So you are saying those that *have* don't give a damn about my
neighbors?
Like the elite Hollywood crowd, the Michael Moores of the world or the
rich
politicians, most of whom are democrats?

Perhaps. I, on the other hand, do give a damn along with most of those
in
my world.


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

Please try to include every word in the sentence when you read a
comment.

I said "......that can be very good news IF you're a 'have' AND don't
give a damn about your neighbors."

Why would you even wonder whether I had said that all "haves" don't
give a damn about their neighbors? Notice if & and.

If you are a have and don't give a damn about your neighbors, the fact
that lower wages across the job market and very little upward
"pressure" on those wages is encouraging Wall Street would be good
news. If. And.

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*.

wrote in message
ups.com...
So you are saying those that *have* don't give a damn about my
neighbors?
Like the elite Hollywood crowd, the Michael Moores of the world or the
rich
politicians, most of whom are democrats?

Perhaps. I, on the other hand, do give a damn along with most of those
in
my world.


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

Please try to include every word in the sentence when you read a
comment.


I did.


I said "......that can be very good news IF you're a 'have' AND don't
give a damn about your neighbors."

Correct.



Why would you even wonder whether I had said that all "haves" don't
give a damn about their neighbors? Notice if & and.

Because that was the implication Chuck. Don't try to spin it.



If you are a have and don't give a damn about your neighbors, the fact
that lower wages across the job market and very little upward
"pressure" on those wages is encouraging Wall Street would be good
news. If. And.

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*.


Yep, a whole 0.2%. We are now at 5.4%, an average considered very
acceptable.

From the article:
=================
The rise in the unemployment rate came in part as more job-seekers streamed
back into the market.
The unemployment rate is calculated from a separate statistical survey than
the payroll figures. Thus, they can offer somewhat different pictures of
what is happening in the labor market.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7087469/

======================

Continue to focus on the negative Chuck. I will stay focused on the good
things happening.

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.

On 5 Mar 2005 13:02:17 -0800, wrote:

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.

Note that your 'average' hourly wage (actually $15.90) is for production and
nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls. You are leaving out any
supervisory personnel which would, of course, affect your average significantly.

Unless your 'highly educated and experienced' represent the average production
or non-supervisory worker, which I doubt, then the income is probably much
higher.

What does the person do? Learn a new trade, settle for less money, do the things
he or she must do. Perhaps they'll have to lower their standard of living.
Perhaps they'll become the 'middle class' this country is losing.

Are there a 'lot' of them. I think not. The unemployment rate is 5.4%. What part
of that is represented by your sample. I think not a great percentage.

The fact, Chuck, is that our economy is better than that of almost every other
country in the world. Bush has done a good job, and you know it.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On 5 Mar 2005 13:02:17 -0800, wrote:

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.

Note that your 'average' hourly wage (actually $15.90) is for production
and
nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls. You are leaving out
any
supervisory personnel which would, of course, affect your average
significantly.

Unless your 'highly educated and experienced' represent the average
production
or non-supervisory worker, which I doubt, then the income is probably much
higher.

What does the person do? Learn a new trade, settle for less money, do the
things
he or she must do. Perhaps they'll have to lower their standard of living.
Perhaps they'll become the 'middle class' this country is losing.

Are there a 'lot' of them. I think not. The unemployment rate is 5.4%.
What part
of that is represented by your sample. I think not a great percentage.

The fact, Chuck, is that our economy is better than that of almost every
other
country in the world. Bush has done a good job, and you know it.


John H


Yep, the economy is in good condition. Are there still some problems? Yes.
But those problems are minor when looking at the total picture.

Considering what GWB has overcome since the beginning of his Presidency
(including inheriting a failing economy from Clinton) one can say he has
done a remarkable job....and this while seeing major accomplishments in Iraq
and the Middle East.

Now some folks will say that the President has little impact on the
rebounding stock market yet those same folks gave Clinton credit for a good
market during his watch. Double standards. Not surprising though.

Yes, the economy is in good condition and positive things are happening in
the Middle East....the libs just cannot admit it. In fact, sadly enough,
these same folks are hoping for failures. (See my "Disturbing Interview"
thread).

Sad.

"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."