On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 23:13:46 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 16:33:01 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:53:28 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:49:42 -0500, bpuharic wrote:
?

because you can look it up yourself. it's standard economic knowledge

I beg forgiveness, oh Royal Cop Out.

and here's more information you backwards, inbred intellectually dead
limbaugh listener. you have no idea what's going one in the real
world. you prefer your fairy tailes.

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/264

It therefore is problematic that recent productivity gains have not
significantly raised incomes for most American workers. In the quarter
century between 1980 and 2005, business productivity increased by 71%.
Over the same quarter century, median weekly earnings of full-time
workers rose from $613 to $705, a gain of only 14% (figures in 2005
dollars), as our recent research shows.

" * Helped by the strong overall creation of wealth in the US, the
absolute amount of net worth for each wealth bracket has increased
over time, even if the relative share of wealth continues to be
distributed very unevenly in favor of the rich.

uh huh. the middle class had an average increase in income of
0.5%/year for the last 30 years

in the last 10 years the richest 1% had an increase of over 200%

yeah. looks like the middle class is doing great...as long as we shop
at dollar general and wal mart, while continuing to work until we're
80

* From 1965 to 2005 the portion of US households having a net
worth in excess of $100,000 grew from 30% to nearly 50%.
* The portion of US Households reaching the “Million Dollar Club”
grew from a mere 1% in 1965 to an estimated 9% as of year-end 2005.
* Similarly, the portion of households with a net worth in excess
of $250,000 grew from 6% to about 33% during the 40-year period from
1965 to 2005.
* Considering that the US population grew by over 100 million
(from 194 million to 296 million) during the period 1965 to 2005, the
number of family members living in a household with a net worth of
more than $250,000 increased nearly 10-fold from about 11.6 million in
1965 to nearly 100 million today.

great. for 25 years from 65 to 80, middle class income increased

under reagan it collapsed.


Lessons

* While it may be true that the rich get richer, this graph shows
that the poor are getting richer too. The downwards sloping dividers
between wealth brackets demonstrate that the “trickle-down effect”
does work in the long run and that the United States gets richer as a
whole, not just as a few wealth individuals."

no question about it. the wealthy steal from the middle class while
ensuring that they take 80% of the gains. the middle class, as i
stated, hasn't had a pay increase in 30 years. you admit it.

thanks. i already knew that

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 06:25:45 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 23:13:46 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 16:33:01 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:53:28 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:49:42 -0500, bpuharic wrote:
?

because you can look it up yourself. it's standard economic knowledge

I beg forgiveness, oh Royal Cop Out.

and here's more information you backwards, inbred intellectually dead
limbaugh listener. you have no idea what's going one in the real
world. you prefer your fairy tailes.

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/264

It therefore is problematic that recent productivity gains have not
significantly raised incomes for most American workers. In the quarter
century between 1980 and 2005, business productivity increased by 71%.
Over the same quarter century, median weekly earnings of full-time
workers rose from $613 to $705, a gain of only 14% (figures in 2005
dollars), as our recent research shows.

" * Helped by the strong overall creation of wealth in the US, the
absolute amount of net worth for each wealth bracket has increased
over time, even if the relative share of wealth continues to be
distributed very unevenly in favor of the rich.

uh huh. the middle class had an average increase in income of
0.5%/year for the last 30 years

in the last 10 years the richest 1% had an increase of over 200%

yeah. looks like the middle class is doing great...as long as we shop
at dollar general and wal mart, while continuing to work until we're
80

* From 1965 to 2005 the portion of US households having a net
worth in excess of $100,000 grew from 30% to nearly 50%.
* The portion of US Households reaching the “Million Dollar Club”
grew from a mere 1% in 1965 to an estimated 9% as of year-end 2005.
* Similarly, the portion of households with a net worth in excess
of $250,000 grew from 6% to about 33% during the 40-year period from
1965 to 2005.
* Considering that the US population grew by over 100 million
(from 194 million to 296 million) during the period 1965 to 2005, the
number of family members living in a household with a net worth of
more than $250,000 increased nearly 10-fold from about 11.6 million in
1965 to nearly 100 million today.

great. for 25 years from 65 to 80, middle class income increased

under reagan it collapsed.


