I was watching Fox News last weekend and they were in consensus, to my amazement, about the economy.

They admitted the economy is great for the wealthy and stock holders, but not very good for workers, the middle class and the poor.

When Fox admits that, then you know there's a hint of truth to it.

Questions:

What do you think the state of the economy is? And how does it vary for the different classes in the US?

What Fox News story are you referring to???
I didn't hear/read the article... help me out here.

RedCedar,

It would have liked a link to a story or a soundbite to back up your assertion that these commentators said, "the economy is great for the wealthy and stock holders, but not very good for workers, the middle class and the poor. "[/I]

I disagree.

What do you think the state of the economy is?



From another opinion piece:



In addition:

Consumer Prices Drop by Largest Amount in 56 Years

And lastly, Neil Cavuto from FOX News said it best in his Common Sense opinion piece:

What do you think the state of the economy is?
As Beladonna (its great seeing you post! ) indicated, there are indeed some very positive signs regarding the current state of the economy. I don't fully buy into the cynicism that allegedly was presented on Fox News, but I also recognize that the current state of this positive economy is somewhat fragile. I base this on a number of things, mostly:

The deficits, both fiscal and trade. Both are at record levels.

China (related to #1). China is proving that state control of the economy can be profitable, and I see that as very dangerous.

Energy dependence. We saw what Katrina & Rita did to oil/gas prices. We are reminded yet again how sensitive that balance is.

Continued outsourcing/offshoring of both blue and white collar jobs.

The question naturally begs a macro level opinion of the national state of the economy. If you were to engage in a more state by state review, I think some more stark pictures might get presented depending on where you look.

Doc

You can find summaries of the Fox business shows all linked here. All of them have a recap of last weekend's show. When you show us the quote, I'll know there's a hint of truth to it.

Actually it was on their Sunday show on regular Fox channels.

You actually make their point, Beladonna.

The economy is going gangbusters for the wealthy and stockholders. Increased GDP, dividends, stock prices, and corporate profits means good things for the wealthy and stock holders.

On the other hand, GM lays off people making good wages and what jobs are being created to replace them?? Look at income, can you find me where median or real income is actually increasing? That's the key.

Gas prices and cost of living continue to go up while incomes are flat or decreasing.

This economy is extraordinarily good for people with a lot of wealth. The others, people eeking out a living, paycheck by paycheck, this economy is not very good at all.

It's similar to the great depression, the upper classes are doing very well while most people are doing the work and not getting the returns on THEIR efforts.


Oh, I tried to find the program but I'm not sure which one it is. That Fox website is really confusing to navigate.

Real income has gone up. Gas prices are down. (I just filled up @ 2.10 gallon for midgrade.) The vast majority of people "eeking out a living, paycheck by paycheck" are in that situation because they're consumer debt load is high.

Has real income gone up? I know that gas prices have gone down since the summer, however they are trending back upwards. Oil is trading at ~$63/barrel though it is trending up as well.


It appears consumer credit is still negative as of November though there was improvement from October. Either people are unable to control their debt or they must go into debt just to live. I'm sure it's some of both. I found this table interesting. Apparently, the Debt Service Ratio (DSR) as of Q3 2005 was at 13.75. In Q1 2000 it was at 12.27. Looks like a steady trend of increasing debt servicing. I can't see this as a good thing™.

The litany of opinions you sighted doesn't really prove things one way or the other. People will have opinions one way or the other, and I can hardly take the meanderings of economic "expert" larry kudlow, or random eblogger Milton J madison, as definitive proof one way or the other of how the economy is functioning.

As for your prices falling article, which focuses on gas prices, I wouldn't be surprised if they fell by such a large margin after surging just months before. I don't think current gas prices are significantly different than how they were a year ago.

What do you think the state of the economy is? And how does it vary for the different classes in the US?

I think its undeniable at this point that the economy is recovering. The growth, however, is sluggish. Job growth did occur in december, but it was still lower than expected. In fact, most of the past job growth numbers have been lower than expected. Growth is still growth, but no one is jumping in joy, particulary this long after the supposed recession we're recovering from. This is most certainly not a boom.

Mostly because of the tax cuts, I believe the rich benefit the most from government economic actions (As in, they received the most in tax returns). Whether this is fair or not is another debate, but richer citizens gain more from the tax cuts.

