Remember that 'strong wage growth'? It just completely vanished
First allow me to jog your memory.
Back in February, President Obama said this:
Most importantly, this progress is finally starting to translate into bigger paychecks. Over the past six months, wages have grown at their fastest rate since the crisis. And the policies that I’ll push this year are designed to give workers even more leverage to earn raises and promotions.
So, as I said at my State of the Union address, the United States of America, right now, has the strongest, most durable economy in the world. I know that’s still inconvenient for Republican stump speeches as their doom and despair tour plays in New Hampshire. I guess you cannot please everybody.
Darn Republicans. Can't they see how great the economy is?
Then just last week there was this Reuters article.
Last month's 0.3 percent increase in average hourly earnings left the year-on-year gain at 2.6 percent. The average workweek increased by 0.1 hour to 34.5 hours in July, the most since January. With both hours and hourly earnings rising, workers' take-home pay shot up 0.6 percent.
"Businesses are still willing to invest in labor and pay higher wages to retain employees. The combination of strong employment and firming wage growth should remain supportive of income and consumer spending," said Greg Daco, head of U.S. macroeconomics at Oxford Economics in New York.
Those were official government numbers!
No one can dispute them! At least not without being accused of conspiracy theory.
Well..one group can dispute them.
Only one group.
The same official government group that creates those reports in the first place.
It's called a revision.
Revisions happen after more information is gathered so that the report is more accurate.
Revising +4.2% down to -0.4% is a HHUUUGGEE miss!
That's like swinging for a homer at a wild pitch and losing your grip on the bat in the process.
That's OK because Q2 must have been much...
OK, Wages are down from Q1 and flat from a year ago.
I bet Obama and Hillary will be talking a lot about that, amirite?
Comments
Truth is a good thing- thanks for sharing
Gj, thank you so much for helping bring light to the truth, I truly appreciate it. You and many others in this community bring good information to all of us that can not easily be found elsewhere.
That's what is frequently done
First release the "good news" knowing it likely isn't going to be accurate, but since it looks good for the party in power they promote the hell out of it. Later the revision is just another news dump that the President (of whatever party is in power) isn't going to call attention to, and thus it gets lost in the flotsam and jetsam of all the other noise published that day - hey over there, Michael Phelps!!!
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Squirrel!
Too much circus now, fer sure.
USA! USA! USA!. I am feeling sick. Heart and soul.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
It's even more calculated and cynical than that.
People believe the first version they hear or read. Here's the kicker: A correction or retraction serves to reinforce the first, incorrect version. So, it may not be that government hopes you'll miss the corrected version. It may be that government is actually eager for you to see the corrected version so that the original, incorrect version will be reinforced. And, if you do happen to miss the correction, the only information you have is the first, incorrect version, so, no loss to government there, either. Therefore, the tactic of the first, incorrect version followed by a correction or retraction is a win win for government.
This is another reason I think people who believe government tells them the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth are either sad or tools.
A relation tendency is the tendency of people to believe things that reinforce the beliefs they already hold.
BTW, my posts are never wrong.
Correction: My posts are never intentionally wrong.
Sources on the correction
From the 99% perspective, the economy is stuck in the mud
Actually it may be sinking in the mud.
In addition to lower wages, "real" unemployment is rising, home ownership is down to 1965 (no typo) levels, rents are increasing. trade deficit is rising, 75% of all Americans live paycheck to paycheck, income inequality is back to 1928 levels and rising, etc.
Bernie supporters get it, do Hillary's? Trump benefits from this disconnect.
And then there is this other bit of news;
Central banks are printing money as though the global economy is in freefall
The political revolution continues
Printing money
. . .because the money they are creating stays inside the financial sector where it inflates the price of stocks. The money never reaches workers/consumers who would but it to more productive uses.
Have you noticed...
Since Hillary was crowned queen of the ball, all the two of them do is scaremonger the other? All the issues Bernie spoke of at every rally... that the MSM were just beginning to acknowledge a little bit... all that's gone.
There is no "campaigning" on substance now. It's all fear-mongering. I guess they figure everyone's already decided whose court they're in, so why make promises you won't keep, or bring up issues likely to embarrass those who matter most to your campaign? (sigh)
Educational costs too.
It costs more to obtain the credentials that people are told they need to compete in the global economy, and then the purchasing power and wages aren't even close to keeping up with higher ed costs.
As a little trip down memory lane, it's worth recalling that Bill Clinton with the support of the GOP and some Dems pushed to privatize Sallie Mae back in the late 1990s. What a legacy.
