SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mannie who wrote (33632)12/25/2003 11:49:39 PM
From: lurqer  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
note from one of my favorites

Thanks. And in return - a real time, supply side experiment.

A Recovery for Profits, but Not for Workers
By LOUIS UCHITELLE

Published: December 21, 2003

nytimes.com

THIS economic recovery is distinctly unkind to workers.

Output is clearly rising, and, normally, that would feed into both corporate profits and labor income. But while profits have shot up as a percentage of national income, reaching their highest level since the mid-1960's, labor's share is shrinking. Not since World War II has the distribution been so lopsided in the aftermath of a recession.

Profits, it turns out, never stopped rising as a share of national income all through the 2001 recession and the months afterward of weak economic growth. That did not change even as the recovery kicked in strongly last summer and hiring resumed. New data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis erases all doubt on this point.

The reasons for labor's poor showing are not hard to spot. The employment rolls are still smaller, by 2.4 million jobs, than they were at the recession's start in March 2001. Those who are employed are also feeling the squeeze, particularly the 85 million people who hold office or factory jobs below the rank of supervisor or manager. Their average hourly wage, $15.46, is up only 3 cents since July, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That wage is rising at an annual rate of less than 2 percent, barely enough to keep up with inflation, mild as it now is.

"We have never seen in the 40 years that we have this hourly wage survey, wage growth that has been this slow,' said Dean Baker, an economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

That is unfortunate. Workers, after all, are also the nation's consumers. We are counting on their spending to turn the recovery into a first-class expansion. They must do that against the dead weight of reluctant hiring and miserly raises. The workers themselves are helpless to change this. For a generation, we have permitted labor's bargaining power to deteriorate. Successive administrations - Republican and Democratic - have abetted the deterioration. Only in vigorous booms, like that of the late 1990's, have workers been in enough demand to give them bargaining power.

The productivity saga highlights the deterioration. From the end of World War II until the late 1960's, productivity rose at a handsome pace. As the output of goods and services increased for each hour worked, the additional revenue flowed steadily into corporate profits and labor income. Then, as the productivity growth rate slowed, profits took the first hit, falling as low as 25 percent of total national income in the early 70's, according to a net profit measure constructed from government data by Edward N. Wolff, a New York University economist. His measure includes not only standard net income, but also profit from self-employment, rent and interest.

While profits' share of national income declined, labor's share held up. Its bargaining power in the 1970's, and even into the 80's, was still strong enough to sustain wage gains. The alternative - outsourcing abroad or substituting foreign merchandise for domestic products - was just beginning to materialize. We all know how weak labor soon became. Globalization, deregulation, declining union membership, a stagnant minimum wage and incessant layoffs took their toll. And as labor weakened, the profit share of national income recovered.

THE consequences are hitting home. When the productivity growth rate revived in the mid-1990's and accelerated in recent years, many forecasters thought that the revenue from rising output per worker would again be channeled to labor as well as to profits. But the productivity improvement came in a strange way. Rather than increasing output per worker, many companies maintained existing output and raised the productivity growth rate by getting rid of workers. Labor had grown too weak to prevent many companies from pocketing virtually all the gains from productivity - or, as Mr. Wolff put it, "Labor is a forgotten part of this economy.'

His measure shows that pretax profits skyrocketed in the third quarter, to nearly 30 percent of national income, at an annual rate, from 27 percent in the first quarter of 2001. And this despite the rising costs of health insurance, pensions and exercised stock options, all counted as labor income.

The gorging on profits strains the recovery. Forecasters count on consumer spending to keep the expansion going. So far, consumers have performed admirably, drawing on mortgage refinancing, tax rebates and heavy borrowing at low interest rates to pay their bills. Once these resources run out - and they are running out - rising labor income must fill the gap.

Unless the supply-siders are right. They hold to the view that robust business spending on capital goods can lead the way, generating consumer spending in its wake. This recovery, more than others in recent decades, is testing that doubtful thesis.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

with thanks to GD

lurqer



To: Mannie who wrote (33632)12/31/2003 2:12:20 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Molly Ivins favorite book...

alternet.org

<<...My favorite book this year is "Mountains Beyond Mountains: The Quest of Dr. Paul Farmer" by Tracy Kidder. It's about two things simultaneously. The first is the life an extraordinary man, Paul Farmer, who has simply thrown himself – all his time, talent and every ounce of his energy – into saving lives, particularly of those most desperately in need of help. The man pretty much set out to save the world and damned if he isn't making progress. It's an amazing story: He just went to Haiti and started working, and now he's changing medical thinking all over the world.

Sounds daunting, doesn't it? The book jacket describes Farmer as "brilliant, charismatic, charming." Actually, he sounds like someone you'd really like to know. You'd have to run to keep up with him, but apparently he's a nice and even funny guy, on top of being a MacArthur Foundation-certified genius.

That gets us to the second thing this book is about: us. So why aren't we doing what Paul Farmer is? Or even one tenth as much as Paul Farmer is? The trouble with reading about someone who is doing with his life what all of us know we should be doing, too, is that it really puts you on the spot. Kidder, a meticulous reporter, is brilliant at taking us through all the reactions to this guy – admiration, envy, self-justification, rationalization, churlishness. What is with this guy Farmer, does he have a martyr complex or something? Finally, I think, the only possible way to take Farmer is for what he is – an inspiration...>>



To: Mannie who wrote (33632)12/31/2003 3:50:47 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Clark is his choice

azcentral.com

Dec. 31, 2003 12:00 AM

I had a dream that I would have to vote for either George W. Bush or Howard Dean. Two men from northeastern, wealthy, influential families. Two men who used that influence to avoid active duty and to pave their way into governorships and who never had a real job.

Two men who refused to release their gubernatorial papers when running for president.

Men who don't think about the consequences of their actions, who reverse positions, then deny doing so.

Men who play fast and loose with the truth. Men who play to the extremists in their party - in one case, the pacifist left and in the other, the neo-conservative, unilateralist, big-business wing.

Men with no core beliefs who avoid personal responsibility. Men known for their violent tempers.

I woke up and realized there is only one candidate fit to be the president of a veteran, father and grandfather. He was first in his class, Rhodes scholar, decorated Vietnam veteran, and as NATO commander he ended the war in the Balkans and saved Kosovo.

He was drafted to run for president by thoughtful people, is a moderate, beholden to no special-interest groups, a "quick study." He advocates health programs for the people, not for the pharmaceutical companies and HMOs.

He is Wesley Clark, a man of character.

_______________________

Bob Waters, Surprise