Job Losses Become Major Issue in US Presidential Election

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=50E79115-1F98-453B-B1A2ED1C48CFBE15

Concern over job losses in the United States has emerged as a major issue in the 2004 presidential campaign. The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, has made the jobs issue a central focus of his campaign.

During a recent campaign stop in Illinois, Senator Kerry noted that the U.S. economy has lost more than two million jobs since President Bush took office in 2001. "2004 cannot, cannot be just another year of politics as usual. The challenges that we face are simply too great and too grave. Every minute that passes, we are losing two jobs to other countries," he said. snip

The job losses remain a major concern for the president's re-election campaign. But Bush supporters are quick to point out that other key indicators such as economic growth and interest rates remain positive. snip

But pollsters and political analysts say job loss fears rank high among voters concerned with economic issues.

more

[Lindacooks]

1. Yeah, right

Interest rates are low BECAUSE of the crappy job market. That's hardly an indicator of a healthy economy.

And economic growth and productivity are up because there are fewer employees doing more work, in effect taking pay cuts just to keep their jobs.

Bush doesn't have a leg to stand on on the economy, and that lying little bastard knows it.

[joeunderdog]

43. Losing jobs is built into the plan. It's obvious. Here's why:

http://www.townonline.com/lynnfield/news/opinion/nss_letnsstringrs03122004.htm

Letter to the Editor: President's job policies are hardly working

Friday, March 12, 2004

President Bush's promise two weeks ago to produce 2.5 million new jobs in 2004 was a strange precursor to his public embrace this week of the trend of outsourcing American jobs. It was a contradiction not lost on those in the unemployment lines.

Outsourcing is the practice of sending American jobs overseas to increase corporate profits. By definition, it cuts jobs. Its benefits are that it can increase profits, help businesses remain competitive with lower costs, and benefit shareholders. However, the long-term gains made by companies laying off Americans will only reinforce and not reverse the trend itself. And while many business tactics that maximize profits generally result in a re-investment in America, this one will do the exact opposite.

This particular issue is far less theoretical and partisan than others. Every political party wants to create jobs. Outsourcing's fallout includes foreclosures, erosion of the (income) tax base, lost careers and taxpayer-funded unemployment benefits. These are bipartisan problems.

The current administration's Job Creation program is a disaster. The president has the embarrassing distinction of being the first American president since the Great Depression to produce negative job growth during his term. At best, we have a jobless recovery, and if policies aren't changed, we risk indefinite downturn.

Outsourcing, like many of the president's policy decisions, has the predictable and sometimes designed effect of job loss. With this president, it's always business owner over business worker. His plan for getting rid of overtime will result in employers hiring fewer employees to work more hours to save on wages and benefits. His immigration proposal will mean more Mexicans working more American jobs for less money. In each case, American jobs will be sacrificed for business profits with no measurable re-investment into our economy.

These inequities are a true threat to our economic future. Bipartisan efforts should aggressively address these issues here and now and not shrug them off as the soft tug of normal economic evolution. (That would be like not addressing adolescent drug use because "kids will be kids.")

I know the president would like to see everybody working. But by looking abroad rather than within his own country to help American businesses remain competitive and profitable, he has designed a number of policies that protect profits at the expense of jobs. In this regard, his policies are working. But that's a big part of the reason that 2.5 million Americans aren't.

(I titled it: Americans are Getting Jobbed.)

[Avalon Sparks]

54. Awesome letter - send it to lots of papers!

Good job!

[joeunderdog]

68. It got ignored by 2 other papers (oh, well) but

I've had good succuss in the past. I usually get them in, but for some reason, this one didn't make the cut. The local one here is a bit RW, but they've printed other anti-bush clips I've sent in. I Think this one's just too close to home.

My keyboard is locked and loaded.

[Lindacooks]

61. Fabulous letter!!

Every point you make is right on.

[placton]

2. Simply put, we are becoming Brazil.

There, 80% of the country is dirt poor, 20% wealthy. No middle class. The current "recovery" is nothing of the kind - instead, it's a restructuring (or "Brazil-ifying") of our economy. What workers we do have are treated like slaves (overtime, we don't need no stinkin' overtime), and then discarded. And the Bush supporters, many who represent anti-US multinationals, are happy as clams with this result:
-cheap labor, doing 2 jobs for the same pay
-no overtime
-no unions
-lotsa money for the fat cats.

[David Zephyr]

3. Yes.

:thumbsup:

[RainBoy]

4. What the hell...

do you consider dirt poor and rich?

According to IRS data, the poor in this country own rougly 33% of all real property in the US, the Middle class own roughly 33% of all real property in this country, and the wealthy own roughly 33% of all real property in this country. If I had more time I would hunt down that link for the income threshholds.

If you want to see an example of a country with very little middle class then look no further than Mexico. They have a very small percentage of the population controlling 90%+ of their country's wealth.

Regarding the workers and the slave comment, you are free to choose not to work. True slavery does not afford that luxury. Besides, there are an abundance of opportunities to gain education and save enough to start our own businesses. That's what I'm doing and I and far from rich or even middle class. It's an initiative I am responsible for.