One of my frustrations with the
ministrations of the fed is that by lowering interest rates they have effectively killed any competition to the 'equity" markets. If I could I would move what little savings I have left in my IRA (and trust me I know exactly how frickin' lucky I am to have any at all!) to a plain old interest rate (and safer place at that). But no, there is nowhere it can go except to nothing returns.
glitterscale
One of my frustrations with the
ministrations of the fed is that by lowering interest rates they have effectively killed any competition to the 'equity" markets. If I could I would move what little savings I have left in my IRA (and trust me I know exactly how frickin' lucky I am to have any at all!) to a plain old interest rate (and safer place at that). But no, there is nowhere it can go except to nothing returns.
glitterscale
I've resigned myself to marginally negative returns
I can no longer stomach participating in the irrational casino that is the financial market. I've been pouring every available dime into IRAs over the last 6 years -- my employer has a pretty generous 401k scheme -- and if I'd been dropping it all into "safe" mutual funds, I'd have done quite well during the Obama DOW run-up. I'm just not interested. I'll be happy to get back some vague approximation of what I put in, and leave it at that.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Always take note of the reality, who has had a
significant increase in earnings, I don't know anybody, unless it's a promotion and these days promotions can be symbolic without the earnings increase to go with the added responsibility.
The 0.01% however, happy days
Puts the debate over $15 min. in perspective
Reminds me of George Clooney's remarks that big money is needed to stop big money influence to justify his big money dinners for Clinton. Yah, big money is needed for a candidate whose position on min. wage is as phony as the numbers cited in the original report. Sounds almost republican.
Clooney is clueless. Income inequality has resulted in
two worlds whose reality is moving further and further apart. Those with wealth can't comprehend how clueless they are about the rest of us.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Clueless, or slickly deceptive?
Maybe both. Self deception surely figures in. They want to
think we'll of themselves.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
I don't think Clooney is clueless at all.
I think he is slickly deceptive and, at this stage of his career, a relatively good actor, so he pulls it off.
I think that he's deceiving himself that he's one
of the good guys which means he's not self-aware. He probably thinks he knows how the 99% live, but he doesn't. He's too far removed from our reality. That's what I mean by clueless.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
He's made trips to third world nations,
seen them in conditions that make the 99% look like Warren Buffet. I think he understands. I think he's just another establishment shill for Hillary, having nothing to do with not understanding poverty or need. I guess we just see him differently.
Sure 3rd world poor have it rough! Our poor are
soooo lucky! Sounds positively Republican doesn't it? The neo- cons and neo-libs are on the same page, singing the same tune. They imagine themselves to be quite different from one another though.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
That's why I refer to them as neoliberal neocons.
The worst misuse of the term "liberal" I've ever seen is using it to describe New Democrats. Then again, New Democrats is the worst use of the word "Democrat's I've ever seen. "New Democrats" is not a great use of "new," either. So-called New Democrats are basically Rockefeller Republicans (whom Hillary professed, in hindsight, to have been her cup of teabag when she was a Republican, even though she canvassed for Nixon and was a Goldwater Girl). Neoliberals are essentially neocons who are pro choice and pro equal legal rights. I am pro both those things, but the Democratic Party once represented more than that in my mind.
Almost?
Hillary is running for the tenth term of Ronald Reagan.
Democrats, we tried to warn you. How is that guilt and shame working out?
I don't know that I find Trump more obnoxious than Hillary.
Then again, I don't see Arabs as disposable as used tissues.
This isn't just losing the bat...
This is the bat flying across the field and killing a spectator...
Who you then claim should have known better to stand near a dangerous baseball field, so it's THEIR fault, really.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
I live right near the edge of the slide out of the
middle class. I've been very fortunate to have had a well-paying job since 2009, with regular annual salary increases of about 3%. According to one inflation calculator, my real salary has increased by about 10% (approximately 22% nominal increase).
On the other hand, I'm still below where I was in 2008. My nominal salary is about 5% higher than then, but my real salary is about 7% lower -- despite several years of additional very specialized upskilling; and as far as I can tell from gauging the job boards, I would probably take a salary cut if I tried to switch employers -- I'm very near the top end of compensation for someone in my job with my credentials (as I said, I've been very fortunate in my employer).
if you do all the math, you'll discover that when I got this job in late 2009, it represented a nominal drop in salary of more than 10% from what I had been earning 15 months earlier -- and actually, a lot more, because that position had some extraordinary profit-sharing, which was the only thing that kept me solvent from mid '08 to late '09.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Right there with you.
My wife lost her job in March and finally got another one last week....at a 25% cut in pay. Good times.
The real SparkyGump has passed. It was an honor being your human.
