Failure of Bush Economic Policy documented by Labor Dept.

on Apr 24, 2005

This week the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the average weekly wage data for blue-collar and non-supervisory white-collar workers. This group constitutes 80% of the American workforce and over the past 12 months, from March 2004 until March 2005, the average weekly wage for this 80% has dropped.

The economic recovery has only helped 20% of the American population and harmed the remaining 80%. How can anyone claim the Bush economic policies are helping America? The economic recovery has been in corporate profits and higher wages for supervisory and business executives.

Data on the weekly income of the top 20% was not released but it would show that the top 20% has experienced sizeable increases in their average weekly income in contrast to the 80% that experienced a loss in their average weekly wage. The irony is that many of the Bush supporters are in that 80% percent that have actually been harmed by the Bush policies. The prospect of higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher energy prices hold the promise for even more negative impact on the 80% already injured by the Bush agenda!

If this is true then how do you account for the fact that Target, Wamart and K-mart all posted sales gains in this quarter? These are the stores that cater to the lower and middle income families. How can they post a gain if the people in question have "less" disposable income?

2

COL Gene

on Apr 24, 2005

drmiler

They are charging their purchases. Personal Debt is at an all time high. People are doing the same thing Bush is doing- adding to the debt. This was reported by Neil Henderson, staff writer at the Washington Post on 21 April on page E01. It proves what I have been saying, the Bush economic policies are designed to benefit the wealthy and the vast majority are worse off.

3

drmiler

on Apr 24, 2005

They are charging their purchases.

Can you show proof of this? And please don't tell me that lower income families are "charging" their purchases. Most of them do not even have a credit card. They don't make enough disposable income for the CC company to underwrite the card.

4

COL Gene

on Apr 24, 2005

We are not talking about just the poor, we are talking about 80% of workers which include the middle income Americans. When the credit card payments come due, just like the national debt interest, the s*it will hit the fan. Face it, the Bush economic policies are not working for most Americans. They are helping the wealthy and the money the wealthy are banking is being borrowed!

5

Lee1776

on Apr 24, 2005

Col Gene

Where are you getting your data from? Must be from the Washington Post.

Check this out from the labor department: Link

From March of 2004 (101.4) until March of 2005 (105.1) there has been a raise in the "Indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls of production or nonsupervisory workers1 on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail"of (4.7)

Now lets compare this with the years between 1995-2004 and 1965-2004:Link

Past ten years; that would be the annual rate in 1995 (71.3) from the Annual rate in 2004 (105.1), equals 23.8. Now lets divide that by ten : (2.38)

Now for the last 40 years- 1965 (9.6) from 2004 (105.1) equals: 95.5 divide by 40 : (2.39)

That make the last twelve months rate double of the ten and forty year average.

Lets keep this in perspective Col.

Now lets compare the Consumer price index that they are looking at:

Last 12 months avg: 2.3% Link

Last 40 years average: 4.4% Link

The only reason for increase in the last three months is to do with the raising cost of energy. Something Bush could help in the future by investing more in alternate fuel sources (also if the eco nuts would allow more modern nuke plants to be built). But to lower the energy costs now is out of his power. Unless you want him to invade more Middle Eastern countries, but we have seen how that worked to lower oil cost

. So much for the “It’s all for oil crowd“.

Now lets also add, that since your doom and gloom unemployment (Ooops... or is that underemployment) figures last month, the employment rate has dropped from 5.4% to 5.2%. An unemployment rate lower then the last ten year and forty year averages.

That's My Two Cents

6

COL Gene

on Apr 24, 2005

Sorry 1776

You did not count inflation. The Dept of labor reported that Average Weekly wage after inflation was down .5% in the 12 month period ending in March 2005 for blue collar and white collar non-supervisory workers that total 80% of the works force. Also the core rate of inflation in March was up .4% in one month and .7% including higher energy. Interest rates are expected to continue increasing and the price of gasoline is expented to increase through the summer. Low income workers are diverting their spending to cover the higher energy costs which is expected to impact consumer spending.The record oil costs are also making the balance of trade even worse. The Airlines are in trouble and truckers can not affort the higher fuel prices. No matter how you slice it, the economic and energy policies of Bush are not helping the majority of Americans.

7

Lee1776

on Apr 24, 2005

The Dept of labor reported that Average Weekly wage after inflation was down .5% in the 12 month period ending in March 2005 for blue collar and white collar non-supervisory workers that total 80% of the works force.

Which table are you looking at for your info?

Because one of the finical news programs I was listening to earlier today had all the panelist agreeing that inflation is has been held in check. Leading all of them to say Greenspan was most likely not going to raise interest rates too high because of it.

So inflation don't effect the top 20%? I think it does even more then the lower 80%. Inflation eats up their capital, investments and returns. But I am sure their are some upper 20% around here that can give more info on that.

8

COL Gene

on Apr 24, 2005

The information was not in the form of a table but an announcement by the U S Dept of Labor as to the change in the Average Weekly Wage from March 2004 to March 2005. The Dept of Labor also said that the Average Weekly Wage dropped .3% in the month of March 2005. During the 12 month period, after inflation, the Average weekly weage was .5% less in 2005 then in 2004. The effect on the lower income of inflation is much grater because many in this economic group spend most or all of their income. Thus inflation can cause them to be unable to afford all of their purchases if their wages do not keep up with inflation., The wealthy do not spand all their income and can afford the increase in costs from the surplus of their income over their consumption. The wealthy also have savings and or investments that can be used to make up for inflation. Finally, the high end of the middle income and wealthy have experienced a real increase in their income after inflation during this period,

9

drmiler

on Apr 24, 2005

If Lee1776 is getting his info direct from the labor department, how can you say his data is incorrect? Wether it comes from a table or a announcement is imaterial. Or at least it "should" be imaterial.

10

Lee1776

on Apr 24, 2005

The wealthy do not spand all their income and can afford the increase in costs from the surplus of their income over their consumption.

But they do spend that money. I don't know to many wealthy people who just lets the money sit in the bank, and doing nothing. They invest that money and make it work. Like building a new companies that will offer more jobs and higher more employees.

Any millionaire who just lets his money sit in a bank or under his mattress, will not be a millionaire for long. Those multi million dollar homes are not decorated or filled with cheap goods, but with strong American custom built goods (unlike the Wal-mart China goods of the lower class). They pay the wages of the pool cleaner, dry cleaners, gardeners, nannies, and caterers to their fancy parties. Ted Kennedy’s mistresses are not cheap and blackmail pay offs are quickly spent..

They place their spoiled brat children in high priced American private schools (while still paying for public schools), unless they are proper liberal elites and they send their snot nosed punks to the European schools. Those private schools pay good prices for employees and new buildings that are donated after the brat kids burn the old ones down.

I assure you that the wealthy spends money compared to their income, and even the money they save is not really saved, but used to earn more income that is taxed again upon return. Those taxes are what really pays for your retirement and my paycheck. God knows the lower classes don't pay hardly any taxes as it is. The wealthy just don't have bricks of money laying around to prop up that wobbly Wal-mart special chair or use a few thousand dollar bills to light their miniature hibachi grills.

Again can you show me or link me to your source please?

11

drmiler

on Apr 25, 2005

Again can you show me or link me to your source please?

He won't!

12

COL Gene

on Apr 25, 2005

the higher the income the less of each successive dollar is spent. This principle in economics is known as the "marginal propensity to consume." Certainly the wealthy do not put the next dollar under their matters but the proportion of that next dollar that they "spend" drops as their wealth increases. Any unspent money is either invested in some sort of a business or is put into some investments like the stock market. I know you will tell me that if they invest it will turn into increased economic activity which is of course is the supply side stimulus. But the far greater stimulus is consumption or demand. If the average person does not have the wherewithal to purchase the goods and services that result from the additional investment by the wealthy then there is no multiplier affect to the economic activity. The issue here is very simple over the last year 80% of the American people have not had an increase in their average weekly income after inflation. Thus, even though we are in a so-called recovery, 80% have not benefited from that "recovery". That is because he shows up in higher profits and a compensation to executives and high-end individuals. The economic policies we are following are tilted to the upper income Americans and this data shows that 80% of the American people have not benefited from these economic policies.

13

Zoomba

on Apr 25, 2005

Chicken Little... Chicken Little come in.. This is Mother Hen... The sky is falling, I repeat, the sky is falling...

I must always magically fall in the 20% of your reports who aren't being screwed over by financial policy, which I find hard to believe because I don't come anywhere near the line for "wealthy". I'm actually screwed by high taxes. The fact of the matter is that less than 5 years ago we suffered a pretty bad economic set-back when the tech bubble burst... It was really bad. It hurt me a lot since I was just starting college at the time heading towards the IT field. It takes time to recover from something like that. The fact that we have 20% of the middle-of-the-road Americans coming back out the other side of the recession in only a few years is great. As time goes on that number will increase.

Another problem is that any economic policy takes years to really be felt. Bush has had 4 years, and while he hasn't inspired a lot of confidence in the economy at times, his impact is pretty minimal day to day. Lets see where things sit in a year or two when his first policies really come into effect (and no, I'm not going to talk about tax refunds or whatever, those are temporary and not long-term policy). It takes time for these things to be felt.

Or I could just be wrong and be insanely lucky to always fall on the good side of every number you post.

Oh, and how bad can the economy be if brand new graduates in the IT field, a field crippled by the bubble bust, can get jobs within months of graduation? Decent paying jobs too...

14

drmiler

on Apr 25, 2005

the higher the income the less of each successive dollar is spent. This principle in economics is known as the "marginal propensity to consume." Certainly the wealthy do not put the next dollar under their matters but the proportion of that next dollar that they "spend" drops as their wealth increases. Any unspent money is either invested in some sort of a business or is put into some investments like the stock market. I know you will tell me that if they invest it will turn into increased economic activity which is of course is the supply side stimulus. But the far greater stimulus is consumption or demand. If the average person does not have the wherewithal to purchase the goods and services that result from the additional investment by the wealthy then there is no multiplier affect to the economic activity. The issue here is very simple over the last year 80% of the American people have not had an increase in their average weekly income after inflation. Thus, even though we are in a so-called recovery, 80% have not benefited from that "recovery". That is because he shows up in higher profits and a compensation to executives and high-end individuals. The economic policies we are following are tilted to the upper income Americans and this data shows that 80% of the American people have not benefited from these economic policies.

I told you he would not link his source.

15

Island Dog

on Apr 25, 2005

I told you he would not link his source.

Because the "decrease" is like .05 percent.