To: j g cordes who wrote (8589 ) 10/20/1998 9:55:00 AM From: mrknowitall Read Replies (1) | Respond to
j g - <<sort of OT>> The tone of the "forthcoming" report you site makes it sound highly suspicious and food for a political machine. It's written in the style of advocacy journalism, wherein statistics are manipulated and presented as key "facts" to flavor the subject. Workers employed at "long-term jobs," those lasting 10 years or more, decreased from 41 percent in 1979 to 35.4 percent in 1996, the greatest portion of the decline since the late 1980s. " That statement is written to imply there is a decline in steady long term jobs - when, in fact, the numbers are heavily driven by the dynamics of the high-technology sector and the shift from a manufacturing economy to a more service-based system.In 1997 the inflation-adjusted earnings of the median US worker " More very suspicious statistical manipulation in play here; what was their "adjustment" factor for inflation and in what years was it applied? Why no mention of the major increase in the gross number of entry-level jobs in the equation which was more likely the cause of the drop?The typical middle-income family had 3 percent less wealth in 1997 " That statement is full of holes and is indicative of the advocacy bent. No definition of "typical middle-income family;" no definition of "wealth;" no comparison to empirical data about spending, savings, taxes, etc. on which to judge the merit of the claim about "wealth."The benefits of the stock market rise have gone almost " The statement is not only specious, but patently designed to instill envy and vilify success. It neglects to address the risk/reward equation and ignores the capital liquidity brought about by stock market investments that create jobs.