[NNN0LHI]

5. Well, bully for you that you are doing so well

What do you want? A gold star or something? Lot of other people are not doing so well through no fault of their own. What do you say about them? Or is it all me, me, me from you?

And yea, I would like to see a link to those numbers you give from a reliable source. Thanks in advance.

Don

[RainBoy]

15. LOL~~~

I'm not going to be one who makes excused for why other people screw up. All I can do it take care of myself.

As for the no fault of their own part... People used to tell me that I became homeless for 7 years due to no fault of my own. I believed that for awhile but while I was blaming others for my problems my problems were not being fixed. Only when I accepted responsibility for myself did I leave my homeless lifestyle and get back into society.

If you look closely at people and their lives with objectivity you may actually find out that many people have made decisions that got themselves into the predicament they are in. Such as credit card debt and excessive living beyond their means.

I earn $850 a month now, pay $300 for rent and utilities (not government subsidized either), $100 for food, $50 for school (not including the pell grant) and I can save $400 or so a month. If I can live this cheap and save for my future like this I know damn well others can.

Some have families and I understand that. But that's an even better reason to live within their means and using credit for emergencies.

No jobs are guaranteed. nobody is owed a job. Jobs must be earned by illustrating competence the job requires. Businesses do fail but business are created as well. I look around and there are plenty of jobs out there. Just those that people are too good to have I guess. Or maybe jobs that can't support an extravegant lifestyle (New cars, new houses, Vacations in Belize, etc.). If I had kids to feed I would work any job.

Oh, about the numbers. I was off some because I wasn't sure what was considered the median wage in the US. Here's the link http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/02statab/income.pdf

Notice though that the US has a LARGE percentage of middle class compared the the wealthy and the poor.

the numbers are:

Households with income between $0 and $24,999 own 29% of the wealth,
Households with income between $25,000 and $74,999 own 47% of the wealth,
Households with income between $75,000 and $100,000 + own 24% of the wealth.

There ya go.

[daleo]

21. This is an interesting right wing talking point

I am not necessarily saying you did this on purpose, mind you. Looking at the data, gives the following breakdowns:

No.676.Nonfinancial Assets Held by Families by Type of Asset:1998

Primary Residence Only:

<$10 K, 15% of families, 7.7% of assets
$10 to $25 K, 27% of families, 19.9% of assets
$25 to $50K, 30% of families, 26.0% of assets
$50K to $100K, 21% of families, 27.6 % of assets
$100K and up, 8% of families, 18.8% of assets

No.677.Family Net Worth —Mean and Median Net Worth in Constant (1998)
Dollars by Selected Family Characteristics:1992 to 1998

<$10 K, 15% of families, 2.2% of assets
$10 to $25 K, 27% of families, 8.8% of assets
$25 to $50K, 30% of families, 18.4% of assets
$50K to $100K, 21% of families, 23.8 % of assets
$100K and up, 8% of families, 46.7% of assets

Two things to note: Primary residence assets are spread fairly evenly among income quintiles, but net wealth is very concentrated at the top quintile. Most wealth in the U.S. is not represented by the primary family home, although it is for the quintiles below the top.

So, looking at primary residence only gives a very misleading view of how wealth and power are distributed in U.S. society (although it is nice that even a fair percentage of poor people have some degree of home ownership).

[RainBoy]

28. This is classic...

bait and switch with main points.

My source provided information about wealth distribution. Your information reflects wealth accumulation. There is a huge difference between the two concepts. But even your own facts prove my point about the problem the poor people have regarding their wealth.

Poor people live beyond their means. They spend money that they do not have on things they cannot afford. Nobody can accumulate wealth by buying on credit. That is one of the worst financial decisions poor people make. It prevents them from saving money or even investing their money properly.

I have personally witnessed poor people make wise financial decisions with their money and move from poverty to middle class to even wealthy. I know it can be done. One of my best friends came from Vietnam as a boat person with absolutely nothing but the clothes on their backs. They worked hard for years to raise their little kids. Buy the time their kids were in their teens my friends bought the restaurant they had started out washing dishes in. by the time their first son turned 18 they owned 4 restaurants and were making over $100 grand a year and put their kids through college. They're studying to become medical doctors.

Their fortune was not luck. It was not preferential treatment like affirmative action. It was a result of years and years of hard work and budgeting their money wisely.

This is not an isolated incident. This happens all the time for those who are bright and disciplined enough to achieve it.

As I stated earlier, one does not maximize wealth accumulation by buying themselves into debt. Wealth accumulation occurs when investment money from savings is compounded exponentially from that investment. There are great risks at times but every aspect of life has risks. No gains are without risks.

Now, you spouted off to me about this being talking points for the G(r)OPers. So why would you want to insult me like that? Oh well, since you want to accuse me of mouthing off talking points of the right I might as well spout one off.

