election factor #3

DKSuddeth

Senior Member
Oct 20, 2003
5,175
61
48
North Texas
Income_gap.gif,hsmall.jpg


Gap between haves, have-nots gets wider

Over two decades, the income gap has steadily increased between the richest Americans, who own homes and stocks and got big tax breaks, and those at the middle and bottom of the pay scale, whose paychecks buy less.

The growing disparity is even more pronounced in this recovering economy. Wages are stagnant and the middle class is shouldering a larger tax burden. Prices for health care, housing, tuition, gas and food have soared.

The wealthiest 20 percent of households in 1973 accounted for 44 percent of total U.S. income, according to the Census Bureau. Their share jumped to 50 percent in 2002, while everyone else’s fell. For the bottom fifth, the share dropped from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent.

Jobs and the economy top the list of voter concerns this election year. President Bush touts a strong economy that is growing, but polls find that Americans have doubts and think jobs are scarce. John Kerry is trusted more on the economy, with Democrats talking regularly of “two Americas,” divided between the rich and everyone else.

That argument has merit, some private economists say.

“For those working in the bottom half of the pay scale, they’re under an enormous amount of pressure,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com.

New government data also shows that President Bush’s tax cuts have shifted the overall tax burden to the middle class from the wealthiest Americans.

“We’re just trying to get ahead.” said Debbie Reames, 49, of Raytown, Mo., whose bank job of 24 years was outsourced in February. “But it seems like we climb a few rungs and then we fall back again.”

Reames has a new secretarial job, which pays $7,000 a year less than her bank job, and she works catering jobs for extra money. Her husband, Russ, can no longer work after an injury. One son is finishing college and another will start in the fall.

So the family budget tightened. That meant fewer cable channels, more meals at home, postponed doctor appointments, missed vacations, delayed credit card payments, all to “keep the wolf away from the door,” she said.

The U.S. jobs market is soft, sending wages down. Hiring came to a near standstill last month, with companies adding just 32,000 new jobs overall, stunning economists who had expected seven times as many.

More than a million jobs have been added back to the 2.6 million lost since Bush took office, but they pay less and offer fewer benefits, such as health insurance. The new jobs are concentrated in health care, food services, and temporary employment firms, all lower-paying industries. Temp agencies alone account for about a fifth of all new jobs.

Three in five pay below the national median hourly wage — $13.53, said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist for Wells Fargo.

On a weekly basis, the average wage of $525.84 is at the lowest level since October 2001.

The income gap is showing up in booming sales of luxury items. Porsche Cars North America Inc. says sales are up 17 percent for the year. Strong sales at Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom and Saks Fifth Avenue overshadow lackluster sales at stores such as Wal-Mart, Sears and Payless Shoes.

Real estate agent Lance Anderson, 38, of Overland Park, Kan., expects a record sales year, as homeowners upgrade to more expensive homes and commercial clients expand. He recently took his family to Disney World for a two-week Florida vacation.

“My clientele, it seems as a whole, has seen positive growth,” he said. So his family, including three children, now eat out more often and spend more on clothes. They recently bought two new cars and anticipate buying a larger house in the next few years.

Economists say wages should rise as companies boost hiring. But the growing gap between the haves and have-nots will remain.

Technology has eliminated many U.S. jobs, as has global competition, particularly from low-wage countries such as China. Highly skilled, educated workers in America will thrive as demand rises, Sohn said, while low-skilled jobs remain vulnerable to outsourcing.

“This really has nothing to do with Bush or Kerry, but more to do with the longer-term shift in the structure of the economy,” Sohn said.


MSNBC AP
 
dilloduck said:
Time for the class wars to begin, ya reckon?

when bush is re-elected, along with more pro-business republicans in the house, the gap will grow larger and payrolls will shrink as well. That will signal the shift in party control again towards democrats. 2008 brings what to the table for democrats? :cow:
 
DKSuddeth said:
when bush is re-elected, along with more pro-business republicans in the house, the gap will grow larger and payrolls will shrink as well. That will signal the shift in party control again towards democrats. 2008 brings what to the table for democrats? :cow:

Did you just call Hillary a cow? :)
 
Hey DK, econ is certainly not my field of expertise, but wouldn't the numbers of people in each income category need to be addressed in this discussion? I do believe that more and more people are going from middle class into rich. I would be interested if the 'poor' haven't just settled at a certain number, like 5% unemployment-some won't move no matter what?
 
tim_duncan2000 said:
1) What's your solution?

stop restructuring everything for corporate welfare, remove the so called constitutional right to survive from them, and stop endorsing the 'corporations MUST be allowed to make a profit' agenda.

tim_duncan2000 said:
2) How is that all Bush's fault?

Did I place all the blame on Bush's doorstep? :wtf:
 
LOL--I expect the windbag to postion herself to be the savior of America because she can't do otherwise. She really thinks she is ! I'll puke later. The after-taste makes my coffee less satisfying.
 
Kathianne said:
Hey DK, econ is certainly not my field of expertise, but wouldn't the numbers of people in each income category need to be addressed in this discussion? I do believe that more and more people are going from middle class into rich. I would be interested if the 'poor' haven't just settled at a certain number, like 5% unemployment-some won't move no matter what?

