9/04/2006

Bush Pledges to Help American Workers Be Competitive

- By Lowering Their Wages











Fastest Decline in Real Wages On Record

Inflation Up; Wages Down

By JARED BERNSTEIN

Employers' wage costs grew 2.3% over the past year, the slowest growth rate on record, according to today's report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Factoring in the recent energy-driven increase in inflation, the real wage is down 2.3%, also the largest real loss on record for this series that began in 1981.

With hourly wages falling in real terms, the only way working families can raise their incomes is by working more hours-certainly not the path to improving living standards that we would expect in an economy posting strong productivity gains.



















24 comments:

Anonymous said...

No, but his policies determine how corporations push wages down.

Anonymous said...

The President has the power of leadership. He could hammer away on his bully pulpit and till the corporations that poeple come before profits. He preach to the people of this nation to "buy American" -- as the Wal-mart slogan use to be. He could point out that "profits don't know patriotism" and inspire the people of this nation to think before they buy. This would be a shift from the free-market focus and instill more politics into the mixed economy.

Andy Rand said...

Gee, you're right CATO,
So you should have no fear of a minimum wage bill driving up the cost of labor. I guess if it ever got to Bush's desk he wouldn't have the power to veto it would he! (facetiousness light on!)

What does this mean?
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
O RLY? oh Really? Yeah I get that.

??????

Andy Rand said...

CATO:
Walk into an McDonalds and give this a try!

I am sure anyone could demand 7-8 an hour to start at McDonald's and they would get it.

You live in a dream world!!!!

Sorry, I'm not up on my teenage IMing
hyroglyphics! circa 2003

Andy Rand said...

Here's one explanation of how the Bush
Admin is driving wages down. Statistical manipulation by Labor Dept.
http://tinyurl.com/g7na3

Better than the "free market" explanion of "It's a mystery".

Anonymous said...

Most -- probably all -- McDonald's pay starting salaries greater than the minimum wage.

Andy Rand said...

Go to Culver's and apply.
Also I wish I could point to an internet video of the Wendy's CEO in England who was incapable of performing the daily routine duties of the starting wage staff. I guess that proves his lack of brain function, yet somehow he's ran the company?

Besides, the anti-Min. wage argument goes, If the min wage is increased all wages have to increase.

Andy Rand said...

CATO:
The increased price of cereal is more likely to be the result of a bloated advertising campaign aimed at kids to pester their parents to buy a certain brand, rather than increased labor cost in the production of the cereal.
I agree impart with your explaination above, but there are many down sides to low, low prices also. The first is actually to the retailer who has to operate on the slimest of margins to make any profit whatsoever. That intern drives his desire to cut costs even further in the way of even lower wages. At least with a reasonable minimim wage the competition has a bottom in terms of labor cost.
Thus it truely is Bush's aim to make workers more competitive by creating an environment that encourages lower wages.

Andy Rand said...

Oh, then you subscribe to the theory that it's a "Mystery" that real wages are dropping?

Andy Rand said...

CATO:
I can buy much of your argument here.
The Future's argument is little known but true. I've heard that many investment bankers are turning something like an instant 9% profit because of the current situation. I heard an explanation of how it was done but frankly forgot and I'm not well enought versed in futures trading to completely undestand it.
On my side of the arguement.
The current admin. has created a vary favorable environment for mergers and acquisitions, I believe to the extent than many anti-trust regulations are being ignored and unenforced as is much questionalbe insider trading that occurs during these transactions. In general the first result of a merger is the loss of jobs. I believe this is one way in which the current admin. is creating a favorable environment for lower wages but increasing the supply of unemployed workers.
I cannot prove this, but I also believe that there is collution between Big Oil and the Bush administration. The contacts between
Big Oil and ranking Bush officials is very tight. With the two being very close I do believe that market manipulation is possible and have heard that British Petroleum could be on the verge of an investigation into this.


BTW, your explaination is much better than the "mystery" one.

Andy Rand said...

I'd think "Big Oil" would want higher prices. Why not? Look at their profits lately.
Do you know how investment bankers are making the instant profits?
Can you explain it? Is it dependent on a constantly increasing price of oil?

The last I heard Crude was still about $72/barrel. Yet the price at the pump is dropping. Demand is certainly not down over the Labor Day weekend. What's the explaination. I had not heard that crude had dropped in price, if it has I was not aware of it.

Andy Rand said...

So they sell the oil or the future?

Can you give me a more concrete example. I have to admit I'm not good at understanding this sort of thing.

Andy Rand said...

OK, call me dense.

I buy a futures contract for Oct oil at $82/barrel. How do I make the instant profit?

Andy Rand said...

I think this is tied in with the current interest rate as well. Using other peoples money to make your profit.

Andy Rand said...

Thanks for the explanation.
OK, it's too simple. I was expecting a least a smattering of financial genius from speculators.