According to the IRS, the top 50% of the wage earners in America pay 96.03% of all income taxes paid by individuals. If that is not a blatant inequality if wealth taxation, I don't know what is. It is a true fact. Before you say it, the top wage earners paying 96.03% of personal income tax revenue while the bottom 50% wage earners pay only 3.97% is not a fair distribution scheme. No wonder the wealthy get more tax cuts. They pay most of the taxes. You may not like this and it may even make you mad but it is accurate.

I will not pander to an agenda by convoluding facts to match an agenda nor will I point fingers and blame others for problems created by poor decisions they make. I am a realist. I look at all sides of the issues before I can make a thoughtful informative decision about those issues.

[daleo]

64. You are confused about the point I was making

I merely said that your claim about a fairly equal distribution of wealth within U.S. society was incorrect, because you were mistaking primary family residence with net wealth, which is the proper measure for determining how equally wealth is distributed within a society. As to how that distribution comes about (i.e. your claim that the poor spend and invest unwisely), that wasn't relevant to the point that I was making, which was strictly a factual one, based on the tables you supplied.

I happen to agree that the poor and middle classes often do spend and invest unwisely, for a lot of complicated reasons, some that are under their control and some that are not. Personally, I don't believe this has a large effect on the overall distribution of wealth. It has been my experience that saving money is mostly a function of making money - the more you make, the easier it is to save.

I certainly would not deny that the upper income groups pay more income tax than lower income groups (although you should look into payroll taxes to get a full picture of the tax load on respective income groups).

As for referring to your confusion of primary residence assets with net wealth as a right wing talking point, that was probably an unfortunate choice of words.

[snippy]

33. Your figures are wrong.

[wildwww2]

48. Is someone using Bu$h Inc. "Fuzzy Math"? Yes indeed.

Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[GaryL]

52. They are lying.

And they are also omitting payroll taxes. And the IRS figures are incorrect. Back to freeper land, bucko.

[54anickel]

35. Those over $100,000 own none? Strangest breakdown I've ever seen.

[progressivebydesign]

$300.00 for rent and utilities??

I can't even imagine where you must live.. who can find rent and utilities for $300. bux? I'm trying to figure out how my family of three can rent a place for 300 including utilities, and live on $100. a month for food. So.. you have no car or car insurance? No health insurance costs?

[Nobody]

71. Parents' basement?

Studio apartments in crappy neighborhoods where you fall asleep to the sound of gunfire go for upwards of 600 a month and I'm being generous.

The onlt other explanation for 300/month rent + utils is a roommate and that's one share of the costs.

I wonder how much groceries and transportation costs are.

[progressivebydesign]

36. $300.00 for rent and utilities??

I can't even imagine where you must live.. who can find rent and utilities for $300. bux? I'm trying to figure out how my family of three can rent a place for 300 including utilities, and live on $100. a month for food. So.. you have no car or car insurance? No health insurance costs?

[CaptAhab]

37. These numbers do not make sense

I earn $850 a month now, pay $300 for rent and utilities (not government subsidized either), $100 for food, $50 for school (not including the pell grant) and I can save $400 or so a month. If I can live this cheap and save for my future like this I know damn well others can.

I find the $300 rent+utilities hard to believe. I live in Atlanta, which is one of the cheapest big cities, and I pay $400 rent + $100 utilities, and that's a pretty good deal. Then you claim you spend $25 per week on food? This is laughable. My very minimalistic diet costs about $45 a week. And you have no expenses for transportation? Get real. But let's say you walk everywhere, that leaves you about $170. And I haven't even started talking about health insurance...

[Skittles]

45. I don't believe ANYTHING about that story

it sounds completely phony.

[Ruby Romaine]

50. Maybe this poster lives at home with Mommy & Daddy?

How else could you live on so little?

[rfkrocks]

38. It true no jobs are guaranteed but you miss one obvious point of view

i think you are a social Darwinist-survival of the fittest type-I suggest that if people lose jobs, while not guaranteed, it creates enormous social pressure-for example in Pennsylvania-retired steel workers who have worked for 35 years are losing their pension because the steel industry is outsourced and the corporations didn't protect the pension plans. If that is the future of your retirement then why would you support the status quo-in other words if I don't get some security to live in a country and I lose my job things happen-like crime, drug addiction and social instability-in other words like it or not your new found prosperity depends on the stability of the society you live in-take a look around and try to imagine your town in French revolution mode-you see Bushco is cracking the new deal which saw this country through bad times when other countries went fascist-so social stability is extremely important and that is related to working-societies that have ignored that elementary proposition have payed for their ignorance dearly

[kera]

44. Darwin

I have the feeling that this guy living on Mahatma Gandhi diet is not what he pretends to be . This is the language of rich people having yet a bone to pick with the sucking working class they have to pay. He must be talking about wages for outsourced jobs.

[rfkrocks]

46. welcome to DU!