Comparing numbers
unemployment numbers
EPI has some great charts.
illustrating the decline in real wages and purchasing power.
http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
The Clinton-era actually had decent wage growth. Although, when you factor in the massive increase in inequality, things don't look so great.
If we were actually approaching full employment, I would expect to stronger wage growth across the labor market.
This is Clinton's Achille's Heal
First, a brief introduction. Unlike about everyone I read here silently in the last several months, I am probably going to reluctantly vote for HRC. I am not a shill tho. Anyone care to look, I used the same name at TOP. I was consistently anti-HRC and even "quit" the site over its uber useless anti-Sanders front page diatribes. That being said, I didnt share the total exultation that the posters at TOP had over Clinton's convention for the very reason raised by these wage numbers. The economy is horrible for all but a very very select few. So, why turn your convention into a pagent about how wonderful things are.
One of my last posts at TOP talked about a political memo that Carville et al did at Democracy Corpse showing that the most effective political message HRC could take into November was to duplicate Bernie's "change the economic rules so the economy works for everyone" message. This message polled better with even Republican women, particular working class women, then Clinton's "we need to create ladders of opportunity" message. Unfortunately, HRC has never come close to adopting this messaging. Instead, she wants upscale Republican women.
I think if Trump could come across as a normal human being for like 2 straight weeks, he would have a real shot at winning. Fortunately for me, perhaps unfortunately for many of you, I dont think he will be able to pull this off. He is just too "Daffy." Yes, my pet name for Donald is "Daffy Donald."
OK, well, while I think I am too progressive to be happy posting at TOP, I think I am too much of a Democrat for many of you. Still, I look forward to posting here.
Peace.
Unless you live in a swing state
and polls in your state show, around Novemeber 1, that Hillary and Donald are neck and neck, the principal effect of your vote for Hillary will be to tell America that you're happy with Hillary.
I won't go beyond that in this post.
Thumbnail of Why I Will Probably Vote for Clinton
First, a quibble: I dont agree that voting for HRC means that Im "happy" with her. I do, however, agree that it is a personal endorsement of her presidency, for good or bad.
Like you, I dont want to go through all the reasons why I made my choice regarding who to vote for for this election. The quick version is that I think Trump is a racist and greatly encourages our country's racist instincts. This next may come across as "loopy," but this is what I think: our country (and every society really) is held together by what I call invisible strings of common beliefs of what is right or wrong behavior and beliefs. Since the 1970s, one of those strings have been that racism is wrong. Just Trump's candidacy is breaking that string. His campaign already has been a very strong "shout out" to racists, who are taking this as a signal that it is ok not just to publicly advocate for their racist beliefs, but to engage in racist conduct, including violence. And this Trump effect goes beyond race, to conduct against women, disabled individuals and, indeed, to anyone who disagrees with his point of view. I think even the string of treating each other with common courtesy and civility is being ruptured by his campaign. And if he is actually elected, I think we will see a very sharp increase in violent conduct against racial and religious minorities as well as against Trump's political opponents.
I know from reading the comments here for awhile, that I am not saying anything new. I dont think anyone will read this, smack himself or herself on the head and say "why didnt I think of that." So, Im not trying to convince anyone. I am just offering a brief explanation of why I can support HRC and still look at myself in the mirror despite my strong disagreement with her approval of the neo-liberal economic world order.
That is not what my post said, though.
My post said nothing about what your vote will actually mean to you.
This was my entire post to you:
My post spoke to the only effect your vote for Hillary can have, given the electoral college, unless polls in your state are close when election day is near, something your reply to my post did not address. My post also did not say that I don't want to go through all my reasons for choosing to vote for Dr. Stein. I have not been the least bit reluctant to say why I am voting for Dr. Stein. I simply did not want to recount the many reasons not to vote for Hillary.
As far as Trump not being a racist, that may be a reason not to vote for Trump. It is not, however, a reason to vote for Hillary. There are several candidates in this race other than Trump, including Stein and Johnson. There is also the option of leaving the top of the ticket blank, and, in some states, of writing in someone. So, saying why you don't wish to vote for Trump is not an explanation of why you are voting for Hillary. It's only an explanation of why you don't wish to vote for Trump.
That Trump is racist (or at least sounds like one) is not a good reason to vote for Hillary. Hillary headed a racially- and religiously-bigoted primary campaign in 2008 against the first black person nominated for POTUS by a major political party. Additionally, her 2016 campaign and campaign surrogates dog whistled religious bigotry against a Jew, several of whose relatives died in the Holocaust, and also pandered to blacks and Hispanics. Race-based pandering for votes is racist, too--just another way to exploit minorities. So is having no apparent regard for the lives or well being of "brown" people like Middle Easterners and people south of Texas.
