Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Household Incomes Declined In 46 States From 1999-2005, Suggesting Bush Administration Claims Of "Strong" Compensation Growth Are False

Yesterday, JABBS noted that Labor Secretary Elaine Chao has been spinning lackluster job- and wage-growth numbers.

Chao boasted to CNN's John Roberts on Sunday that "Overall compensation has been up well over 6% since 2001. So overall, compensation overall is strong." But anyone with half a brain should realize that, by Chao's math, compensation is growing at a pace of 1.2% per year. With inflation at about 3% per year, that's not "growth." That's "not keeping up with inflation."

To further illustrate this point, take a look at this chart from the Aug. 30 edition of Detroit Free Press, which shows that from 1999-2005, household incomes dropped in 46 of 50 states, plus the District of Columbia (figures are adjusted for inflation.) Only the blue states on the chart have seen growth in household income in that period.

It's possible that when 2006 numbers are included, the map may look modestly different. Maybe Virginia and Hawaii will nudge into positive territory. Still it's a sad portrait, and answers well the question posed Sunday by CNN's John Roberts: "64% of Americans said that the economy is either not good or poor. Only 36% said it's excellent or good. What's going on with that perception?"

Seems that "perception" is firmly based in reality.

11 Comments:

Anonymous NVMojo said...

every Dem running for office needs to study this

2:13 AM  
Anonymous Erika said...

Chao and her boss are deceivers

But their special interest group backers have never seen higher profits. They stuck it to the working class big time.

2:13 AM  
Anonymous snot said...

More of us than ever are working harder and more productively than ever and have less to show for it than ever. That will continue until we stop it.

2:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what a pile of crap.
You are suggesting we take some lone bloggers word over the United States Government? I dont think so.
That chart you generated has no bearing on the economy as you cite no worthy source from which it came. Typical liberal blogger. Its people like you that are the reason the dems will never win another election.
Pathetic.

3:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RE: above post

"To further illustrate this point, take a look at this chart from the Aug. 30 edition of Detroit Free Press"


tard. unless you have some reason to regard the DFP as not a worthy source.

4:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just curious, but I think that its actually 46 states, not 45. The only states that are shown there are Montana, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and Wyoming; the District is not a state, so in reality, household incomes have decreased in 46 states. Not only that but all of the increases combined do not even make up for the largest decrease. Anyhow...thought I'd point that out.

4:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

umm, the numbers he quoted were inflation adjusted. That leaves it positive in most states. Thanks for the partisanship, though. Its really lacking on the internet these days. idiot.

5:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous #2, I don't understand your point.

you have to adjust for inflation, because inflation exists. If you make a dollar in 1999, and food costs a dollar in 1999, that's not the same as making $1.07 in 2005, and having food cost $1.18.

Without factoring in inflation, you can say that a person is earning more, but the person's buying power is obviously less.

Chao wants people to only look at the small increase in compensation -- and really, it's a pathetic increase, far less than what we saw in the 1990s. She doesn't want people to factor in inflation, because that makes the pathetic numbers look worse.

Frankly, this should be side-by-side with Iraq as the top issue this election season.

5:55 PM  
Anonymous Ditto said...

"...You are suggesting we take some lone bloggers word over the United States Government...?"

Lone bloggers? If it's more than one blogger how can they be alone? No doubt the unfortunate victim of the unfunded "No Child Left Behind".

The US Government has NEVER lied to us, right? Need a list? I'll use small words if you like.

Anon1, be creative and create a nom de plume. How about 'PathosX2'? No punctuation is required.

My salary almost doubled during Clinton's administration. It's gone up about 3% in the last five years. Adjusted for inflation I'm making LESS money than when Clinton left office. And I have worked at the same job full time for almost 25 years. Just one man's perspective.

9:05 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

This is a good post, and good work overall. I approve this message.

:)

11:05 AM  
Anonymous Bonghits_For_Jesus said...

In March of this year, the Fed stopped publishing the M3 numbers, which show how much money is in the supply--how much is printed. Printing money without anything to back it up only temporarily props up the falling dollar. Paper currency is designed to go bust over a predetermined life cycle. The holders of the currency lose all, and the bankers, who have invested in pecious metals and other valuable commodities worldwide, buy back everyone's lost holdings for pennies on the dollar. Thus, the rich get much richer, and the average Joe gets to start from scratch, building up wealth over 2 or 3 generations until the preplanned currency devaluation again occurs. This is how 250 families worldwide control over 90% of the planet's wealth. Incidentally, printing paper currency is in violation of the constitution which clearly specifies silver and gold as the standard. There is no gold in Fort Knox. You're not in Kansas anymore. Read your constitution and know your rights of redress against a totalitarian government under the law. The dogs in charge would rather you didn't.

5:58 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares