|
the future of america
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. |
the future of america
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:43:54 -0500, bpuharic wrote:
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. Apparently, the pressure put on CEO's to streamline and to make agile their respective business concerns by the millions of middle-class 401k's that demand profitability for the good of the investment is...palpable. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
the future of america
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:09:17 -0500, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:00:13 -0600, wrote: On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:43:54 -0500, bpuharic wrote: 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. Apparently, the pressure put on CEO's to streamline and to make agile their respective business concerns by the millions of middle-class 401k's that demand profitability for the good of the investment is...palpable. unfortunately NONE of the increases in profits and NONE of the increases in productivity goes to america's middle class. none of it. A declaration without corroboration or supporting statistical studies? Why should I be skeptical? -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
the future of america
bpuharic wrote:
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. Being an investor, you must be pleased. No? |
the future of america
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:32:36 -0600, wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:09:17 -0500, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:00:13 -0600, wrote: On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:43:54 -0500, bpuharic wrote: 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: unfortunately NONE of the increases in profits and NONE of the increases in productivity goes to america's middle class. none of it. A declaration without corroboration or supporting statistical studies? Why should I be skeptical? because you can look it up yourself. it's standard economic knowledge |
the future of america
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:38:05 -0500, Harry
wrote: bpuharic wrote: 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. Being an investor, you must be pleased. No? no, i'm not an investor. i'm a wage earner. my income is w2, not 1099 |
the future of america
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:49:42 -0500, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:32:36 -0600, wrote: On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:09:17 -0500, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:00:13 -0600, wrote: On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:43:54 -0500, bpuharic wrote: 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: unfortunately NONE of the increases in profits and NONE of the increases in productivity goes to america's middle class. none of it. A declaration without corroboration or supporting statistical studies? Why should I be skeptical? because you can look it up yourself. it's standard economic knowledge I beg forgiveness, oh Royal Cop Out. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
the future of america
bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:00:13 -0600, wrote: On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:43:54 -0500, bpuharic wrote: 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. Apparently, the pressure put on CEO's to streamline and to make agile their respective business concerns by the millions of middle-class 401k's that demand profitability for the good of the investment is...palpable. unfortunately NONE of the increases in profits and NONE of the increases in productivity goes to america's middle class. none of it. Not true. I got some and I'm barely hanging in there in the middle class. |
the future of america
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:53:28 -0600, wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:49:42 -0500, bpuharic wrote: A declaration without corroboration or supporting statistical studies? Why should I be skeptical? because you can look it up yourself. it's standard economic knowledge I beg forgiveness, oh Royal Cop Out. can't help it if you're lazy. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...o-income-gain/ The typical American household made less money last year than the typical household made a full decade ago. To me, that’s the big news from the Census Bureau’s annual report on income, poverty and health insurance, which was released this morning. Median household fell to $50,303 last year, from $52,163 in 2007. In 1998, median income was $51,295. All these numbers are adjusted for inflation. so while the rich got richer, they stole their money from america's middle class... of course, the limbaugh/palin GOP doesn't want you to know this. |
the future of america
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. |
the future of america
This is related to boats HOW?
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... 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. |
the future of america
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:09:48 -0500, "Charles G"
wrote: This is related to boats HOW? ---------------- 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. Everyone wonders what yacht Rush will buy. Personally, I think he should subscribe to Northwest Passage. Some good boats for sale in there. -- America needs Obamacare like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask. John H |
the future of america
John H wrote:
America needs Obamacare like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask. John H You and yours should look in a mirror. |
the future of america
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 16:12:36 -0500, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:53:28 -0600, wrote: On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:49:42 -0500, bpuharic wrote: A declaration without corroboration or supporting statistical studies? Why should I be skeptical? because you can look it up yourself. it's standard economic knowledge I beg forgiveness, oh Royal Cop Out. can't help it if you're lazy. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...o-income-gain/ The typical American household made less money last year than the typical household made a full decade ago. To me, that’s the big news from the Census Bureau’s annual report on income, poverty and health insurance, which was released this morning. Median household fell to $50,303 last year, from $52,163 in 2007. In 1998, median income was $51,295. All these numbers are adjusted for inflation. so while the rich got richer, they stole their money from america's middle class... of course, the limbaugh/palin GOP doesn't want you to know this. This is the typical Jesus the insurance salesman obfuscation. Once you prove your point, he'll either try to change the subject, cherry pick for points or go crickets on you. |
the future of america
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:09:48 -0500, "Charles G"
wrote: This is related to boats HOW? Being able to afford one? |
the future of america
On 10/01/2010 12:43 PM, bpuharic wrote:
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. Think, all this liberal debt mongering caused the crash. Not only are more than 17% unemployed, many have to take crappy jobs after being forced out of good jobs. All for debt mongers and mongrels not paying their debts. Welchers and losers are getting away with murder. And not one GM exec, not one bank exec in jail even after SOX. When unemployment is low people get treated better. I wonder how many realize even the biggest debtor in the land, government, is racking more debt taxing them for dysfuntional corporations, in what amounts to corporate slavery in America. All with 100% support from a democrat Congress and president. People are going to get a wicked lesson in liberal-debt-mania. Lets see if this generation is upt o it's Pearl Harbor, with the enemy from within. |
the future of america
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. * About 1/3 of US household had a net worth of less than $50,000 (red plus orange bars in Graph) as of year-end 2005. About 18% had a net worth of less than $5,000 (red bars in the graph). * 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. 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." http://solutions.powersimsolutions.c...rspective.aspx -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
the future of america
On 10/01/2010 1:38 PM, Harry wrote:
bpuharic wrote: 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. Being an investor, you must be pleased. No? Actually I am. The market ups and downs are a savvy investors dream. I thank democrat congress, senate and Obama for making it so volitile. We are about due for a major pullback, thinking February or March like when January/February numbers come out. |
the future of america
On 10/01/2010 3:09 PM, Charles G wrote:
This is related to boats HOW? Takes money and time off to enjoy a boat. One without the other is useless. "bpuharic" wrote in message ... 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. |
the future of america
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 |
the future of america
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." |
the future of america
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 |
the future of america
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... |
the future of america
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...... |
the future of america
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!!!!!! |
the future of america
|
the future of america
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 |
the future of america
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' |
the future of america
"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! |
the future of america
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:43:34 -0500, John H
wrote: 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. As far as I'm concerned, misfortune is never amusing. But, it's apparent that his vengence-clouded thinking is doing him no favors. Then again, I've never met anyone beset with the "victim" mentality that appeared to enjoy a fulfilling life. |
the future of america
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com