Not sure if this particular issue is about the numbers of people but even if it was the data in the article seems to point out a relatively equal increase in the classes with a growing gap in the income factor.
 
DKSuddeth said:
Not sure if this particular issue is about the numbers of people but even if it was the data in the article seems to point out a relatively equal increase in the classes with a growing gap in the income factor.

But if more are moving up and a certain % is doing nothing, the gap widens?
 
tim_duncan2000 said:
2) How is that all Bush's fault?

I don't think DK said it was.
What he said is that SHOULD shrub get reelected, the people will certainly be fed up by the end of his second term and elect a Democrat. :eek2:
Heaven forbid.
 
Kathianne said:
But if more are moving up and a certain % is doing nothing, the gap widens?

the study centers on income only, not numbers of people per income level. The percentages listed in the study indicate that there is a top 20% and a bottom 20% with 60% in the middle but an increasing gap of income between the classes. To argue that more are moving up and a certain % is doing nothing would indicate that theres no growth in the working environment, would it not?
 
Guess it will depend on how the media spins the "gap". ( sorry--on my "hate the media" kick today.) might be that a bunch of folks don't really care to play the " i got more money game"
 
DKSuddeth said:
the study centers on income only, not numbers of people per income level. The percentages listed in the study indicate that there is a top 20% and a bottom 20% with 60% in the middle but an increasing gap of income between the classes. To argue that more are moving up and a certain % is doing nothing would indicate that theres no growth in the working environment, would it not?

If the poor illegal immigrants were not included I'd bet the figures would read differently.

The middle class is suffering financially in order to support the third world moving into our country.
 
ScreamingEagle said:
If the poor illegal immigrants were not included I'd bet the figures would read differently.

do you see where they were included in this study? please point it out to us.
 
DKSuddeth said:
stop restructuring everything for corporate welfare, remove the so called constitutional right to survive from them, and stop endorsing the 'corporations MUST be allowed to make a profit' agenda.

Most of that statement is nonsensical. Your socialist tendencies are showing again.

You cannot point to anything which directly supports your assertion that there is a "so called constitutional right to survive" for US corporations. On the contrary, many of them go out of business on a regular basis.

Second, your call to "stop endorsing the 'corporations MUST be allowed to make a profit' agenda" is completely puzzling. First your assertion that there is such an agenda is totally unsupported. Second, profit is the reason corporations exist. Profit is the reason that corporations are able to pay their employees. Perhaps you would be more content if all corporations went out of business. That way, at least, we could all be equally poor. Is that the socialist idea of utopia?

The article you sourced from MSNBC is typical of them. First, it is a left-slanted hatchet job and second it is poorly researched. It draws assumptions unsupported by the meager facts it presents. But I'll get back to that later when I have more time.
 
nycflasher said:
I don't think DK said it was.
What he said is that SHOULD shrub get reelected, the people will certainly be fed up by the end of his second term and elect a Democrat. :eek2:
Heaven forbid.

Under Bush it appears to have decreased. All the MAJOR increase was under Clinton. If you look at the graph closely and without a Partisan eye, you will see that! DOH!

So based on YOUR position, if this trend continues, a REPUBLICAN will most likely be elected AGAIN after Bush's upcoming, next four years!
 
Merlin1047 said:
Most of that statement is nonsensical. Your socialist tendencies are showing again.

You cannot point to anything which directly supports your assertion that there is a "so called constitutional right to survive" for US corporations. On the contrary, many of them go out of business on a regular basis.

Second, your call to "stop endorsing the 'corporations MUST be allowed to make a profit' agenda" is completely puzzling. First your assertion that there is such an agenda is totally unsupported. Second, profit is the reason corporations exist. Profit is the reason that corporations are able to pay their employees. Perhaps you would be more content if all corporations went out of business. That way, at least, we could all be equally poor. Is that the socialist idea of utopia?

The article you sourced from MSNBC is typical of them. First, it is a left-slanted hatchet job and second it is poorly researched. It draws assumptions unsupported by the meager facts it presents. But I'll get back to that later when I have more time.

I agree Merlin. DK, I have said it before, but you really outta get off the "hate all corporations" mantra that you like to carry. Go open your own company/small corporation and let us see if you feel the same way.

Owning a business can be fun, but also very challenging. I look at my employees as family and I know a lot of other business owners that are the same. Yes, some abuse the system, just like some people abuse welfare and food stamps. The difference is that while one corporate big-whig is being corrupt, he is still employing people.

Think about Enron. Clinton loves to talk about his economic successes while in office, but if you look at all the corporate scandals, they took place under his watch. Enron, Worldcomm, etc. all employed THOUSANDS of people, that we later found out, they really couldn't afford. So it was a smoke an mirrors trick that benefited A LOT of people. Including the Federal Government. So I am sure it was all concocted in the White House.

Think about it, the top management of the scandalous made millions, the government made millions in tax revenue, employees had jobs that were temporary, but they were better of than being out of work, people playing the stock market made millions, etc., etc.

So all those jobs that were created in the 90's, well those jobs were also all part of the smoke and mirrors trick.

So sure, maybe the job growth under Bush isn't as high paying or whatever as they were under Clinton, but these jobs are sustainable and not all just part of a smoke and mirrors trick that is going to come crashing down.
 

Forum List

Back
Top