PDA

View Full Version : Wage Drops


Secretariat
10-22-2004, 10:08 PM
"The bad news about the new jobs, for those who are finding them, is that they pay significantly less than the old ones. In 48 of the 50 states, "jobs in higher-paying industries have given way to jobs in lower-paying industries." That statistic comes from a January 2004 EPI economic snapshot that goes on to explain:

Nationwide, industries that are gaining jobs relative to industries that are losing jobs pay 21% less annually. For the 30 states that have lost jobs since the recession purportedly ended, this is the other shoe dropping—not only have jobs been lost, but in 29 of them the losses have been concentrated in higher paying sectors. And for 19 of the 20 states that have seen some small gain in jobs since the end of the recession, the jobs gained have been disproportionately in lower-paying sectors.
The EPI has created a chart based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data which compares the November 2003 average wage in growing industries to that in contracting industries, state by state. Look up what the difference was in your state (PDF). (Learn more about low wage work and workers in a Q&A with Beth Shulman, author of THE BETRAYAL OF WORK: HOW LOW-WAGE JOBS FAIL 30 MILLION AMERICANS.) "

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/newjobs.html

Sources: Sources: The Bureau of Labor Statistics; The Economic Policy Institute; THE NEW YORK TIMES; THE WASHINGTON POST

kenwoodallpromos
10-23-2004, 02:44 PM
That is not new since Bush.
Flash: company big shots only care about Margin Of Profit, not total profit or workers' wages.
Doesn't matter what party the social-economic elite belong to; all that matters is that the workers go along with it and often (like unions) are greedy and screw other workers out of jobs.
I have never heard of a union accepting no raise in order for employers to hire more workers; and not very often unions striking because the bosses take too much pay.
Like I have said, it is all a numbers game.

PaceAdvantage
10-23-2004, 03:45 PM
Unemployment rate at 5.4% in 1996 under Clinton - GOOD
Unemployment rate at 5.4% in 2004 under Bush - BAD


FLASHBACK:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/05/jobless/

AND YOU GOTTA LOVE THE FOLLOWING QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE LINKED ABOVE in 1996:

The Labor Department said Friday that businesses added 239,000 workers to their payrolls during June. The vast majority of the jobs added were in the service industry, including restaurants, bars, and agencies that place temporary workers

Nobody was crying in 1996....but they're crying now...wonder why?

ljb
10-23-2004, 04:09 PM
Pa,
Unless you are completely ignorant you know the unemployment rate is an insignificant figure. This number does not include the millions that have given up and fallen of the rolls of those unemployed.
Also note the median family income has dropped $30. since 2001. This under Bush's tax cut, outsource jobs etc. economic plans.
The point you are either missing or purposefully overlooking is:
The standard of living has dropped for middle class Americans since Bush took office!

PaceAdvantage
10-23-2004, 04:22 PM
Why are you calling me names? I am not ignorant. I am stating fact.

The fact is, the unemployment rate is the same as it was in 1996, when Clinton was given 4 more years.

In fact, the similarities regarding jobs (which is the TOPIC of this THREAD), is striking, when you read the Labor Department stats coming out in 1996. More jobs being added, but they are lower quality jobs, just like today.

It wasn't an issue back then, and it isn't one today, except for the fact that Gore lost in 2000 in a close election, and now it's payback time, reality be damned.

Let's hope the American people can see through the distortions. I have confidence they will, because if they believed everything you guys were telling them, Kerry would be about 10-15 points ahead in the polls since DAY ONE.

The fact that he has never gotten a substantial lead on the President in the polls, despite the constant barrage that Bush is an idiot, a liar, and God knows what else, allows me to sleep a little better at night, knowing the American people aren't that gullible.

ljb
10-23-2004, 05:29 PM
You chose to IGNORE my point. I believe IGNORE is the root of Ignorant.

PaceAdvantage
10-23-2004, 05:45 PM
Who's ignoring who exactly? You failed to address the point I made in my reply to Secretariat.

Suddenly calling the unemployment rate insignificant does not address the issue I put forth. Jobs were increasing, but were paying less under Clinton's watch, and this did not seem to impact his reelection chances under the faithful Democrats.

Why is it an issue today? Because a Republican is in office? Or because this Republican won a close election and you guys are out for revenge?

JustRalph
10-23-2004, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by ljb
You chose to IGNORE my point. I believe IGNORE is the root of Ignorant.

it is only insignificant when it doesn't jibe with their agenda......

Secretariat
10-23-2004, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by PaceAdvantage

Unemployment rate at 5.4% in 1996 under Clinton - GOOD
Unemployment rate at 5.4% in 2004 under Bush - BAD


FLASHBACK:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/05/jobless/

AND YOU GOTTA LOVE THE FOLLOWING QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE LINKED ABOVE in 1996:



Nobody was crying in 1996....but they're crying now...wonder why?

Well, below might be part of the reason. You keep making comparisions between Clinton in 96 and Bush in 2004, so I took a look at the Government’s Bureau of Labor and Statistics.

Here are some results:

In regards to Unemployment in 1996 before the election in September the rate was 0.2% lower under Clinton as compared to Bush in 2004 and actual claims are ONE MILLION MORE people ARE UNEMPLOYED under BUSH. ONE MILLION. This doesn’t even account for the median wage being much lower adjusted for inflation. This is the Bureau's figures.

In regards to actual employment you can see that 63.3 percent of the population over 16 had employment under Clinton and 62.3 percent under Bush. That is a 1 percent advantage to Clinton, and when you are talking about the entire population over 16 that amounts to around 200 million people so that 1 percent amounts to about 2 million jobs.

Unemployment - September 1996

About 7.0 million persons were unemployed in September and the unemployment rate was 5.2 percent.

Unemployment - September 2004

The number of unemployed persons was unchanged at 8.0 million in September, and the unemployment rate held at 5.4 percent.

Employment – September 1996

Total employment. The proportion of the population 16 years and over that was employed (the employment-population ratio) remained at 63.3 percent.

Employment – September 2004

Total employment. The proportion of the population age 16 and over with jobs--was little changed at 62.3 percent.

Hope this helps clarify the difference a bit (I didn't put the median wage diff, but if you need that info please advise).

kenwoodallpromos
10-24-2004, 01:28 AM
I do not want to live in a country where the president controls employment. They tried that in USSR and have that in Chinese prisons.

Tom
10-24-2004, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by ljb
You chose to IGNORE my point. I believe IGNORE is the root of Ignorant.

Then you are Mr. Ignorant. You have several legitimate questions posed to you in recent days and you have ignored all of them.
You cannot give an answer to the obvious so you ignore it.
I have you figured out, L. By your own admission, you are only here temporarily for the political postings, not horse racing.
So imagine the Internet Superhighway - multiple lanes of traffic flowing in both directions,like a major highway for cars. Then there is this over pass - a lonley, slinking dark figure stands on the overpass, tossing rocks at windshields of cars there on legitimate business, just for fun, no regard to anyone but himself. When someone sees him, he runs away and hides for a few days, then shows up on another overpass, rock in hand.
This is you.