Not really a South Park fan. Never followed it. Will check out.

What do you think about the News being the News with the big Katie Couric rollout. I'll let you guess what I think.

Andy Rand said...

CATO:
"I do not watch the evening news; it hasn't been worth my time for quite some time. Sad as it is, BBC (state run!) television is better, since they are news reporters, not "news journalists."

I agree. But isn't it ironic. Why are they better even thought they are State run. Could it be that they are not ruled by the profit motive?
Rationally one would think that government owned media would be the best propaganda machines available, yet they turn out to be reasonably "objective" news sources.
Thanks for the business lesson. I think I should go into business if it's that easy:-) I'm really good at phase 2:.
Seriously, The 2 issues we've discussed here are why I'm so dimayed with the "free market". It creates crap.
You have unscrupulous and unregulated speculators tampering with commodities that most of us really need. And broadcasters who are marketing Katie Couric as their news product when the real new gets untold, (unlike the BBC). Can you see a little of where I'm coming from?

Andy Rand said...

Won't you agree to the irony of BBC producing more "actual" news? I guess that's what I'd prefer also and I watch the BBC on PBS, another government supported entity.
This is one instance were the government pretty much works. Come on
admit it. Or you'll be forced to watch Maury Povich reruns for all eternity:-)

Andy Rand said...

CATO:
I'm not sure what you mean here?
"But I will not say that just because this is the case that government "works" in this case. "

In my humble opinion, you, as an intelligent consumer of news, go to the BBC because it is better. It is better because their focus is to report the news well, not sell deodorant!
The networks are no longer in the news business, they are in the entertainment business. Eventually, they will sink to the lowest common denomonator and become like the porn industry, as a matter of fact they are not far from it. They report on the porn industry feining to expose it while they know the tittilation will raise their ratings. It wouldn't be so bad if they were more forthright and quit the masquerade of being "news". It's just plain dishonest.

Andy Rand said...

CATO:

I replied earlier and my post seems to have gotten lost in cyberspace. I will try to reconstruct what I said.

You are right. The networks provide the lowest common denominator.Don't you want an informed electorate? I know I do. Don't you appreciate what the BBC has to offer? If it weren't for the subsidies it would vanish.
There are many things gov. pays for that I don't want. Takes stadiums that belong to billionaires for example. I'm sure we agree there.
But there are things that benefit the society as a whole, like education and police protection that I think are essential, whether I "like" paying for them or not. I may not even need them personally but community or country does.
I'd much rather have people that vote be informed even if they vote differently than I would. I think network news is the biggest "ignorantizing" (bad word I just made up) element in today's American non-culture. At least you are informed.
We cannot have a democracy with a society filled with ignoramuses.

Andy Rand said...

CATO:

You forgot #5 which I think is usually #1 or 2.
What's Tom Cruise doing, Why was Paris Drunk? I think that was #2 after the current Terror mongering. It may have beat it out?

You are right editing would be nice!
I think you can always copy delete and post again.

Anonymous said...

I getting in here late, but Cato and Andy, aren't you guys excited the Katy Curic is going to be on the news?

Replacing Dan Rather...gee I might have watch his news casts 10 times.

I love it when the reich-wingers quack about the agenda of the MSN like ABC, NBC and CBS. Let see, they start at 5:32 PM and get done at 5:58 PM. Subtract 8 minutes for commercials from 26 and you get 18 minutes of news. Split this in thrids for 6 minutes of hardcore news, 6 mintues of fluff stuff and 6 minutes of stuff that may or may not be news.

Boy that's really a power propaganda machine. Actually, it's a joke and anybody thinkings there credible influence over our society coming from the network nightly news shows are listening to Hannity and Lintball way too much.

Andy Rand said...

JPN,
Welcome!

your said:
"Actually, it's a joke and anybody thinkings there credible influence over our society coming from the network nightly news shows are listening to Hannity and Lintball way too much."
Credible, NO --- Influence Yes, I think they are. As CATO says, that's what the most people want so that what we get. I think they do infuence people if for no other reason to watch Katie.

You time analysis is great, but you forgot that some of that news time is cross promotional news, movies or other TV shows they are promoting.
So the time of "news" is less than your analysis.

Anonymous said...

Andy:

One of my co-workers told Rush is all entertainment. He's a member of the reich-wing unintelligista and he said everyone knows that Rush is only about having fun.

This sort reminds of the guys that used to pour gas on cats' tails and lite them with a match. They were just doing it for fun.

Andy Rand said...

JPN,
I have a friend who's a ramp rat at the aiport. His fellow ramp rat/ditto heads have this kind of fun too.
Thanks to people like Rush they'll soon be unemployed ramprats and will
become full time dittoheads. It's real "good" fun. What idiots. P.S. My friend is not a Ditto head.
Friends don't let friends be Dittoheads.