Monday, January 12, 2004
WITH RECOVERIES LIKE THIS, WHO NEEDS RECESSIONS?
Over the weekend (bad economic news always comes over the weekend), everyone found out what the Bushits already knew. All indicators point up for the Bushit constituencies, and down for 99% of the world. Productivity is up, but there is virtually no job growth--only 1000 net new jobs. That means the non-downsized folks are getting their asses worked or are being replaced by technology. (Clear Channel, anyone?) Lower unemployment but only because more frustrated people opted out.
The statistics can be confusing, as this NY Times article makes clear. Bottom line: as Dizzee Rascal might say, ain't no job thing here. Round round round we go.
What no one except Paul Krugman is willing to say is the truth: Reaganomics still doesn't work. Come on Dems, get with the program.
Here's Krugman in a little-read editorial from the holidays (all the important stuff comes out on the holidays):
"It was a merry Christmas for Sharper Image and Neiman Marcus, which reported big sales increases over last year's holiday season. It was considerably less cheery at Wal-Mart and other low-priced chains. We don't know the final sales figures yet, but it's clear that high-end stores did very well, while stores catering to middle- and low-income families achieved only modest gains.
Based on these reports, you may be tempted to speculate that the economic recovery is an exclusive party, and most people weren't invited. You'd be right.
Commerce Department figures reveal a startling disconnect between overall economic growth, which has been impressive since last spring, and the incomes of a great majority of Americans. In the third quarter of 2003, as everyone knows, real G.D.P. rose at an annual rate of 8.2 percent. But wage and salary income, adjusted for inflation, rose at an annual rate of only 0.8 percent. More recent data don't change the picture: in the six months that ended in November, income from wages rose only 0.65 percent after inflation.
Why aren't workers sharing in the so-called boom? Start with jobs.
Payroll employment began rising in August, but the pace of job growth remains modest, averaging less than 90,000 per month. That's well short of the 225,000 jobs added per month during the Clinton years; it's even below the roughly 150,000 jobs needed to keep up with a growing working-age population.
But if the number of jobs isn't rising much, aren't workers at least earning more? You may have thought so. After all, companies have been able to increase output without hiring more workers, thanks to the rapidly rising output per worker. (Yes, that's a tautology.) Historically, higher productivity has translated into rising wages. But not this time: thanks to a weak labor market, employers have felt no pressure to share productivity gains. Calculations by the Economic Policy Institute show real wages for most workers flat or falling even as the economy expands.
An aside: how weak is the labor market? The measured unemployment rate of 5.9 percent isn't that high by historical standards, but there's something funny about that number. An unusually large number of people have given up looking for work, so they are no longer counted as unemployed, and many of those who say they have jobs seem to be only marginally employed. Such measures as the length of time it takes laid-off workers to get new jobs continue to indicate the worst job market in 20 years.
So if jobs are scarce and wages are flat, who's benefiting from the economy's expansion? The direct gains are going largely to corporate profits, which rose at an annual rate of more than 40 percent in the third quarter. Indirectly, that means that gains are going to stockholders, who are the ultimate owners of corporate profits. (That is, if the gains don't go to self-dealing executives, but let's save that topic for another day.)"
posted by Zentronix @ 8:04 AM
|
Previous posts
A QUICK WORD FROM OUR SPONSOR
Just got off the ph...
ACHG ON BLAST
OK, here's the gotdamn Da Capo rant...
This is why Ta-Nehisi Coates is the best hip-hop j...
P+J +++
ALBUMS
Alicia Keys - Diary of Alicia Key...
CHE CHE COLE TO THE FUTURE
Just want to second Do...
Check new "backstory" section on the left bar for ...
JUST FOR THE RECORD
Because the hate continues to...
YEAR-END LISTS DON'T HAVE TO SUCK...
Cuz Michaela...
Best whatthefuck moment of New Year's Eve: Bonecru...
Last quote of the year, unearthed from a 1986 Voic...
select * from pages where handle = "BlogLinks"
#content#
Archives
June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
|
|
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment