Middle class feels squeeze

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Middle class feels squeeze
43
Mon, 07-12-2004 - 4:31pm
I know we've discussed this before, but I couldn't find the thread. So--

Cynthia Tucker - Universal Press Syndicate

07.12.04 - By now, Karl Rove and his minions had expected that improved jobs reports would have boosted the president's election prospects immeasurably. After all, the stock market is doing just fine and corporate profits are going gangbusters. How come so many workers are still worried?

Well, most workers don't get to share the bounty of those corporate profits. Even with the popularity of 401(k)s, which are replacing traditional pensions, only about half of all Americans own stock. The average American is still feeling what John Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, call the "middle-class squeeze."

Already, jobs growth, which picked up in March, has begun to slow considerably. The report from the month of June showed a disappointing 112,000 new jobs, fewer than necessary to keep pace with population growth. Even more telling is this: When Bush came into office, 64.4 percent of all American adults were working. That figure has now dropped to 62.3.

For those who are working, hourly wages have declined slightly over the last year after adjusting for inflation. And many of the manufacturing jobs that boosted generations of Americans into the middle class are probably gone forever -- lost to computers and Chinese workers.

Add to that soaring health-care costs. Workers are having to pay more of their insurance costs, reducing their take-home pay. Or they are stuck with jobs that provide no health insurance.

As if that were not enough, Alan Greenspan recently raised interest rates and is expected to keep raising them for the next several months. As he does, many average Americans will find it harder to pay off their monthly credit cards bills or get a mortgage. During the recession, they had used those credit cards to keep up their standard of living (and buy the nation out of that recession). Many families now have substantial credit card debt.

Bush is not responsible for the global tidal wave that has swamped U.S. manufacturing or the credit card debt that threatens to bankrupt many families. The president didn't create an out-of-control health-care system or push down hourly wages. But his natural affinity for the wealthy and well-connected has produced policies that are much more in tune with their interests than with those of average working folk.

According to the U.S. Census, yearly median family income is $51,407. In terms of income distribution, the largest group of American families -- nearly 21 percent -- earn between $50,000 and $75,000 a year. Nearly 16 percent of American families live off incomes between $35,000 and $50,000 annually. That paints a picture of a substantial midsection -- nearly 37 percent of families -- with incomes between $35,000 and $75,000 a year.

Now take a look at the distribution of the Bush tax cuts. The American families earning between $43,000 and $76,000 have received only a 17 percent share of the tax cuts, according to an analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. By contrast, the top 1 percent of income-earners has received a 24.2 percent share.

I know, I know. Those wealthy Americans paid more of the taxes, so they deserve more of the tax cut, right? Actually, they got more than they deserved, even by that measure. And they haven't used their tax cuts to produce substantial numbers of good-paying jobs for Americans. Wealthy investors are concerned only about increasing their profits. If replacing factory workers with robotic arms does that, they gladly install the robotic arms.

Much of the economy is beyond the control of any president. But shoring up the general welfare is not. Bush had a responsibility to expand the social safety net -- extend unemployment benefits, create access to health care -- for those Americans who are falling further behind, despite their best efforts.

Instead, the president has coddled the wealthy.

http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=17269

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Wed, 07-14-2004 - 5:02pm
<>

Yeah, Yeah same ofe selfish reply. I assume you don't believe in progressive taxation, in which case you and I might as well say ado on this subject.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Thu, 07-15-2004 - 3:34pm
Progressive taxation...lets see...


Everyone pays 10% or you pay 1 and you pay 19 because you make more....yea that makes sense...makes me want to earn more huh...

Here read this...

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, 10 men go out for dinner. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh $7.

The eighth $12.

The ninth $18.

The 10th man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So now dinner for the 10 only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being PAID to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The 10th now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got $1 out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the 10th man and exclaimed, "But he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved $1, too. It's unfair that he got 10 times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the 10th and beat him up.

The next night the 10th man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Thu, 07-15-2004 - 6:53pm
What's your point?
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Thu, 07-15-2004 - 8:39pm
Everyone wants equality....but oh...wait...not when it comes to taxes....you pay more because you're more successful. Yea great theory...
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Thu, 07-15-2004 - 8:41pm



That's also because Bush's second tax cut was designed to cover those who didn't get relief in the first tax cut.


Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Thu, 07-15-2004 - 11:16pm








What a load of tripe!


<>


That statistic completely ignores mutual funds which how most small investors get into the market. About 75% of Americans are invested in the stock market.


<>


Now here's a nice little piece of statistical trickery. The population increase since 2000 is the reason why a smaller percentage of people are working. In total numbers, even before this years job boom, the number of jobs was larger under Bush than Clinton


<>


Not to worry, "The dollar gained on both the yen and the euro Thursday, bolstered by reports from the northeastern U.S. that showed factories busier this month than in June. The stronger-than-expected manufacturing indexes helped dispel fears of an economic slowdown, with the July data outshining earlier data that offered a more mixed reading on how the U.S. economy fared in June. The dollar was 0.3 percent ahead of the euro, at $1.2345, while the U.S. currency advanced 0.6 percent on the Japanese yen, at 109.78 yen." http://www.fxstreet.com/nou/noticies/afx/noticia.asp?pv_noticia=1089921773-9e32d306-42356


<>


That's because there is less overtime now that employers are hiring again instead of making their existing staff carry more of the burden.