Lessons

* While it may be true that the rich get richer, this graph shows
that the poor are getting richer too. The downwards sloping dividers
between wealth brackets demonstrate that the “trickle-down effect”
does work in the long run and that the United States gets richer as a
whole, not just as a few wealth individuals."

no question about it. the wealthy steal from the middle class while
ensuring that they take 80% of the gains. the middle class, as i
stated, hasn't had a pay increase in 30 years. you admit it.

thanks. i already knew that

For anyone else reading this that may be open to the wider
perspective, narrowing the discussion down to median family incomes
deliberately ignores wealth creation (not to mention of factors), a
dynamic which is applicable to all economic striations of society. If
the focus must necessarily be on the "pay raise," it's to avoid the
inconvenience of recognizing that this country still affords the
opportunity for each individual to create his own wealth without being
held captive to an employer. Naturally, if bpuharic's revolution were
to follow the October Revolution model, and he certainly uses the
language, we all would be held captive by an "employer."

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 06:27:32 -0600, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 06:25:45 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 23:13:46 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 16:33:01 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:53:28 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:49:42 -0500, bpuharic wrote:
?

because you can look it up yourself. it's standard economic knowledge

I beg forgiveness, oh Royal Cop Out.

and here's more information you backwards, inbred intellectually dead
limbaugh listener. you have no idea what's going one in the real
world. you prefer your fairy tailes.

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/264

It therefore is problematic that recent productivity gains have not
significantly raised incomes for most American workers. In the quarter
century between 1980 and 2005, business productivity increased by 71%.
Over the same quarter century, median weekly earnings of full-time
workers rose from $613 to $705, a gain of only 14% (figures in 2005
dollars), as our recent research shows.

" * Helped by the strong overall creation of wealth in the US, the
absolute amount of net worth for each wealth bracket has increased
over time, even if the relative share of wealth continues to be
distributed very unevenly in favor of the rich.

uh huh. the middle class had an average increase in income of
0.5%/year for the last 30 years

in the last 10 years the richest 1% had an increase of over 200%

yeah. looks like the middle class is doing great...as long as we shop
at dollar general and wal mart, while continuing to work until we're
80

* From 1965 to 2005 the portion of US households having a net
worth in excess of $100,000 grew from 30% to nearly 50%.
* The portion of US Households reaching the “Million Dollar Club”
grew from a mere 1% in 1965 to an estimated 9% as of year-end 2005.
* Similarly, the portion of households with a net worth in excess
of $250,000 grew from 6% to about 33% during the 40-year period from
1965 to 2005.
* Considering that the US population grew by over 100 million
(from 194 million to 296 million) during the period 1965 to 2005, the
number of family members living in a household with a net worth of
more than $250,000 increased nearly 10-fold from about 11.6 million in
1965 to nearly 100 million today.

great. for 25 years from 65 to 80, middle class income increased

under reagan it collapsed.


Lessons

* While it may be true that the rich get richer, this graph shows
that the poor are getting richer too. The downwards sloping dividers
between wealth brackets demonstrate that the “trickle-down effect”
does work in the long run and that the United States gets richer as a
whole, not just as a few wealth individuals."

no question about it. the wealthy steal from the middle class while
ensuring that they take 80% of the gains. the middle class, as i
stated, hasn't had a pay increase in 30 years. you admit it.

thanks. i already knew that

For anyone else reading this that may be open to the wider
perspective, narrowing the discussion down to median family incomes
deliberately ignores wealth creation (not to mention of factors), a
dynamic which is applicable to all economic striations of society. If
the focus must necessarily be on the "pay raise," it's to avoid the
inconvenience of recognizing that this country still affords the
opportunity for each individual to create his own wealth without being
held captive to an employer. Naturally, if bpuharic's revolution were
to follow the October Revolution model, and he certainly uses the
language, we all would be held captive by an "employer."

Keep in mind that wf3h is the one who lost his shorts in the stock
market because of bad money managers. In other words, he wasn't paying
attention.

So he's doing a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.
--

America needs Obamacare like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask.

