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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (517986)12/31/2003 3:06:42 PM
From: TigerPaw  Respond to of 769670
 
We were warned.
From January 2001
newyorker.com

The necons had everything in place except for the "New Pearl Harbor" for their invasion of Iraq.

TP



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (517986)12/31/2003 3:16:04 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Two Americas Ring in the New Year
by Holly Sklar
www.dissidentvoice.org
December 31, 2003

If poor Americans were a nation, the population would top Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming and the District of Columbia combined.

That's using the Census Bureau's lowball poverty count of 35 million Americans.

If the Forbes 400 richest Americans were a nation, they could celebrate New Year's together in a hotel ballroom. Don't look for "The Simple Life" rich kids Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie. Their families don't come close to making the list.

Forbes 400 combined wealth of $955 billion is greater than the gross domestic product of Canada, the world's eighth-richest economy.

The wealth threshold for Forbes 400 admission is $600 million. The Hilton family fortune, an estimated $360 million, is small by comparison.

The poverty thresholds for 2002 were $8,628 for a person 65 and older, $9,359 for a person under 65, $12,400 for an adult and child, $14,480 for a couple with one child, and $18,244 for a couple with two children. $18,244 isn't enough to buy the Patek Philippe gold watch and Hermes purse on the Forbes index of luxury goods.

By the official measure, a senior with just $719 a month in Social Security and other income was not poor. In reality America, many people above the poverty line can't afford housing, utilities, food, healthcare, transportation and other basic expenses, including taxes.

$719 won't get you a room for two nights at the Times Square Hilton for New Year's. It will almost buy the box of 25 cigars on the Forbes luxury index.

The two Americas are moving further apart.

Forbes 400 combined wealth rose 10 percent over the past year. Since 1982, when Forbes began the list, Forbes 400 wealth has jumped about 450 percent, adjusting for inflation.

The poverty rate hit its best mark way back in 1973. The 2002 poverty rate of 12.1 percent was 9 percent higher than 1973's. The 2002 child poverty rate was 19 percent higher than its lowest point in 1969.

When the Forbes 400 began in 1982, there were 13 billionaires and 5 of them were oilman H. L. Hunt’s children. Today there are 262 billionaires and 4 of them are Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton's children. Including Sam's widow Helen, the Waltons hold ranks four through eight on the Forbes 400, with $20.5 billion each.

The Waltons' combined $102.5 billion--up from $94 billion in 2002--nearly matches the wealth of the three richest men: Microsoft cofounders Bill Gates ($46 billion) and Paul Allen ($22 billion) and megainvestor Warren Buffett ($36 billion).

The Waltons' $8.5 billion wealth gain in the past year is more than the total budget for Head Start, serving nearly 1 million children.

While the Wal-Mart heirs are among America's richest, Wal-Mart workers are among America's poorest.

Wal-Mart's U.S. workers--most without health benefits--average just $8 an hour, compared with $12 in retail trade generally. Wal-Mart's average wage is lower than the 1968 minimum wage of $8.51, adjusted for inflation. Now the world's largest company, Wal-Mart is rolling back wages in the growing areas it dominates from America to China.

Wal-Mart's CEO pay, by contrast, rose 1,767 percent between 1995 and 2003, according to compensation expert Graef Crystal. CEO Lee Scott's 2003 pay package of $29.8 million amounts to more than $3,400 for every hour of every day of the year.

Thanks in part to poverty-level wages, hunger and homelessness are up sharply, according to the new U.S. Conference of Mayors survey. Emergency food requests jumped an average 17 percent over the past year and emergency shelter requests rose 13 percent in the 25 cities surveyed.

Among those requesting food assistance, 59 percent were families with children, and 39 percent of adults were employed. Among the homeless, 40 percent are families with children, 17 percent are employed and 10 percent are veterans.

Emergency food and shelter providers turn people away because they cannot cope with the rising demand.

Let's make a national New Year's resolution: raise the low wages that contribute to hunger, homelessness and poverty in this richest nation on earth.

Holly Sklar is coauthor of Raise the Floor: Wages and Policies That Work for All Of Us (www.raisethefloor.org).



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (517986)12/31/2003 7:02:12 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps  Respond to of 769670
 
Joblessness: The figures just aren't adding up

Squaring job growth and unemployment numbers just leads to more confusion

Monday, December 29, 2003

Just don't put too much stock in the monthly unemployment figures compiled by the government. Lately, those numbers have been more erratic than Ozzy Osbourne's vital signs.

Many folks, particularly those of us in the news business, hang on the monthly unemployment rate as a touchstone that divines the direction of the economy. We're all anxious to discern a drop in the jobless rate after three years of job losses in Michigan.

But economists say there is too much volatility in these monthly numbers to give us much of a compass bearing on where the economy is heading.

That's been especially true in the past couple of months, when squaring job growth with the unemployment rate has been about as tough as trying to reconcile Liza Minelli and David Gest.

In October, employment in Michigan rose, but the unemployment rate also jumped to 7.6 percent from 7.4 percent in September. In November, the jobless rate fell to 7.0 percent, but the state also lost 11,000 jobs. Huh?

State officials say the unemployment rate has been bouncing around like a retired general on the television talks shows because people apparently are moving in and out of the labor market at a rapid clip.

I say "apparently" because some economists are skeptical that this movement is as pronounced as the government figures indicate.

The state calculates the unemployment rate through a monthly survey of 2,000 households. Those surveyed are asked if they are employed or unemployed and looking for work. People who say they are unemployed are counted as such only if they are actively looking for work.

Some economists say the survey sample is so small that a tiny change in the number of people who say they are looking for work can result in a big swing in the unemployment rate.

Even Jim Rhein, a labor market analyst at the state Department of Labor and Economic Growth, acknowledges that the size of the survey sample is "a little thin." Government numbers crunchers supplement the survey with computer models to take out statistical "noise" and seasonal factors that can skew comparisons with previous months.

Despite such massaging, Rhein says at least three months' worth of employment figures are required to make an informed judgment about where the job market is headed.

"You really shouldn't base it on one month's data," he told me.

But even economists are wondering what's going on in the job market. That's because the government's two main job surveys - the household survey and a monthly poll of business payroll jobs - stand in stark conflict.

The household survey says Michigan has added 91,000 jobs in the past 12 months. But the payroll survey of 16,000 Michigan businesses shows the state has lost 79,000 jobs in the same period. A similar gulf in the surveys is found on the national level.

"That's an amazing discrepancy," said Don Grimes, a University of Michigan economist.

Usually the two surveys track closely. Grimes and Rhein say a big jump over the past year in the number of self-employed workers, who aren't counted in the business survey, explains part of the difference.

Economists also say the business survey, which favors larger companies, misses many new workers at small businesses that are usually the first to hire in an economic recovery.

But Rhein and Grimes say those factors aren't enough to account for the complete difference between the surveys. Numerous studies have failed to come up with a conclusive answer, Rhein says.

Has anyone asked Ozzy