Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (28426)	9/12/2006 1:58:07 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541045

1995-1999 was a very good period for the economy than in 2000 you have the collapse of the tech bubble and a recession. They aren't comparing two periods that are the same part of the economic cycle, there comparing middle to top of one with bottom to perhaps middle of another. If its presented as "Bush' economic record" Bush wasn't in office until 2001, and his policies didn't take effect immediately. I wouldn't praise Bush for his overall record but he shouldn't be blamed for economic contraction in 2000. Unemployment has remained stubbornly high despite the economic recovery, with the latest figure at 4.7% compared to 4% at the end of 2000. 4.7% is not "stubbornly high" but rather historically low. Re claims on income inequality increasing - "Meanwhile, the Gini index has been bouncing up and down between .46 and .47 since 2000 after rising steadily throughout the Clinton years from .43 in 1992 (it was .42 in the mid-1980s)." Message 22767344 Data from bea.gov Re: Wages - A more relevant peace of information is total compensation. The faction of total employee earnings represented by wages/salaries has been in a declining trend for a long time. Benefits (esp. medical benefits) have consumed a larger share over time of total compensation.