 13, 2006 11:26:17 GMT -5
There are no personal attacks here, FYI.
|
|
|
Post by noetsi on Aug 13, 2006 11:35:30 GMT -5
I did not mean that as an attack, sure frenchman would not have seen it that way Just giving my polar opposite a kidding reference. He will probably call me a mule again when he does show up. ;D But no attacks is a very very good rule.
|
|
|
Post by pacino on Aug 13, 2006 11:35:56 GMT -5
No, it was just a statement. Didn't see an attack.
|
|
|
Post by noetsi on Aug 13, 2006 11:56:53 GMT -5
Until the very end frenchman and I were pals if strange ones. Things got wacky on the old fanhome before I left in Sept - all sides (including me) were venting more than posting. Hopefully that has passed.
The economic rules are changing. Where we are going I dont know but it will be different. Republican Treasury Secretaries have not commonly made reducing disparity a major goal. Things will be in a state of flux in the near future. One question is what the vast retirment of the boomers will cause.
|
|
Bucky
Registered Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by Bucky on Aug 13, 2006 20:56:25 GMT -5
Something I never understood Russ. The experiment that was communism failed because Marx misunderstood human nature. That is, primarily, greed. Marx thought he could take from the wealthy and distribute it equally to the proliteriate - only to find when the working class gained power, they were corrupted by it. All Marx had done - all the Soviets it turned out had done - was switch the greed from one set of hands to another.
Now you say you're gunning for a six figure job?
Interesting.
|
|
larry
Registered Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by larry on Aug 13, 2006 22:46:18 GMT -5
A couple more years and I'll be gunning for a part time job... washer hoses are in aisle three sir.
|
|
|
Post by anne25 on Aug 13, 2006 23:00:55 GMT -5
Something I never understood Russ. The experiment that was communism failed because Marx misunderstood human nature. That is, primarily, greed. Greed or pragmatism. Why work if you can get supported by those who do.
|
|
frenchman
Registered Member
Does your dog bite?
Posts: 12
|
Post by frenchman on Aug 14, 2006 19:47:33 GMT -5
...the "new, quite conservative, Treasury Secretary" made over $39 million last year. I am not sure he is the right man to battle income disparity
...this is sadly true and has been confounding economists who study such things. I know my real income fell last the last 2 years. For one, I face much higher taxes...property taxes, state taxes, the AMT...and now an extra 1% to 7% on sales tax in NJ. Secondly, and a problem most people face...rising medical insurance and a shift in the burden of paying for it. Actual compensation has risen for workers, but much is lost here. Thirdly, more of us are required to save for our retirement thru 401ks or IRAs...and companies are less and less offering pension plans.
The good news, and maybe a little too late for this economic cycle...wages have begun rising above average the last several months
|
|
|
Post by noetsi on Aug 14, 2006 21:32:40 GMT -5
Its not just commie liberals like me that are concerned about income disparity actually (I agree a major Wall Street leader probably is not an ideal individual to lead such a campaign of course). Market economists have raised such concerns as well, even the WSJ has raised concerns about an issue they long denied was significant. I read a Nobel winning economist, quite conservative recently who asserted something that would have been heresy until recently, that free trade could in fact harm much of even a majority of the population.
Frenchman is certainly right that recent economic behavior has been strange whatever economic school you belong to. Historically wages went up in real terms when unemployment was low, productivity high and the economy was increasing rapidly in GDP. But it has fallen in real terms for most and poverty increased in the boom years which is very strange. Its not just lower income groups that have struggled, except for business profits and perhaps the top two percent most Americans even higher income groups have been effected.
Its true taxes take more of a bit, but real wages are reported before taxes so that can't explain their slow rise. Medical cost certainly play a role, but firms that don't pay medical costs to their employees (which are growing as a percent of the total business community) are not paying their employees any better either.
Nominal wages have gone up but not real wages at least until this year. And while they are finally increasing now, many feel that we will be back in a recession soon. Its far from clear that Americans will earn in real terms what they did in 00, despite the supposed boom. I don't know how to explain this discrepancy, but slow or negative real wage growth with an economy supposedly growing as fast as this one has is very unusual and discouraging. It suggest that the laws of economics may be changing or not as well understood as we thought.
|
|