<>


And, yet, oddly enough, the manufacturing sector is doing quite well. "U.S. stock-index futures rose after a government report showed producer prices fell last month and a gauge of manufacturing in New York state expanded for a 15th straight month. " http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?id=10000103&sid=a8ei3XKLwsFY&refer=us


And the South, which has been one of the hardest hit areas for manufacturing job losses, has one of the lowest rates of unemployment.


<>


Now, that's really rough, which is why this is such a relief, "Managerial and specialized professional jobs have grown rapidly, nearly doubling between 1983 and 2002, from 23.6 million to 42.5 million. These challenging, high-paying positions have jumped from 23.4 percent of total employment to 31.1 percent.


And these high-quality jobs will continue growing in the years to come. According to projections for 2002-12 prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, management, business, financial, and professional positions will grow from 43.2 million to 52 million, increasing from 30 percent of total employment to 31.5 percent." http://www.reason.com/0407/fe.bl.truths.shtml

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 07-16-2004 - 8:46am

How Real Is the "Squeeze"?


>" caught in what the Kerry-Edwards campaign is calling a "middle-class squeeze" as the duo tries to win votes in swing states like Ohio. How real is it? There's supposed to be an economic recovery under way. But the numbers paint a confusing picture. GDP grew 3.9% in the first quarter, and corporate profits rose 1.7%. Most important, payrolls have grown by 1.3 million jobs since January. Consumer confidence is up. But job growth slowed in June, and the new ones haven't been enough to meet the supply of 8.2 million out-of-work Americans. The unemployment rate hasn't budged from 5.6%. Wages, which grew 2.2% in May, aren't keeping up with inflation, at 3.1%.


Not surprisingly, the two parties spin these numbers differently. Republicans emphasize the recovery's upward arc, while Democrats point out the gaps developing along the way. "This is the worst job recovery our country has had since the 1930s," says Gene Sperling, an economic adviser to Kerry. "Most Americans have a higher standard for economic growth." Republicans say Democrats are ignoring all the hopeful signs. "What you've got is folks who are searching for negative statistics," says Ken Mehlman, the Bush-Cheney campaign manager.


That may be so, but plenty of Americans are still feeling overstretched and underpaid, and there is some evidence that Edwards' populist message, which helped win him a spot on the Democratic ticket, is resonating with voters: in last week's TIME poll, 51% of the likely voters interviewed said they agreed with his claim that the government under Bush benefits the rich at the expense of the middle class and the poor, and that view is shared by 55% of those who described themselves as independents. Brenda Keen, 49, a business manager for a University of Georgia literary journal, says Kerry's concern for the middle class is a big factor in winning her vote. "It's a struggle to have what's accepted as a middle-class American lifestyle," she says. Keen, the single mother of a 10-year-old, worries that even with a 3% raise—her first raise in two years—to her $36,000 salary, meeting the rising interest rates on a $3,000 home-repair loan will be a stretch. And yet not every cautious consumer is in the Kerry camp. After several months of joblessness, Jesse Roecke, 46, of Midland, Mich., will soon start work as a senior executive for Goodyear Tire & Rubber. He's more frugal now but unwilling to accept Kerry's rollback of tax cuts. "I believe there's a broad-based recovery," he says. "Bush was on the right track."

Even those who are ready to open their wallets are doing so carefully. Michelle Nance, 34, starts work this week in San Francisco as a nurse. She's planning a long-delayed visit to the dentist and the purchase of a new set of tires. But with $40,000 in student loans, "I'm not going to go out and buy a flat-screen TV," she says. Wal-Mart and Target both reported declines in sales growth in June. A drop in consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of the economy, could slow the recovery. "We're watching that very carefully," says Duncan Meldrum, president of the National Association for Business Economics. "I'm hoping this is just a pause." The Bush campaign must hope so too. "<


Quote from...........


http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040719/nrecovery.html

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Fri, 07-16-2004 - 8:53am
My experience is that statistics are mostly meaningless. They are so easy to massage.

Most people will vote based upon their situation, and that of their friends and family. They dont need CNN/FoxNEWS reporting what % of people are unemployed.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 07-16-2004 - 8:59am

Isn't that a discussion in another thread? "Values or the economy" or why people don't vote with their pocket book.

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 07-16-2004 - 11:57am
<>

Come on, equality for all this is not even possible. I advocate equal opportunity, but I have always supported the view, that those who benefit the most should pay a greater share. The flat tax will never pass because the people don't want to give their tax loopholes. Please don't forget that the effect of tax loopholes means the wealthy don't really pay their fair percentage. The well-off want to keep the benefits and pay less tax.


Edited 7/16/2004 12:04 pm ET ET by hayashig