I question whoever said that the rich are benefitting more from the economy than the poor. I'm not sure if thats even possible, for if the poorer citizens can't afford as much, that has repercussions on the income of others as well. A wealthy citizen can't have a booming business without customers to buy his products.

http://www.counterpunch.org/bernstein10282005.html

If you have another link that would be great.

Gas is going back up. It dropped near $2 for a brief time but now it's going back up. The pumps here are headed toward $2.50 quickly.

You should see the drastic change in my heating bill this year compared to last. You should see how much food is increasing. They now want to raise our taxes state-side because the local govt's are not receiving enough funds from taxes.

All this while I have seen a decrease in salary to 25% of what I made in 2001.

Personally, this economy is worse than 2001. That's my personal observation. Our local paper that is not only a national paper, but serves a metro community of around 5-10 million people had THREE pages of want ads last Sunday. That's only 3 front pages, not even 3 full pages. really it's 1 1/2 pages of want ads from the only paper that serves the metro Detroit area.

It feels like the depression here in Michigan. But our unemployment rate is shooting toward 8% so that 4.9% is no where to be seen here.

But I'd like to know where the jobs are being created and if they're worth moving to a new state and city for. You have to realize, when you poo-poo those GM jobs as being inconsequential compared to new jobs being created, that those jobs are very, very, very good jobs. They allow other jobs to exist that will soon be eliminated when Detroit ships all their jobs to Mexico and China.

If I get a chance, I'll look through these new jobs being created and report back. 4.9% unemployment doesn't mean a whole lot if it's a poverty wage.


Ok, here we go.



http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/thisistheafl...0903_amjobs.cfm


There's also an issue with job growth and population growth. With the number of new immigrants yearly, job growth is barely keeping up with immigration.

How many of those "laboring" in low paying jobs are working part time, are kids, are retirees working for something to do, etc, etc?

Now, toss this into the mix:

Middle Class Trapdoor

Mother Jones Interview with author of The Two Income Trap

What do you think the state of the economy is? And how does it vary for the different classes in the US?

I don't think America is in a Depression, but its certainly not as rosy as the 4.9 unemployment rate cited by the Government. I had to leave America to teach in Korea because I couldn't get a rent-paying job in America. I don't think the Government counted me on the unemployment statistics.

The economists talk so much about how consumer prices have gone down over the years. It's fine and dandy that people can get music CDs for $10. What about the necessary things like Rent, Health Insurance, and Education? With the necessary things being astronomically expensive, is it any wonder that Americans are up to their neck in debt?

Of course it has, there's a lower tax on dividends. But then again, we go back to who is benefitting in this economy and who isn't. For at least 50% of the population, wages are the sole source income. And considering inflation, wages are decreasing.

And I was making 40% more than I was in 2001. (until I screwed up... )
Well you're in the minority. Wages have not gone up since 2001 for most people when considering inflation. And many have seen a drastic cut in wages.

So move.

Wow, is it really that easy? Like I said, if I could find a spot in the country that actually was hiring enough then I would. But why move 4 states over to get another $8/hr job?

Again, this is the hardship of the working people in America. You can't settle down, you must constantly uproot yourself to have a liveable job.

[quote]Hmmm, I wonder if those taxes that Michigan is going to raise even higher have anything to do with that...[quote]

Nope. Our state offered two companies huge tax cuts to stay in the state. They refused and said the taxes were the least of their concerns. Worker's wages in Mexico are so much more nicer they were going to leave no matter what.

Get a CDL and drive a truck.

And a truck driver makes a decent wage? Again, we all can't be truck drivers, now can we?

How many of those "laboring" in low paying jobs are working part time, are kids, are retirees working for something to do, etc, etc?
Hey, I'm part time. I don't want to be, but I am. My company increased the cost for health care for all part-timers, yet we never have the option to go full time.

So yes, you're right, many are part-timers for sure. How many are single moms? How many are retirees that can't afford drugs?

Good points.