However, again, it was not my original intent to get into that kind of thing with you at this juncture, only to mention the impact of your vote, unless polls are close in your state when election day approaches. (Even then, your vote is highly unlikely to be decisive.)
I won't bag on you
I would just state that, in my opinion, $$Hillary is a different kind of racist/bigot. The kind that doesn't really care about systemic injustice, but sees that injustice only as a lever to improve her own position.
IMO, she judges a person not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their wallet.
My one and only quibble
would be that I don't think that only the Rump has made it "OK" to use blatant racism instead of the dog whistle. Yes, his campaign has been run ON racism and I still think that's one of the biggest reasons he is where he is today. But I think between Faux, Rush, Hannity, Coulter and all the other ugly gasbags, that is when the outright racist statements became much more "tolerable" as the only word I can think of, in the MSM and America as a whole. And now the Rump uses those words openly every day, but if the sentiment wasn't already there in his supporters, they would not respond to it such as they have.
And yes, as many others have and will state again, Shillary herself is a racist if you look at her actions. So is Bill and he really always was if you look how he's conducted himself. I don't want to hear out of ANY politician ever again that they can fix or cure racism in this country. It goes far beyond them, much deeper in the American psyche IMO, and for any of them to make that promise is just pandering to those of us who really want to believe they can actually make a difference there.
I was that naïve with Bill, voted for him enthusiastically as I believed that heartfelt blabber. He's a liar and so is she. Should I have known better? Absolutely. I fully accept I was naive and uninformed back then. But now that I do know better, there's no going back and I simply cannot vote for her. I can't even listen to her or watch her speak and that has everything to do with her lies and the ugly things she has DONE in the world, not merely the shrill and dismissive tone of her voice.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Agree with what you are saying.
And have a similar view on the state of the race. I was struck by the way that the media presented the convention too.
Trump has many problems, but his inability to build a campaign organization is a major one. The election is less than 100 days away at this point. This isn't the GOP primary where a bunch of establishment candidates will split the vote and where free media is enough to carry him across the finish line. And for a guy who already has a favorable rating below 30 percent, his favorable numbers aren't likely to increase after a year + of media exposure.
Both choices stink, the only area where I have at least some agreement with Clinton is on social policy. On economic policy, rhetorically Trump showed a little promise during the primary, but the selection of Pence, his economic tax plan, and some of his money people, send a signal that undercuts his economic populism. His history also doesn't lend his populist argument much credibility.
The main arguments for Trump is that Congress might reign in war powers and surveillance authority and it would be nice to see Clinton's money people throw away a couple billion dollars. A Trump victory would also clear the deck for the next presidential election cycle. The other side of the coin is that Clinton can probably do a lot of damage too in four years. Her foreign policy judgment stinks. On economic policy, the hope is that political self-interest might at least push her in the right direction. The choice should be more clear cut with a candidate like Trump, but Clinton also has major credibility problems and many of the same character defects.
I Agree With a Lot of This
In the spring, my thinking was very close to what you are saying. Why not hope Clinton loses and then come bac kwith Warren in 2020? Still, I expressed immediately above why I will probably vote for HRC this time.
With Clinton polling within a couple points . . .
even in places like South Carolina, it looks like she may have the luxury of taking the Sanders support for granted. She did very little outreach before the convention and has actively antagonized part of the Sanders support base since then by rolling out her billionaire validators and Neo-Con rehabilitation tour. I think it's important to continue to have at least one foot inside the Democratic Party and support worthy candidates down ballot, but I'm fairly agnostic about the presidential race. If the race tightens in my state, I'll have a hard choice and will probably vote Clinton, but I'm leaning towards Green otherwise. The way that the Clinton people are trying to demonize and marginalize the Green Party nominee and VP and the way the mainstream press uncritically reports the defamatory charges as if they were true, also doesn't sit well with me.
(No subject)
A good economy and low gas prices help Hillary, so guess what?
Politicians will say: "But Look at the Stock Market"
Rather than address stagnant wages and growth in the U.S. I expect politicians like Clinton to say, "But look at how well the stock market is doing. See, the economy is great for the middle class and their 401K's are really growing." The problem will this is that the stock market is not a good indicator of economic health. Also, all the Quantitative Easing done since 2009 has not helped the "little guy".
"One problem with using the markets as a measuring stick is the stock market is a very poor gauge of real economic health. Stocks and bonds are priced based on human valuations and, as seen in 1999-2000 and 2004-2007, these valuations can be wildly inaccurate. Real economic health is based on productivity and standards of living. The QE has proven to be a very successful boost to asset prices but a very ineffective policy in terms of productivity and standards of living."