John H

In article ,
says...

conservatives are getting everything they want for the middle class:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34769831...iness-careers/


The forecast for the next five to 10 years: more of the same, with
paltry pay gains, worsening working conditions, and little job
security. Right on up to the C-suite, more jobs will be freelance and
temporary, and even seemingly permanent positions will be at greater
risk. "When I hear people talk about temp vs. permanent jobs, I
laugh," says Barry Asin, chief analyst at the Los Altos (Calif.)
labor-analysis firm Staffing Industry Analysts. "The idea that any job
is permanent has been well proven not to be true." As Kelly Services,
CEO Carl Camden puts it: "We're all temps now."

All that cutting has been good for corporate profits. Earnings
rebounded smartly as companies kept payrolls down after the 2001
recession; by 2006 profits had hit a 40-year high as a share of
national income, at 10.2 percent, according to Bureau of Economic
Analysis data.

and for the ultra rich:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34784964...ew_york_times/

The bank bonus season, that annual rite of big money and bigger egos,
begins in earnest this week, and it looks as if it will be one of the
largest and most controversial blowouts the industry has ever seen.

Bank executives are grappling with a question that exasperates, even
infuriates, many recession-weary Americans: Just how big should their
paydays be? Despite calls for restraint from Washington and a chafed
public, resurgent banks are preparing to pay out bonuses that rival
those of the boom years. The haul, in cash and stock, will run into
many billions of dollars.

----------------

but the rich have nothing to worry about. under rush limbaugh,
american workers will continue to destroy themselves so that the rich
will be protected.

Pfffftttt. Plink...

On Jan 11, 1:42*pm, Harry wrote:
I is Toosh wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:41:26 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:

Pfffftttt. Plink...

You choose to stay stupid. And it shows!

I'm not sure snottyscotty has any choice in the matter of staying
stupid. He does not seem to have the capacity to learn.

With Herring in the Military over there, it's no wonder America is in
a ****-storm......

On Jan 11, 1:42*pm, Harry wrote:
I is Toosh wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:41:26 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:

Pfffftttt. Plink...

You choose to stay stupid. And it shows!

I'm not sure snottyscotty has any choice in the matter of staying
stupid. He does not seem to have the capacity to learn.

Let Ingerfool keep on plinking...soon...he'll be alone. Hooray!!!!!!

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 06:27:32 -0600, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 06:25:45 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


yeah. looks like the middle class is doing great...as long as we shop
at dollar general and wal mart, while continuing to work until we're
80

For anyone else reading this that may be open to the wider
perspective, narrowing the discussion down to median family incomes
deliberately ignores wealth creation (not to mention of factors),

actually it's not. the US has one of the most stratified economies in
the western world. the middle class continues to work its ass
off...getting less vacation than any industrialized country...while
continuing to feed the appetite of the rich who now take more of the
national wealth than they ever have

a
dynamic which is applicable to all economic striations of society. If
the focus must necessarily be on the "pay raise," it's to avoid the
inconvenience of recognizing that this country still affords the
opportunity for each individual to create his own wealth without being
held captive to an employer.

no, it doesn't. the US has less upward social mobility than virtually
any other western country


i admire your frentic efforts to continue to drink the right wing kool
aid while the middle class circles the bowl

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:43:34 -0500, John H
wrote:


Keep in mind that wf3h is the one who lost his shorts in the stock
market because of bad money managers. In other words, he wasn't paying
attention.

funny....neither was alan greenspan.


So he's doing a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

no, i'm plotting revenge. big difference

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:41:26 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...


All that cutting has been good for corporate profits. Earnings
rebounded smartly as companies kept payrolls down after the 2001
recession; by 2006 profits had hit a 40-year high as a share of
national income, at 10.2 percent, according to Bureau of Economic
Analysis data.

and for the ultra rich:



but the rich have nothing to worry about. under rush limbaugh,
american workers will continue to destroy themselves so that the rich
will be protected.

Pfffftttt. Plink...

i thought it was 'plonk'

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:41:26 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...


All that cutting has been good for corporate profits. Earnings
rebounded smartly as companies kept payrolls down after the 2001
recession; by 2006 profits had hit a 40-year high as a share of
national income, at 10.2 percent, according to Bureau of Economic
Analysis data.

and for the ultra rich:



but the rich have nothing to worry about. under rush limbaugh,
american workers will continue to destroy themselves so that the rich
will be protected.

Pfffftttt. Plink...

i thought it was 'plonk'


That Freak isn't too bright!