Now, toss this into the mix:

Middle Class Trapdoor

Mother Jones Interview with author of The Two Income Trap

I definitely see this as a problem, but I took this from those articles:

Although household incomes, bolstered by mothers' wages, have shot up 75 percent since the 1970s, today's families actually have less discretionary money to spend than their parents did. Between monster mortgages, tuition for nursery school and college, and the other costs of raising middle-class kids, "couples with children are nearly three times more likely to go bankrupt," Warren says.

How about cars? They're moving auto plants to Mexico, but cars still cost $20-30K.

Obviously people can cut costs, but even rent or a mortgage in a bad neighborhood is unaffordable for many. And you say kids move back because life is easier at home? Nothing could be further from the truth in my case. I HAD to move back home because I couldn't find a job that paid enough to cover rent.

And why is it that people assume life is better with your parents? You must be a parent because I hated living with my parents.

Starting OTR (Over the Road) drivers will $25-35k in their first year. Pay goes up from there. Become and Owner-Operator, you can look make $60-80k. Of course, we can't all be truck drivers, but there is a definite shortage of drivers. From what little you've said, you may be a prime candidate. No family depending on your income, no spouse depending on your involvement, you can save a lot of money by "living in the truck", etc. Plus, you'll get to see the country (albeit not as well as if you went RV'ing), do something different, and always get to pick the radio station.

Point of order, I didn't say it. In fact, nobody in this thread said it.

Another fact: you moved back home because life at home is easier than life "out there", especially if "out there" = living on the streets. You just admitted it. You found making the rent to be too difficult at this time for whatever reason, don't like the alternatives, so now you're in the basement at your folks' house. Well, maybe not the basement, but what the heck, if I'm going to play to stereotype, I may as well go all the way! I won't claim that moving back is easy, simply that it is easier in most circumstances. Seriously, dude, think about it. How many folks move back home because its a challenge? Because they want to "stretch themselves", "push their limits", "live on the edge"?

Hmmm, I wonder if my handle gave it away....

I didn't hate living with my parents, but once I moved out, I've never moved back. For me, the tradeoffs just aren't worth it.

Look, the employment market in this country always has had regional variations. From the Teens through the Fifties, Detroit was a job magnet. Why do you think so many blacks moved there from the South, and farmboys (and farm girls) from throughout the Midwest turned in their scythes for wrenches? It wasn't for the balmy winters and stunning mountain scenery. Things there have changed, now employment is harder to come by. Well, pretty much everybody who lives in the Detroit area now does so because their parents, or grandparents, or great-grandparents, etc, moved there, often to get a job. As a guy, you should embrace your inner hunter, rise to the challenge, and recognize that when the woolly mammoth migrates, you need to migrate as well. It ain't easy, but it'll be worth it.


EDIT: What Democrats miss in Bushonomics - Washington Post

I can see why there's a shortage. Why would you choose to have no life for $25-30K? Even if you saved, it would take you a long time to ever get your life back.

Also, having a lot of education, I think I've paid my dues to have a little better job than that. But I agree, if you are desperate for work there are less desirable jobs out there.



Actually I moved back because it was a prudent action to take. I now live in my own home. If it were a choice between the streets and a life time of living with my parents, I'd be on the streets. It isn't a matter of easier, it's a matter of making a smart decision. One, it's free or cheaper than renting, and two it allows you time to get situated to move on with your life.

You would never say it's easier than the streets, if you knew my parents.

When I moved back in 1992 (another horrible economy) I was constantly berated about how I didn't want to work and how I just wanted to stay at home. Believe me, that's the last thing I wanted. And I got out as fast as I could.




I don't like turning this into something personal about my situation. I was just letting you know what my perspective was on the economy. In Michigan it is bad for everyone.

And I'd like to think that we're beyond wooly mammoth days, when you can move into an area with over 5 million people and expect to be able to find a job that pays a liveable wage.

Based on the jobs being created and the wage information I posted, it's pretty apparent there's not any one area in the country that's going gangbusters and needs workers for serious wages.

You can talk truck driving, janitorial jobs, food service, whatever, that's not really the point. The point is, there aren't decent jobs being created while we destroy jobs that are highly desirable.

hmmmm, there's a lot of folks out there on the road who consider driving to be a good life, which is a far cry from "no life." There are also those who share your perspective, but hey, the same can be said about any job, if the person holding it isn't suited to it...

