Posted on 06/01/2007 5:40:57 AM PDT by Smogger
157,000 jobs added in May; U.S. unemployment rate steady at 4.5 percent
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Because to hire someone on welfare you have to pay their Social Security taxes, and pay them minimum wage... not to mention notify the state that you have hired someone on the welfare rolls (more paperwork still...).
You mentioned the public’s low perception of the strength of the economy... I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that wages for blue collar workers have gone down over the last 10-15 years? I know as the wife of a machinist we were (for God knows what reason) making more money when Clinton was in office than we are now, and I don’t understand that at all...
Ofcourse liberals will say this is all irrelevant because we are all going to be dead from global warming by 2010.
The definition of life for a liberal these days is "b!tch and then die".
Their glass isn't half empty, for they are still trying to find a glass!
ROTF!
Might be that giant sucking sound. In other news, Perot might be a guest on Coast in the next couple weeks if the POW issue remains of interest.
Mine (as a "blue collar worker") have skyrocketed in the last 7 years!
Perhaps I should join a union and REALLY shoot for the stars eh?
One's wages earned are a personal thing and one makes what one is willing to work for.
The opportunity is there.
He has done well with the economy.
I agree, they should follow the market, not try to lead it.
It all depends on where you are living. I’m glad your wages have gone up.
Why are you laboring under the misconception that the world can tell us what our standards for gas emissions can be? And then in the same breath, mention Kyoto as an example of it.
Unbeknownst to you, we did not accept the Kyoto accords, so therefore, we do not have to follow them.
And so, we can also do the same with the current gas emission baloney. IE - tell the world to take a flying leap, much like China is doing.
Only an idiot tries to forceable deport 12 million people.
Specially if they don’t want to go.
That said, if you remove any incentive for illegals to be in America, they WILL leave of their own accord (and be grateful for any assistance in doing so). Remove their governmental assistance, deny their children free schooling, stop any free medical care, etc, etc, etc... and they will no longer wish to be here.
And then they’ll walk back across the border to a country that allows them an easier time in finding work, food, education, etc.
The few remaining illegals would be the ones that would be the ones that had jobs that paid enough for them to have health insurance and private schooling for their children. Exactly the form of immigrant America needs - hard-working, educated, and successful.
And it doesn’t cost much, as it reduces the governmental outflow of cash and benefits.
It is these pathetically short sighted people who would simply stay home in 2008 if their guy isn't the nominee. Of course a no vote is no different then a vote for the hildabeast, but hey, they have their principles...right? Never mind that a lib in the WH would more then likely mean a troop pullout and allow the ragheads to take Iraq. Having control of all that oil money it would be a short time before they would manage to get the weapons they want to come visit us here and bring to fruition Cheney’s prediction of the nuclear cloud over our nation.
So let’s hear it from all you patriotic America loving Freepers. Bash the president at every opportunity and by all means indulge in name calling against anyone who supports a candidate that doesn't EXACTLY conform, IN EVERY WAY to your set in stone ideals of what a Conservative ought to be.
In other words, do what all spoiled brats do when they don’t get their way. Take your football, go home and hide under the bed on election day.
Of course as you said, there is always the possibility these fools are lurking libs.
You are using anecdotal evidence to make a point, one which is patently untrue since real wages have increased during the relevant periods in the Bush and Clinton Admin's.
********************************************************* "In terms of equivalent starting points, it makes sense to compare 1993-1996 with 2003-2006 — two cyclically similar periods of equal duration.
Growth of real gross domestic product (GDP) in those periods was identical, at 3.23 percent a year. That's a tie. Nearly all other measures favor the past four years over Clinton's first term. Unemployment was 5.3 percent from 2003 to 2006, but 6 percent from 1993 to 1996. Sperling mentioned business investment to avoid mentioning housing investment. Yet business fixed investment was 10.9 percent of GDP from 2003 to 2006, compared with 9.2 percent of GDP from 1993 to 1996.
When it comes to inflation, Bush faced a huge increase in worldwide oil prices, but Clinton did not. In the consumer price index that excludes energy prices, inflation averaged 2.1 percent in the past four years, down from 2.9 percent in 1993-96.
When calculating real incomes, however, nominal increases in wage and benefits are reduced by total inflation, including higher energy prices. This would seem to put the past four years at a big disadvantage, given the spike in energy prices. Yet it turns out that "wage growth" in the first Clinton term was nothing to brag about. Even after including benefits, real compensation per hour fell by 0.5 percent in 1993, by 0.4 percent in 1994 and by another 0.3 percent in 1995. Real hourly wages and benefits increased by 1.2 percent a year from 2003 to 2006, but fell by 0.1 percent a year from 1993 to 1996.
Forgot the link:
http://www.creators.com/opinion/alan-reynolds/comparing-bush-and-clinton-economies.html
“But weakness persisted in manufacturing, construction and retailing, partly reflecting fallout from a yearlong housing slump.”
A nation that doesn’t manufacture and export will eventually be paying $2.25/hour again.
Thanks for taking the time to ‘spell’ out the numbers. I appreciate it greatly vs. people just dismissing me out-of-hand saying rather it’s “our own fault”. I do understand that some have experienced the opposite since Bush has gotten into office. [I think for us personally it was more a problem due to 9/11 and my husband’s company folding due to others pulling contracts out of fear, as well as living in an area with poor prevailing wages.]
You’re totally right, I was using anecdotal evidence in the way of personal experience which I understand is not necessarily reflective upon the general population. I apologize for letting my anger over our personal situation get in the way of my usually level-headed thinking. Still, I will say that the prevailing wages for machinists in many areas around the country have fallen — most likely due to outsourcing.
Just because hourly wages in service industries, and salaries in high tech fields have advanced doesn’t mean that all have enjoyed the same prosperity, and indeed some of the over-inflated wages in these areas would (in my opinion) skew the outcome of these studies.
Honestly though a 1.2% wage increase isn’t that much... $.012 on the dollar is not what I’d call a good raise. Also, if for example, wages in high-tech fields have risen say 2% over the last 4 years, but service industry wages have fallen 1% over the last four years, would that not still average out to an increase in wages? If so, then these numbers are not a good indicator of overall growth. Also, if wages in one area of the country have risen, but in other areas of the country they have fallen would they not perhaps cancel each other out and give the appearance of remaining steady?
I will readily admit economics is not my field of study, nor do I hold any expertise in this area. Then again, neither does the average person.
If our government wishes to help the average person understand how things are better off now (if they can’t see it themselves), it might help to include some real world examples besides using numbers and comparisons that only students of finance will completely understand. Perhaps breaking down the gains per industry for example, or listing the increase in prevailing wages per industry?
[I do realize there is a huge problem with the MSM failing to point out achievements, small or large when it has to do with Republicans...]
Thanks for the link.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.