:toast:

[kera]

49. thanks a lot

your welcome makes me feel intellectually less lonely

[PA Democrat]

42. I couldn't find the numbers you quote anywhere in your source

Here's what I have:

By the close of the 1990s the United States had become more unequal than at any other time since the dawn of the New Deal—indeed, it was the most unequal society in the advanced democratic world. The top 20 percent of households earned 56 percent of the nation's income and commanded an astonishing 83 percent of the nation's wealth. Even more striking, the top one percent earned about 17 percent of national income and owned 38 percent of national wealth. In nearly two decades the number of millionaires had doubled, to 4.8 million, and the number of "deca-millionaires"—those worth at least $10 million—had more than tripled, from 66,500 to 239,400.

In contrast, the bottom 40 percent of Americans earned just 10 percent of the nation's income and owned less than one percent of the nation's wealth. The bottom 60 percent did only marginally better, accounting for about 23 percent of income and less than five percent of wealth. The racial gaps are even more disheartening. The typical African-American household had fifty-four cents of income and twelve cents of wealth for every corresponding dollar in the typical white American household. Hispanics had sixty-two cents of income and four cents of wealth.

Here's the source

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/01/boshara.htm

Kevin Phillips cites figures in Wealth and Democracy that are in line with the numbers cited in the above article.

[kurtyboy]

56. Where do you live?

Average rent where I live is at about $650/mo (Tiny Studio, garbage & sewer paid, no utils). Groceries would run about $150-250/mo (bare minimum), there's no decent transit, and gas is running $1.75/gal. at the cheap stations. In-state Tuition at the community college is just short of $1,000/qtr, and books run around $200/qtr. A luxury like a cup of coffee in the cafeteria each day (Black--they charge a nickel for creamer) will add $45/mo. to the bill.

You'd be living well beyond your $850/mo means in my town, and then some. And don't even try to think that you'd become a property owner on such an income--you'd never get a loan....

ON EDIT: IN fact, if you want to buy a house around here, you probabably better make closer to $850/week. I believe you are full of crap, my friend.

[Sugarbleus]

65. Whoa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't say what I want to say because the mods would not like it.

Let's just say I don't agree with you at all. I am very happy that you have succeeded though. Peace

BTW, I don't own nor will I ever own property.

[twilight]

6. look around dingo

<<If you want to see an example of a country with very little middle class then look no further than Mexico. They have a very small percentage of the population controlling 90%+ of their country's wealth.>>

What the hell do you think is going on here exactly? Same deal, different country!!! :grr:

:dem: :kick:

[RainBoy]

16. Maybe your sources...

may be really biased to an agenda based on class envy or something. See above reply to previous message to see the actual wealth distribution as stated by the US census people and not by some people at Berkeley with an ax to grind against the wealthy and Bushhole. (I used Berkeley because they were the first on the list when I googled for the census stat which was flaming the rich).

[Thucydides]

7. dupe- deleted

[Thucydides]

8. I can say that while I own property, I am barely holding on!

So where do you get your info, I want to ride that candy coated rainbow to the pot "o" gold!

Business bankruptcies continue at high pace
Paul Davis
The Business Journal
Businesses in the Triad are continuing to file for bankruptcy at a rate unheard of just a few years ago.


A total of 247 companies filed for debtor protection in U.S. Bankruptcy Court from North Carolina's Middle District in the 12-month period ending Dec. 31, 2002, down marginally from the previous two years but still more than twice the number filed in 1999.

Meanwhile, the number of Chapter 7 filings from the Middle District increased 15 percent from a year ago, rising for the third straight year. In these filings, the court appoints a trustee to oversee liquidation and closure of the business.

"(The numbers don't) show any evidence of a recovery," said Don Jud, an economist at UNC-Greensboro. "Instead, it shows that we're mired in the same situation we've been in for the last two years."

http://www.bizjournals.com/triad/stories/2003/04/28/story4.html?jst=s_rs_hl

Personal bankruptcies rise 7.8 percent in U.S

By Marcy Gordon
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The record-setting pace of new personal bankruptcies continued in the 12 months ending Sept. 30, with the number rising 7.8 percent, according to data released Friday.
Personal bankruptcies jumped to 1,625,813 from 1,508,578 during the same period a year earlier, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts data show.
The upward trend had been expected to continue despite signs of recovery in the economy and as effects still linger from the consumer spending binge of the 1990s. The rate of bankruptcies generally lags other economic indicators.
The bankruptcy filings "are being overwhelmingly driven by individuals with household debt," said Samuel Gerdano, executive director of the American Bankruptcy Institute, a group of bankruptcy judges, lawyers and experts. "They do reflect the buildup of heavy consumer debt."
The total number of bankruptcy filings, including both personal and business, has grown by 98 percent, to 1,661,996 in the 12-month period ending Sept. 30, from 837,797 during the same period ending Sept. 30, 1994.
Similar statistics for Utah bankruptcies are available for the first nine months of 2003. During that time period, bankruptcy filings increased 1.5 percent to 16,719 from 16,473, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Utah data show.
http://www.charleston.net/stories/112103/bus_21bank.shtml

[RainBoy]

13. uh huh..

247 companies filing bankruptcy out of how many 10s of thousands of businesses out there?