As long as you think having a lot of education equates to "paying your dues", most folks outside of the academie are going to consider you to be elitist.

"Less desirable" can be pretty subjective.

Riiiiight. Its not easier, its prudent...

"Horrible" economy? Do yourself a favor and ask your grandparents (if they're still around) about the Great Depression. That was a "horrible" economy.

If you didna want to turn it into something personal, then you shouldn't have randomly vectored in the subject of returning to your parents. And if things are bad for everyone in Michigan, then I'll repeat this again: move. Do something constructive.

Migrating woolly mammoths tend to go to where the living conditions are good, not where there's another million woolly mammoths fighting over a single pack of peanuts. RedCedar, there are millions of people with no skills whatsoever coming into this country every decade, and they do so because they can find a liveable wage. They're coming right now. Now perhaps you think they're standards are too low. Well, they don't, and so they come, and they are competing, if not directly, then indirectly against you and I.

If you were a registered nurse, you could move virtually anywhere in this country and make a very liveable wage. My guess is, you aren't. Why not?

I'm sorry, but WTF do you define as a "highly desirable" job? What are "serious wages"? You keep tossing these terms out, but I'm unclear as to what their nature. Especially when I've seen the, to me, deadly dull nature of most industrial manufacturing jobs, which are the jobs that are most at risk currently. Seriously, what is "desirable" about constant, repetitive industrialized employment? Also, it should be noted that an awful lot of those jobs that have been "destroyed" as you say have been destroyed by folks working in other, even higher paying jobs. Consider, if you will, how many people it takes today to unload a ship. 100 years ago, it would take 30-100 longshoremen to unload a ship carrying 2,000 tons of cargo. Today, it takes 3 guys to unload a ship carrying 40,000 tons of cargo. That means that 27-97 longshoremen are out of work. Of course, the guys doing the work today are making 70-100k, but hey, all those other guys are outta work.... boo ho...

Every one of us, regardless of our education, experience, charming personality, good looks, and stellar character, are worth exactly what an employer is willing to pay us. Nobody deserves more. Anybody who thinks they're underpaid should ask for more or find another job. If neither one of those options works, then they should start their own business.

Until we reach the semi-utopian realm of the United Federation of Planets, not everybody will be able to do exactly what they want, earning what they want, with the working conditions they want. Each individual decides what tradeoffs they're willing to make.

I realize that this may seem counter-intuitive, but take a wild guess as to what country lost the greatest number of manufacturing jobs over the last five years.

The US?

nope.

Canada?

nope.

Germany?

nope.

England?

nope.


China.

As long as you think having a lot of education equates to "paying your dues", most folks outside of the academie are going to consider you to be elitist.

So be it. My guess is that they would think otherwise if their doctor had a GED and just came from working 10 years at Burger King. They may not think it's elitist to be well-educated and expect to have a better job than truck driver.

But I'm under no illusions that the economy owes anyone any job based on anything other than someone out there is willing to give you money for something you can do for them or be for them.


Riiiiight. Its not easier, its prudent...

I thought I was pretty clear, I'm not sure what your one-line of rolleyes is meant to say. Just an aside, you may want to read the rules on posting here. I don't mind a little attitude, but it can get you banned. One line replies are a no-no. In other words, if you disagree with someone, you may want to spell it out instead of replying with smilies. I'm not sure if you're new, but you'll come across it eventually.

"Horrible" economy? Do yourself a favor and ask your grandparents (if they're still around) about the Great Depression. That was a "horrible" economy.

1992 was a pretty bad economy. No, it wasn't the great depression.

Despite the bad job market, I'd trade it for today in a heart beat.

If you didna want to turn it into something personal, then you shouldn't have randomly vectored in the subject of returning to your parents. And if things are bad for everyone in Michigan, then I'll repeat this again: move. Do something constructive.

I will post a recent article from Morgan Stanley at the bottom of this post. It's not just Michigan that's having problems, it's a national issue. And should everyone in Michigan flee?

Just to let you know, there are 5-6 homes on my street that have been for sale for more than 1 year. The current average time to find a new job is 17 weeks.

I realize you're a "go gettum" type of person, but some solutions are not that simple. ANd like I said before, is there a point in moving when you're just going to another minimum wage job in another state?


