On 5 Mar 2005 08:55:05 -0800, wrote:


If you're not one of the "haves" and you're trying to pay rent, buy
groceries, clothe and educate a couple of kids, pay for more or all of
your family health insurance (hundreds of dollars per month, typically)
and keep an old car running on the $535 a week average wage in the US
right now it would be very optimistic to consider the current status
"good news". Especially when, even after 262,000 jobs were "created"
last month, the unemployment rate also went *up*.

Hey Chuck, what is the educational background of the bottom 20% of wage earners?
Why does someone making $7.00 an hour have two kids? Where does personal
responsibility enter your calculations?

How the hell could Bush affect these 'problems' you present anyway? Raise taxes
and give them more money?

John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Hey Chuck, what is the educational background of the bottom 20% of wage
earners?
Why does someone making $7.00 an hour have two kids? Where does
personal
responsibility enter your calculations?

How the hell could Bush affect these 'problems' you present anyway?
Raise taxes
and give them more money?


***************

There are a lot of highly educated and experienced people who have been
forced into "under-employment". They will take anything they can get,
but often find the only jobs available are grunt level, miniwage gigs
for which they are over educated and over qualified. When you're making
$15 an hour, have two small kids, and then your job gets sent to India
and the best you can do to replace it is work for about half what you
were earning, what does the "personally responsible" person do then?
Put the kids up for adoption? Pimp out the daughter?

How did President Bush get dragged into this topic? The president
doesn't dictate the economy.
Nobody mentioned PB until you threw him up here.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On 5 Mar 2005 08:55:05 -0800, wrote:


If you're not one of the "haves" and you're trying to pay rent, buy
groceries, clothe and educate a couple of kids, pay for more or all of
your family health insurance (hundreds of dollars per month, typically)
and keep an old car running on the $535 a week average wage in the US
right now it would be very optimistic to consider the current status
"good news". Especially when, even after 262,000 jobs were "created"
last month, the unemployment rate also went *up*.

Hey Chuck, what is the educational background of the bottom 20% of wage
earners?
Why does someone making $7.00 an hour have two kids? Where does personal
responsibility enter your calculations?

Besides that....the "average wage" is a meaningless number......that would
include teens, retirees supplementing their SS, second income workers, etc
etc.

The unemployment went up because more people are starting to look for
employment.


How the hell could Bush affect these 'problems' you present anyway?
Raise taxes
and give them more money?

John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On 5 Mar 2005 07:51:00 -0800, wrote:

Let's see:

According to information in the article you posted:

Investors are happy because all the new jobs being offered pay such
crappy wages there is very little chance that wage growth will
contribute to inflation.

Our artificially low interest rates will continue to fuel the illusion
of a robust economy for just a little bit longer.

You know, if you don't give a darn about the middle class, the current
economic trend (outlined in this article) of a lot of sub-family wage,
service sector, burger flipping jobs and the bull market paying strong
dividends for the tiny minority of Americans with any significant money
invested in the market is either very good news, or one step closer to
bankruptcy.....

Bankruptcy that may soon be harder to declare. I would favor that, in
many ways, but the timing is wrong when wages are stagnant or declining
and employer paid health care benefits are either scaled back to a much
smaller portion than before or withdrawn entirely.

We are rapidly becoming a nation of haves and have-nots.

I agree, that can be very good news if you're a "have" and don't give a
damn about your neighbors.

Our middle class is shrinking because the number of educated people is
shrinking. You should have watched Alan Greenspan as he answered the same
concerns of yours expressed by some of the less informed Democrats during his
hearings.

When you have liberals like Ward Churchill comparing capitalists to Adolph
Eichmann, and other liberals *believing* him, you have to wonder at any of them
complaining about the reduction of the middle class.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:

Our middle class is shrinking because the number of educated people is
shrinking. You should have watched Alan Greenspan as he answered the
same
concerns of yours expressed by some of the less informed Democrats
during his
hearings.

**********

You heard this where? Rush Limbaugh's comedy hour? Hannity's propagada
workshop?

According to a reasonably recent report by the US Census Bureau, the
number of people enrolled in college was at an *all time high*.

I guess we could split hairs about whether these people are being
educated, or not, but they're certainly making the attempt

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p20-533.pdf

Fill in next excuse for disappearance of middle class he
_______________

On 5 Mar 2005 12:57:19 -0800, wrote:

John H wrote:

Our middle class is shrinking because the number of educated people is
shrinking. You should have watched Alan Greenspan as he answered the
same
concerns of yours expressed by some of the less informed Democrats
during his
hearings.

**********

You heard this where? Rush Limbaugh's comedy hour? Hannity's propagada
workshop?

According to a reasonably recent report by the US Census Bureau, the
number of people enrolled in college was at an *all time high*.

I guess we could split hairs about whether these people are being
educated, or not, but they're certainly making the attempt

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p20-533.pdf

Fill in next excuse for disappearance of middle class he
_______________

I watched Alan Greenspan's testimony on C-span. The fact that college enrollment
is at an all time high has little bearing on how well educated young people are.

Do you think the average liberal arts degree is sufficient preparation for
today's job market? It's easy to get, compared to the sciences or engineering,
etc.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 10:25:45 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


By Roland Jones

Wall Street reporter

MSNBC

Updated: 5:06 p.m. ET March 4, 2005



NEW YORK - A surprisingly strong report on U.S. job creation ignited a
robust rally on Wall Street Friday, lifting major stock indexes to their
highest closing levels in nearly four years.



Wall Street was elated following the release of the February employment
report, which showed 262,000 jobs were created last month, more than the
225,000 economists expected and the best showing in four months. The data,
which showed jobs were created throughout the economy from retail to
manufacturing, boosted investors' confidence about growth and corporate
earnings.

"The economic numbers were better than expected, and that set the tone for
the [trading] day," said Dan McMahon, head of listed trading at CIBC World
Markets. He said stocks also were boosted by a modest decline in the price
of crude oil, which hit a four-month high Thursday. "[The jobs report] is
great news for stock investors," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at
Economy.com, a private research group.

The lack of growth in wages means the Federal Reserve will not feel
compelled to raise interest rates at an accelerated pace, he said. "There's
not enough job growth to cause wage inflation and put pressure on company
profits," he told CNBC.

High interest rates tend to weigh on stock prices because they increase the
cost of borrowing for companies.

"[The jobs report] is great news for stock investors," said Mark Zandi,
chief economist at Economy.com, a private research group.

The lack of growth in wages means the Federal Reserve will not feel
compelled to raise interest rates at an accelerated pace, he said. "There's
not enough job growth to cause wage inflation and put pressure on company
profits," he told CNBC.

High interest rates tend to weigh on stock prices because they increase the
cost of borrowing for companies.

The Dow rose 107.52 points, or 1 percent, to close just shy of 11,000, its
highest level since June 12, 2001. The blue-chip index was boosted by
manufacturers like DuPont, Caterpillar and 3M, and interest-rate sensitive
stocks like Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase.

Broader indexes also rallied. The S&P 500 finished up 11.65 points, or 1
percent, closing at its best level since July 3, 2001. The technology-rich
Nasdaq composite index climbed 12.21 points, or 0.6 percent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/


Who was it that wanted to be informed when the Dow hit 11,700?

I'm already thinking of a 22' Grady White.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."