LOL! ya know... It's real easy to look at these "Shocking stats" and jump to crazy conclusions too. I mean, if 10 people out of 1,000,000 commit suicide every year at colleges in the US one year and the next year 20 out of 1,000,000 happened then we can correctly say "Oh my GOD!!!! Suicide is up 100% at colleges!!!" in the headlines of newspapers. But the percentage of suicides in the next year is what? 0.002% of the population of students.

Point is it's easy to sensationalize with stats but in reality it's very miniscule in the scheme of things.

Besides, Bankruptcies are a product of irresponible credit. I'm sorta leaning on blaming the borrower for that problem rather than the economy. Oh Yeah, Don't try the 2.4 million job losses on me when the unemployment is at 5.6% currently when it was 5.3% when clinton left office. I can't believe that we have latched onto this issue like this. Bushhole and Bush Limbomb and the other talknazis are not stupid. .3% is not a 2.4 million person difference.

Bottom line. People borrow themselves into debt. That's their problem. They should try to earn more money are lower their standards of living by cutting out excess spending. Cut up the credit cards. No new cars. No expensive homes. No spending on things that they cannot afford. You can't deny people live beyond their means. While many wanna claim that is not fair it is our system. I see rich people become poor and i see poor people become rich.

It's up to us to be responsible with our own budgets and not live beyond our means. Credit cards are best used for emergencies and not extravagance. Don't blame the credit card companies for allowing people to get so far in debt that they have to file banruptcy. Blame the ones who use the cards to get that far in debt in the first place. Nobody forces them to spend like drunken sailors.

By the way, this is what congress does andnow we have $7 trillion debt to deal with. Both parties contributed to that debt. Some (BUSHHOLE and G(r)OPers) more than others.

[Thucydides]

55. Don't mean to rain on your parade rainboy.........

As far as your unemployment statistic 5.6%, it was up to 5.95 if you buy the cooked book figures from the Bush administration. I personally find it hard to believe anything this admin puts out as true. That is straight republican party line rhetoric, some annalists had the figures up as high as 9% when you factor in many different variables. When can go tit for tat on statistics all day long, I have some back ground in statistics. I have not seen you produce any links to back up your arguments. Statistics are debatable, just depends on your sampling, and other variables. So lets get more personal, I am an extremely financially responsible person. First, I cut up my credit cards over two years ago, my wife has one, and I have one platinum, we use only when absolutely necessary, and when we do we pay it off asap, my credit rating is in the high 700's. I gave up satellite T.V. over a year ago to save money, I now get it the old fashioned way, rabbit ears. I reduced my INTERNET connection to $10.00 a month by going with a locally owned ISP. Yes I make due with 56K. I paid off my truck one year early, last year, we just paid off the wifes vehicle a year early just this past month. We clip coupons, buy only what is absolutely necessary. Have cut back on grocery's, not a lot of extras. Rather than invest in a volatile stock market, we invested in a modest commercial lot on a major route. My mortgage on that is less than three hundred a month. The mortgage on my house is less than eight hundred a month. It was closer to six hundred last year. That was before the insurance went up on my house by 26%in just one year, combined with the rise in property taxes, no doubt part of trickle down economics. Its the old shell game, George needs to fund his tax cuts to the wealthy, he therefore cuts funding to state programs, they in turn cut funding to municipal programs. City's and counties in turn raise taxes to fund cut programs, unimportant programs like Fire, Police, improved roads. But of coarse they also have to pay for federally mandated programs such No child left behind, since the Bush Admin proved no funds. Lets not forget that my health insurance went up. Yes I received a whopping two percent pay raise, guess how much my insurance went up by. Well it ate up exactly 1.5% of that 2% pay raise. Plus my copays increased on top of that. The power company has been allowed to raise there rates. Gasoline has skyrocketed, The list goes on and on, hot water heaters do wear, tires need to be put on the vehicles, like I said, on and on. We make $50,000 between the two of us and have no kids living at home. These rainboy are not some off the damn wall stats. They are real life numbers, so enough of the Republican rhetoric. This is what this admins problem is,they are out of touch with whats really happening in the real world.


Posted on Mon, Mar. 15, 2004

Economists Treat Employment Rate Report Only as Guide

By Kelly Pate Dwyer, The Denver Post Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News


Mar. 15 - While much of Colorado is transfixed by every move the state unemployment rate makes, economists such as Joe Winter pay little mind to the incremental changes.

The job market is serious business, no doubt. And the situation is grim -- more than 139,000 people in Colorado are considered unemployed.

But Winter, an economist at the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, says the unemployment rate released each month is only an estimate. The measure isn't always accurate, doesn't tell economists what they want to know about workers, and is a lagging indicator of where the economy is headed.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/8193048.htm


Unemployment state by state

See where your state ranks.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) -- Payrolls outside the farm sector grew by just 21,000 jobs in February, the Labor Department reported, compared with a downwardly revised gain of 97,000 in January. The unemployment rate held steady at 5.6 percent.

The nation has lost about 2.35 million jobs since March 2001, when the last recession began, marking the longest stretch of labor market weakness since the Labor Department started keeping track in 1939.