If you were a registered nurse, you could move virtually [b]anywhere in this country and make a very liveable wage. My guess is, you aren't. Why not?[/B]

Why not? Because it takes time and money to become a nurse. Coincidentally, I just submitted an application for a nursing program. It's take 2 years to get the pre-reqs to just apply. It will probably take another 2 years to become a nurse.

So what happens when hospitals decide to cut costs and bring in Asian nurses?

You could also ask why I'm not a doctor.

Your solutions to serious problems are valid, just not as simple as you imply. "Just move" "Just become a nurse", etc. Unfortunately education is highly expensive. Not to mention being a nurse you need health insurance for the years that you go to school. SO you could go into a lot of debt, if you're not already in debt, and may not even land a nursing gig.


I'm sorry, but WTF do you define as a "highly desirable" job? What are "serious wages"? You keep tossing these terms out, but I'm unclear as to what their nature.

Jobs that aren't poverty wage jobs. Jobs that pay more than the poverty line.

Consider the minimum wage is around $5.50. That's around a poverty level income.

I agree that if you're unskilled and uneducated that your prospects are not great. But when you talk a general population that has a college education and skills, and you offer them a truck driving position, then something is wrong.

When architects, computer scientists, accountants, finance people, engineers, etc. etc. are making $8/hr at Target, then something ain't right.


Nobody [b]deserves more. Anybody who thinks they're underpaid should ask for more or find another job. If neither one of those options works, then they should start their own business.[/B]

That's the problem. It's not really an issue of demanding more for what someone does, it's an issue of looking at the problem and making sure that people are taken care of. That people who work are given a fair wage and not so all the productivity gains go to stockholders and CEOs while the workers barely eek out a living.

I realize that this may seem counter-intuitive, but take a wild guess as to what country lost the greatest number of manufacturing jobs over the last five years.
China.

Definately technology and progress have made a difference in occupations and reducing certain jobs while creating new ones.

China is continually modernizing, as they are still a backward nation in many ways. So moving to new manufacturing technology is more pronounced in their economies. So that trivia is really a red herring as it doesn't really reveal the dynamics of US manufacturing leaving for China.

Do you have an answer for where US manufacturing is migrating to? And at what pace? And do you think manufacturing is a dispensable industry, i.e. is it something we don't need?


Here's an interesting article from a Morgan Stanely economist:

Global: The End of Labor

Stephen Roach (New York)




America’s once mighty job machine is struggling as never before. The combination of subpar job creation and real wage stagnation puts extraordinary pressure on the income-generating capacity of the world’s most aggressive consumer. Of course, you’d never know that from the spin that followed the release of the latest monthly labor market surveys of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. From Washington to Wall Street, the verdict was nearly unanimous -- all is fine on the US labor market front. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The overall pace of job creation in December (108,000) was half that expected by the market consensus (200,000). Consolation for this miss was taken from a big upward revision to the original job count in November (from 215,000 to 305,000). As if that’s all that mattered. Never mind that the two largest contributors to this upward revision were temporary hiring agencies and the so-called leisure industry (mainly restaurants); the basic point is that the underlying hiring trend is decidedly on the wane. You can’t tell that by fixating on the vigor of average gains in November and December -- they were hugely distorted by a post-Katrina rebound effect. The four-month average, which covers the storm-related disruption -- which held employment growth to a mere 21,000 in September and October -- and its subsequent rebound, was a mere 114,000. That’s the only accurate way to measure the underlying trend in job growth during this storm-distorted period, and it represents a decided shortfall from the more robust pace of job creation that had prevailed over the preceding 18 months (197,000 per month).

http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/diges...on.html#anchor0

Medical doctors go through a grueling internship, and as such the vast majority of folks out there will recognize that they've paid some dues. In contrast, those holding a doctorate, i.e. "well-educate", in feminist studies or modern art may not be accorded nearly the same respect. I only point this out to illustrate that securing an education itself doesn't automatically qualify as "paying dues."

It was meant to indicate that I consider your answer to be spin, within the context of defining easy for this conversation. I'll grant you that it was also the prudent thing to do. There is no hard and fast correlation between prudent and easy. As for the challenge of dealing with your parents, isn't that a personal anecdotal?

Been there, done that.