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/021116/quantitative-easin...
Hea, Andy...
some days I think all of us who work towards a progressive future are nothing but the square pegs who society insists will fit in their round holes! And if we seem to deviate in any form, their "fix" is to just pound harder.
I'm not going to vote for Hillary. I can't do that; I'll just see myself as a hypocrite and a sell-out from that point on. But I'm not voting for Trump, either. I'll probably write-in Bernie's name. At least ONCE in my voting life I want to feel as though I voted FOR someone I really believed in, rather than AGAINST the bugaboo.
But, to be absolutely honest, I feel the freedom to do this because I believe there's no way the PTB will let anyone but Hillary take the election this time. The deal was made prior to Obama being elected the first time out, IMO. And in the back of my mind I can't help but think Bill maneuvered Trump not only into running, but running on a platform of "himself"... along with hints to grab and hold the base. But then, I don't know who else Hill could win against anyone else. And just look at all the Republican money, influence, and endorsements she's garnering. I'm just waiting for the Party's name change. With all these conservative democrats and socially liberal republicans she's gathering together, it sure ain't my grandma's Democratic Party any longer!
Yippers... I know a bunch of this is my own brand of conspiracy theory, I guess... but the dots do connect so well! And each of us is a mass of contradictions in his/her own way. All we can do is support each other - 'cause there sure ain't no one else willing to hear what we have to say!
I'll Add to Your Conspriacy Theory
I share your conspiracy theory except I think Trump was there, not to get the nomination, but to knock out the real competition for Hillary. Even Jeb! said Trump was a troll in the early GOP presidential debates. I have always thought that the plan was for Cruz to win the nomination. He was 2nd in delegates. Cruz would lose because he is not supported by the GOP leaders and is a very unlikable person. As a Senator, he blew up the House over increasing the federal debt ceiling. The financial oligarchs were not happy about that. However, the Trump factor over-succeeded and that was not planned or predicted by most people. And here we are , folks!
I'm writing in Bernie. When
I'm writing in Bernie. When the DNC sees how many votes they lost, maybe they'll seriously get a little more progressive next time around.
Beat Trump with Bernie!
nope
The new Dem Party will replace the defectors with disaffected Repigs.
My gut tells me that without massive growth of the Green Party, the U.S. is going to look a lot like the U.K., minus the Labour party.
And yes, I'm aware that the Labour Party isn't necessarily a friend of the working class, but it's still leaps and bounds ahead of what we've got right now in the U.S., excluding the unfulfilled ambitions of the Greens.
I Agree...
that HRC would have a very time beating any Republican but Trump. I dont think all this was pre-ordained though. I think any such conspiracy would include the Bushes and while they have refused to support Trump, they would have very much liked to have had Jebb win the nomination. But, really, who knows.
Just Fantastic
Listened to Ian Masters today. He insists that the Clinton campaign is ignoring the groundswell that attached itself to both Trump and Sanders. He reminded us that HRC is convincing themselves that since most Sanders voters are in the bag (I swear I read that the day after (could have been within the week, but it was Soon) the clinching, after California, the AP reported (not making this up) that 80% of Sanders voters had switched over to her. That struck me as utter hogwash, and I accused the believers of the same sin we have always accused the GOP of: pouring their own bathwater in to Waterford Crystal goblets..
She is going to strain herself if she goes after disaffected GOP voters, the proffered strategy. For she must also cut quite populist this year; I think she's being pretty deft, in an insane, perhaps the most insane, election ever.
If you think we are angry and feeling disaffected, how do you think THEY feel? Well, some of them. I'd say ten percent of the electorate is just loving life right now; they can't believe their good fortune! The South will rise again!
Bernie is a win-win.
I agree with you Slightkc and Karl.
Ain't no way Clinton loses this election. I read about this revision the other day but gj you really put this together well. This coupled with the "real" unemployment numbers does not bode well for middle class and poor workers. It is really very sad that TPTB have divided us so much that nearly all of the 99% have nearly the same concerns for the future, minus climate change of course. But that Trump with his racist, misogynist tyrannical style can attract so many is truly frightening to me. In a "news" report yesterday I saw a black man sitting behind Trump and was truly dumbfounded. What is this person thinking? My husband said he was probably being paid by Trump campaign to sit there but still. Not sure how bad things would have to get for me to sell my soul.
O.k. When is the next meeting for the revolution?
-FuturePassed on Sunday, November 25, 2018 10:22 p.m.