The state figures below are for January and were released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on March 10. Numbers for February are due March 31.

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/

[peakoil]

60. I'll just stop chemotherapy

I'm seriously ill and being kept alive by Medicaid which I may be about to lose. Guess it's my fault for needing expensive medications and medical procedures...I shouldn't have got lupus! What a wasteful, extravagant thing to do! I should have lived within my means!

Go suck an egg.

[Thucydides]

70. Thats an argument I don't think he can come back on, my heart

goes out to you peakoil. I have to admire your courage given your circumstances, I bet you will do well! With spirit like that, you can't lose. Welcome to DU by the way! I will look forward your posts in the future.

:toast:

[Yavin4]

9. There's A Huge Difference Between Owning Property And Paying A Mortgage

Your post proves how a large portion of Americans think. They confuse debt with equity. Yes, millions of Americans hold a mortgage to their property. They do not OWN their property. They're highly dependent on low interest rates which makes the value of their property higher than the value of the loan on their property. That's a far cry from owning property out right.

When the line between debt and equity becomes blurred, that's when economic collapses occur.

[RainBoy]

17. Some debt is fine...

when the borrow lives within his/her means and the debt is actually building equity in what they borrowed the money for. Housing has been at an all time high due to low interest rates. It's the unneccessary extravagant spending with credit card and the like which screws people, or like they screw themselves with that. I won't make excuses for people spending more than they can afford without thinking about possible changes in future earnings like a loss of a job or something. I'm just amazed people don't save rainy day funds for that. It's called living for today and saving for a worst case scenereo tomorrow (like another Bush term).

[54anickel]

39. But you've just touched on the problem. I know people who borrowed

well within their means for their home mortgage. Say an annual income of 65,000 working in the IT industry as a programmer/analyst. Yep, could make the 1200/month payments easily, maxing out the 401K and saving on the side for a rainy day, no credit card debt.

Lost their job 2 years ago, working whatever jobs they can find now on the side while still trying to get back into the computer industry (hey they did invest a lot of time and money to get that education).

Meanwhile their skills quickly become considered outdated, they've chewed thru that savings making the house payment, bills and ever increasing groceries while working 2 jobs and still looking for another, going to night school to update those skills.

Greenspan keeps saying we need to retrain for this new economy, yet doesn't say what you need to retrain in.

Please get off the soapbox and quit preaching about the evils of credit that you point to as self inflicted hard times. Most folks are not that far in debt, yet.

[Lindacooks]

10. I doubt you could find a reputable link

for those claims; there is no way that the poor in this country own 33% of real property. And if you're doing great, well good for you. Plenty of people are suffering, and suffering mightily, in Bush's economy. Just as there are a select few who are doing very, VERY well.

As far as 'saving enough to start our own businesses' - for God's sake, many people in this country can't even pay their bills every month (and it's NOT due to overspending or living beyond their means). Not many Americans can save.

Just because you're doing okay does not mean America is.

[RainBoy]

18. I did...

See above. The middle class in the US is even bigger than I thought.

By the way, funny how many of you people are jumping to the conclusion that I am well off. Far from it. I just look at things with common sense rationale rather than reactionary criticism.

[daleo]

20. A little more on this wealth business

No.677.Family Net Worth —Mean and Median Net Worth in Constant (1998)
Dollars by Selected Family Characteristics:1992 to 1998

From your reference, if you work out the data for 1992 (as an example), the numbers are:

<10K are 14.8 % of all families, holding 2.2% of all wealth
$10 to $25 K are 27% of all families, holding 8.8% of all wealth
$25 to $50 K are 30% of all families, holding 18.4% of all wealth
$50 to $100 K are 21% of all families, holding 23.8% of all wealth
$100 K and above are 8% of all families, holding 46.7% of all wealth

Perhaps real estate wealth is more evenly held, but that is a red herring. Wealth is wealth - many would say non-real estate capital is preferable to land, since it is more useful to actually get things done.

[RainBoy]

29. See above

[54anickel]

40. I looked thru that link and couldn't find it. Perhaps you could site the

section it's from?

[TahitiNut]

11. The GINI Index - US: 40.8; Mexico: 53.1; Brazil: 60.7

In some more economically egalitarian countries - Canada: 31.5; France: 32.7; Germany: 30; Japan: 24.9; Norway: 25.8; Spain 32.5; Sweden: 25.


That puts the United States in the economic neighborhood of such plutocratic economies as Turkey (40.0), Trinidad and Tobago (40.3), Guinea (40.3), China (40.3), Cambodia (40.4), Turkmenistan (40.8), Senegal (41.3), Tunisia (41.7), Singapore (42.5), Saint Lucia (42.6), Iran (43.0), and Thailand (43.2).

That's not the neighborhood I like being in, myself.

[TeeYiYi]

12. Why are you saving . . .

. . . to start your own business. A savvy entrepreneur like yourself ought to just sell off a couple tracts 'o' land and finance that new business venture of yours up front.

TYY *still waiting to see that IRS 33/33/33 link*

[RainBoy]

14. I have no land to sell...

I consumed 7 of the last 10 years living homeless on the streets of cities in the pacific northwest. I'm getting help going through college to earn a degree in woodworking and cabinet making. I'm earning my way at the same time. I get Pell Grants and what not for help but other than that I took the initiative and responsibility myself to do this. It was me who had to change my attitude to desire a better life. Being Savvy is just being smart an looking at al sides of every issue before making judgements about anything.

Some here may not like that but that's not my problem.

[mbperrin]

51. Pell Grants and what-not?

Like perhaps Job Corps money or any of a host of other state and federal programs? And perhaps if you're attending a public school, you will come to realize that 40 - 60% of all your costs are being paid by the taxpayers as well?

I'm not against it, I'm FOR education, but it really doesn't fit that Ayn Rand Big Mythos, now, does it?

Try this one: a friend of ours owned a small apartment complex, a fast food restaurant and worked 50 years to raise two kids and get ready to retire. Kidney cancer and transplant - cost $700,000+, so the state paid what he couldn't, took the properties and all he'd saved, now lives in a small house on Social Security.

Tell me again how this is all his fault that he doesn't have more.

[mhr]

53. BSEE, MBA, Commercial Pilot, Honorably Discharged Naval Officer

Unemployed for 46 months thanks to Bush's economy.

Don't even talk to me about personal responsibility.

All of my degrees were paid for by me.

All of the hard work mine.

I get so tired of these personal responsibility arguments.

I am living proof that the logic is flawed.

[daleo]

19. You cannot be serious with these statistics

Please hunt down your source. I would fall off my chair if I found a reputable source that agreed with that, unless by 'real property', you mean empty pop bottles.

[davekriss]

22. Wrongo Boyo!

This from 1998, from http://www.inequality.org/factsfr.html (more current figures can be found, but I just had these handy).

The key measure of financial health is net wealth. Add up all your assets and subtract all your liabilities, and you are left with net worth, what you are really worth. So how is net worth distributed across the socioeconomic continuum? As follows:

* Top 1% own 38.1%
* 96% - 99% own 21.3%
* 90% - 95% own 11.5%
* 80% - 89% own 12.5%
* 60% - 79% own 11.9%
* 40% - 59% own 4.5%
* Bottom 40% own 0.2%

RainBoy says the poor own 33% of the nation; the middle class another 33%; and the wealthy a final 33% -- by his thresholds and definitions, RainBoy is saying that the US bottom 90% are "poor"; 91% to 99.5% are "middle class"; and the top 0.5% are "wealthy". RainBoy has a very unusual and very skewed perception of class distinctions and wealth distribution in the United States.

Some interesting facts about the above statistics:

* The Top 1% have almost as high a net worth as the bottom 95% (38.1% versus 40.6%)

* The botton 40% have nearly no net worth (0.2%) and live paycheck to paycheck, a precarious position, stressed teetering at the brink of the abyss of utter ruin through just one layoff or illness. Given the unfettered pace of Bush's offshoring "jobs program", one can't help but feel their pain.

***

Republican administrations historically put money into the hands of the already advantaged, the top 1% and higher. This usually leads to great times on Wall Street but rough times on main street.

The problem with this policy directed flow of funds is that those at the top spend proportionately less of their income and save more. For every $1 in the hands of the top 1%, $0.75 is consumed while $0.25 comes to rest in a bank waiting for an attractive investment. Counterpose this with someone in the bottom 40%: Here, for every $1 of income, $0.98 is consumed (out of necessity). So when public policy decides to shift the flow of national income into the hands of the few (through tax policy), the net result is a dampening of demand for goods and services. This in turn leads to a need to ratchet down productive capacity (by laying off workers), which further dampens demand, which presses downward on wages of those still working -- a negative depressive spiral that disproportionately hurts those at the bottom while the top throws itself a party with its newfound tax cuts. This was the situation in 1981-1992, and again since 2001 until today.

A vote for a Republican is a vote for a healthy Wall Street; a vote for a Democrat is a vote for as healthy Main Street. Vote based on where you live.

[RainBoy]

30. See Above

[Virginian]

58. Do I detect a DINO? - Sounds like it - I got mine now you get yours. n/t

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

62. What?

***the poor in this country own rougly 33% of all real property in the US, the Middle class own roughly 33% of all real property in this country, and the wealthy own roughly 33% of all real property in this country***

What??? You're dreaming - even "socalist" Norway and Sweden have not achieved such a level of wealth equality. I think you have an agenda, mate. And your monthly "budget" wouldn't be livable here, let alone the States.

[Thor_MN]

66. I can get behind those numbers, as long as you define

the "Poor" as the bottom 80% of households, the "Wealthy" as the top 0.8% and the middle class as the 18.2% in between. Very easy to divide the wealth into thirds, but unless you consider that AND the number of people in each third, you are full of hooey.