Thank you for the information Moderator RedCedar. However, I would suggest that you take a cruise through the forum and examine "one line replies" that have been dinged by the moderators. You'll find that your concern regarding my previous post is unfounded.

I already did spell it out. You spun. I could have replied with a classic "whatever", but I prefer smilies and, on occasion, snark.


Uh, not to be too terribly snarky to ya, but Rookie RedCedar, the little info next to your post reveals that you've been here less than a month and have a grand total of 25 posts now. Perhaps you'll eventually stumble across the info on me.

Nothing save a direct, unequivocal directive from the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY himself would convince me to trade today for 1992. But that's a personal perspective. I would be quite interested in trading today for 2001, or 1984, but 1992, no way!

Nah, if they did, there wouldn't be anybody around to make cereal and break windows in Detroit. Plus it would be pretty silly for the 90%+ of people who do have jobs to flee, ne pas?

Which is clearly a Michigan problem. Things are a lot different where I live.

Awwwww, you give me too much credit. My "go gettum" is, at the moment, out yonder somewhere. As for the point of moving to get another minimum wage in another state, uh, better weather, better social environment, farther away from your parents, change of scenery, growing economy with more long term opportunities than Michigan, etc, etc.

Good on ya, you're adapting to change.

Doctors won't be able to understand what their nurses are saying, and nobody else will be able to understand what the doctors are writing.

I could, but the short answer is the same: because you didn't choose to be a doctor. Choice, meet
consequences. Consequences, meet choice.

Again, a point of order, I did not say "just become a nurse."

BTW, I'm not advocating solutions. I'm advocating different tradeoffs. And executing them can sometimes be very simple. Moving can be very simple. It just becomes more complicated depending on how much of your stuff you want to keep. I say "just move" because at its core, its a simple thing to do. Pack the car, give everything else away, prepare a change of address packet, get in the car, pick a destination or direction, drive. Few of us are willing to simplify that much, but it can be done.

Yup, education is expensive, and no, you don't need health insurance. Its desirable, but not necessary. As for not being able to land a nursing job, well, life is a risk, eh?

So, would an annual income of $30k qualify as "serious wages"? That's 3 times full-time minimum wage.

More than anything, I think your prospects depend on your attitude. After all, I'm a well educated, highly skilled, gettumbegone. Without an attitude change, my prospects aren't very good. The problem is my attitude, not my circumstances. I invite, nay, encourage everybody reading to remind me of this in the event I start pissin and moaning about my employment or economic circumstances in the near future.


Since securing my bachelors degree, I've worked as a grocery bagger, night auditor, rental car lotdude, test driver, construction laborer, construction cleanup/driver, and other jobs without serious wages or high desirability. And I've appreciated every job.



I'm sorry, but how do you propose to insure that "people are taken care of" and "are given a fair wage"? Increase the minimum wage? That's demanding more for what someone does. Who determines a "fair wage"? The actual parties to the transactions (employer and employee), or a third party who, frankly, suffers no ill effects if his determination is erroneous? Require companies running a profit to pay their employees more? If you do that, do you also advocate cutting GM workers pay by when the company loses money?

Well, that's enough for tonite (err, this morning). I'm off to bed, perhaps I'll address the rest of your post on the morrow.

Grace and peace, BD

Thanks.

The issue is what happens to the American dream? I'm happy that people can at least work two low paying jobs to pay the bills, but what happens to "work hard and you will move up"?

I can read anecdote after adecdote, but the reality is people are losing ground in this economy if they're middle class or worse.

Clearly, we disagree about the 'reality', and about the American dream, and hence about the nature of the problem. Moving on to addressing the situation, would you be so kind as to answer my questions:

So, would a starting annual income of $30k qualify as "serious wages"? That's 3 times full-time minimum wage.

how do you propose to insure that "people are taken care of" and "are given a fair wage"? Increase the minimum wage? That's demanding more for what someone does.

Who determines a "fair wage"? The actual parties to the transactions (employer and employee), or a third party who, frankly, suffers no ill effects if his determination is erroneous? Require companies running a profit to pay their employees more? If you do that, do you also advocate cutting GM workers pay by when the company loses money?

You didn't get a bachelors degree in feminist studies, did ya?

