Let the good times roll -- 248,000 new jobs

[pchang]

for most illnesses. however, for things like breast cancer this is not the case. women with breast cancer now have survival rates many times higher than women with breast cancer in the 70s. there are plenty of other examples like this and DanS's

[Kidlicious]

It doesn't matter if they have higher survival rates. That has nothing to do with real wages. Improvements in technology may help people survive, but they do not help them pay their bills or save money.

[pchang]

so how do you measure the amount of healthcare you receive per healthcare dollar you spend? Do you mean to tell me a higher survival rate has no value?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Real wages should pick up again if the economy expands, but the long run trend in real wages isn't keeping up with productivity improvements. That's for sure. I would hate to think what would happen to wages if we return to the productivity growth of the 70s and 80s.

Most of the new jobs are McJobs -- low wages, no benefits, no consumer power.

Also, unemployment numbers don't reflect the prison population (because they're not out on the streets looking for work). However, the jail population has the effect of unemployed workers -- adding nothing to the economy, but required food, clothes & housing, etc. Really, you have to double the unemployment rate to factor in these anchors on the economy.

[pchang]

Again, if most of the jobs were worse paying than before, the average hourly wage would have decreased. It did not. Therefore, the original premise is false. Teh Math uber Politics!

[Ben Kenobi]

In my opinion, we should just count all the people who are of working age and subtract all the people who have jobs to get the number of unemployed.

The biggest problem with this are the stay-at-home moms, who choose to be unemployed. That will throw off your numbers.

As someone who works in a 'mcjob' I discount that notion of a lack of purchasing power. I've been able to buy more now that I am working, than before when I wes not. If you mean relative purchasing power, it's not uniform with respect to income. Sure, more money will be good, but only up to a certain point will this result in an increase in consumption. After that point, most of the money will get stashed away.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by pchang
so how do you measure the amount of healthcare you receive per healthcare dollar you spend? Do you mean to tell me a higher survival rate has no value?

Saving lives has great value. I would say that you probably can't even measure it. I'm saying that real wages is something else. Real wages measures how much workers are doing financially - can they pay their bills and save money. You can also compare it to producivity improvements. In the long run real wages should increase at the same rate as productivity. That certainly hasn't been the case since the 60s. That tells us something about the economy.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by pchang
. . . non-wage compensation can be extremely misleading. The biggest non-wage compensation items are retirement plans and health care. The switch from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans makes comparisons between retirement plans very difficult. . .

Thus, my diatribe against McJobs. The employer bails on paying medical and retirement benefits, effectively "exporting" these expenses onto the general public.

Instead of the employer paying retirement benefits, we make welfare payments. Instead of the employer paying medical benefits, we pay for emergency room treatment through our tax dollars and with higher insurance premiums (1 out of every 3 dollars in premiums goes to pay for the treatment of non-insured emergency room patients).

Thus, DanS's chart may show increasing after-inflation salaries starting with the Clinton administration, but this rising line should be downwardly adjusted because of the ever-increasing phenomenon of the McJob.

BTW: Ben Kenobi is right. A McJob is better than no job. --But a job with a good salary, with health benefits and with retirement benefits is even better.

[Ted Striker]

DanS, Minister of Propaganda

[Giancarlo]

Leftists... from the Ministry of making good news bad because it doesn't fit their agenda.

Somehow, job growth is bad for liberals.. wait that's less people on welfare.. yes it is very bad for liberals.

[DanS]

Hey, the lefties are now attacking me for the good news rather than the president.

I'm moving up in the world!

(Btw, I wonder who stole Ted Striker's login. )

[Ted Striker]

False Good News != Good News


thanks

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS
And no wonder that Carter got his pink slip after one term.

I seriously have to wonder if your brain is functioning. If you look at your own chart then average hourly wages were slightly less at the end of Carters term then at the beginning. They were massively less at the end of Reafons time then at the beginning. It wasn't until around 1997 that workers recovered from Reagan's anti-worker laws.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
False Good News != Good News


thanks

Unfortuantely for you, this isn't false good news. This is good good news. To you any real good news is very bad because it goes against your beliefs. You are pro-unemployment.

[Ted Striker]

Unemployment rate went up genius.

thanks