I hear people pissing and moaning in the media all the time that the top 5% pay 34% of all taxes and how that's unfair. They like to throw those two percentage out there like they compare to each other. I never hear them mention that they hold in excess of 50% of the wealth, which maeans they should be paying considerably MORE in taxes, if you are going to be fair.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

72. Actually the prison system is slavery and there are many

people in prison on less than sufficient evidence...black people make up an extraordinary number of people questionably convicted and yes I'd like to see where those numbers are coming from...possibly the CATO institute who never met a poor person they didn't hate?

[cliss]

23. I do not believe your statistic

about the low-income earners. You say that people who earn

0 - 29,999 own 29% of the wealth in this country. Almost a third? First of all, you can hardly survive on making less than $30K per year in this country. Everything is going up, except wages. You certainly can not afford to have a family on that income, let alone pay for a mortgage + a car payment and everything else.

There's no way these people own 1/3 of the wealth in this country. If you're counting home ownership, you better deduct the mortgage owed on their homes. It won't be much after that.

[davekriss]

24. cliss see my post above yours

Yes, the figures to look at are net worth, not just the asset side of the ledger.

[daleo]

25. I looked at his source, U.S. Census

While the numbers line up fairly well for Primary Residence Only, this makes up a relatively small component of overall assets and wealth in the U.S. economy. When net wealth (or indeed anything other than primary residence) is considered, the picture is very different. For example, the bottom 43% of families own about 11% of the net wealth in the U.S. economy, and the top 8% own 47% of the wealth. Net wealth is, of course, the important variable when determining how, uh, wealthy someone is.

[snippy]

26. So he was either mistaken or mendacious. Sounds like Bush.

[RainBoy]

31. Such hostile namecalling

How dare you associate me with bush.

[snippy]

34. What is more Bushlike than to be mistaken and mendacious?

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

63. Tombstone

If it walks, talks and squawks like a Freeper...

Allow me to congratulate you on a well written disruption piece. Your vocabulary and style are straight from FreakRepublic. I know this from my own amusing forays into disruption ;)

*** People used to tell me that I became homeless for 7 years due to no fault of my own. I believed that for awhile but while I was blaming others for my problems my problems were not being fixed. Only when I accepted responsibility for myself did I leave my homeless lifestyle and get back into society. ***

Did you get that from a textbook? Rather transparent. Thankyou, though, your overblown protestations of innocence will remind me what not to do next time I'm bored.

[leftchick]

27. Thank you for the clarification daleo...

I notice rainboy never responded to any of your cogent posts... :eyes:

[revcarol]

32. I would like to answer Rainboy as to how the poor can have a paid-off

home from examples around here.

Grandpa had a high-paying secure job requiring little education at the time, like working for the fire department. Grandma stayed at home and watched the pennies, until all the kids were gone, then she worked a low-wage job.They paid off their 3-bedroom house.Now they both get his SS and a little extra.They get by.

But the next generation can't make it on their own, in spite of having educational levels that are much higher. So Grandma and Grandpa give the paid-off house to son#1 and his family. But son #1 has to pay off what the other kids would have gotten had the house been sold then, or sold as an inheritance.No mortgage appears on the books, son #1 owns the house supposedly, but he makes payments every month to his brothers and sisters.

So with his making payments every month, it takes him, his working wife, and grandma and grandpa living together to make ends meet. They are always one step away from poverty considering the volatility of the labor market...but he owns his own home...

[Yavin4]

41. All Rainboy Is Doing Is Confusing Debt With Equity

That's exactly what Enron did. Yes, home ownership is up because interest rates are low and because of that more people qualify to get a mortgage. The pink elephant in the room is the fact that job growth has DECLINED over the past four years, and that spells economic collapse.

[kera]

47. Darwin

I have the feeling that this guy living on Mahatma Gandhi diet is not what he pretends to be . This is the language of rich people having yet a bone to pick with the sucking working class they have to pay. He must be talking about wages for outsourced jobs.


:donut:

[kurtyboy]

57. Rainboy!!!!

I asked you further up where you were from. You didn't answer, but I gather from another post of yours you're living in the Pacific Northwest. Unless you are living in a community considerably less depressed than mine, you are full of feathers when you talk about rent for $300/mo. And as for your ability to bank money for the future, assuming this is true (I doubt it), have you stopped to consider that most people on such restricted incomes do not have the luxury of time to devote to college? You may be getting Pell grants etc., but you also seem to have time, and I assume that means you have no dependents.

If you did have dependents on such a meager income, you would soon starve to death without government largesse. Quit hammering on the poor for running deficits---they have no other choices.

Oh, also, if you cannot respond to these simple counterarguments intelligently, I will consider you an agitator. Please, do reply.

[pinniped]

59. Pacific Northwest eh? Must be Washington State.

It appears this rainboy character is most likely rainman from a certain gunnut site that loves that POS BULLshyt.

[Champ]

67. Yeah

It is a rough job market, we definately need to open up some new jobs. It's too bad I will be 20 days to young to vote in the 2004 election.

[salin]

69. The Powell assures India about jobs (re: we will protect the speed

of outsourcing) article and thread really ought to be linked to this thread - easy access...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=427015&mesg_id=427015