No, my degree is in International Studies. My course work included upper division classes in economics, marketing, sociology, history, political science, hospitality, English. For the last 9 years I've been working in IT.

About those questions I asked?

What do you think the state of the economy is? And how does it vary for the different classes in the US?

I think that the DOW went below 11k yesterday, so the post-holiday bubble didn't last very long. I think that those working piles of money in the stock market make piles of money going in long and short. I think that others working piles of money lose piles of money going in long and short.

I think the stock market is relatively meaningless to everyone else.

The dollar might be heading toward devaluation, which would make US-manufactured goods better sellers on exports. Imports would become more expensive, and along with other pressures like higher interest rates and oil prices, inflation will probably be back.

What this means to people with stagnant, lowering or evaporating incomes is that the cost of living will go up, savings down, and personal debt will increase. Those on growth career paths will absorb the extra costs, cut expenditures, and scoff at the others.

Younger people without roots will move around the country chasing the hot-spot job areas, and if lucky, employers might cover relocation costs. Those caught in areas with low or negative job growth will be stuck struggling to make ends meet. The ones with roots, usually the older folks with houses and kids, will do what is necessary to keep houses and families together.

Desperate people will rob banks, run scams or sell used cars (just kidding on the last one). They will get busted and expand our prison population, plus making it near impossible to make a living no matter what once they get out. Others will sink into poverty and possibly homelessness. It will be, of course, their fault, won't it. Damn humans.

CEOs will continue to float about on their golden parachutes, economic pundits will continue to blather endlessly about things irrelevant to most of us, and so the world turns.

It strikes me that in order to survive in this world, one should know exactly what talents and skills one has, can develop, and possibly market. What works for one individual will likely not work for another once the old meatgrinder of marketplaces kick in, and as one ages.

The discussion has gone into what we do to make our livings. That's fine, but the question is what should one do to make a living. Toward this end, I offer my standard advice:

Job Hunter's Bible

However, without job growth where business invents needs instead of hiring the same old stuff over again, it becomes difficult to find the opportunities. Once a job gets so well defined that anybody can do it, outsourcing is sure to follow. Or the idea is to find the perfect candidate who has all of the expected experience and skills, regardless of talent, and hiring becomes simply a peg-hole matching game. Another problem is when job markets get flooded due to downsizing.

The last 18-month IT contract gig came from a guy I had worked with. Networking sometimes comes through, but try as he did, he couldn't get me hired on due to downsizing. Ah well, the economy still isn't very dependable.

BD, I've done IT (formerly DP) since 1979. Got into it using the techniques to be found in the above link, but the techniques don't work as well these days due to a national paranoia, where hiring managers simply don't want to talk to anyone who hasn't gone through the HR system. This seemed to have started around the late '80s and early '90s. The trend might change, but I'm not seeing any signs of it.

Ah well, a lot has changed over the decades. Better get back to my alternative career path, writing the great American novel. Eh, I'll settle for a best-seller. There are plenty of great American novels out there, which gives me a small income from writing analysis/review pieces for them. It's like going to novel-writing school, but paying no tuition. It's a sweet deal, actually.

Oh, one other thought: Once a person sets a goal, the breaks seem to materialize. The more focused you are, the better.

Wow, is everyone in IT? I was doing IT until 2001, then the area was so over-filled with H1-B visa workers and work was being moved so quickly to Asia and Eastern Europe, jobs became impossible to find. But I have an engineering degree and a masters in computer engineering.

But alas, engineers are one of the professions that have high unemployment....go figure. Now I work for a bank....not sure how much longer. I took sick time and apparently they don't like people who take sick time...even when they give it to you.

Wish I could say this helped. I look at it and didn't get much out of it. It looks like an advertisement for college. Funny, colleges these days are like used car salesmen. They don't care if they help you as long as you pay tuition in their curriculm and fill their pockets....even public institutions. They'll tell you what you want to hear, tell you about how that profession is in desparate need when nothing could be further from the truth.

It's a sad state of affairs. You can be focused, but if there's no light at the end of the tunnel, you can really get discouraged....the more focused you are the more you think about how it's not working out.

Yep, tell me about it. Survival is tough business, and I won't sugarcoat the nasty facts of life. However, without faith there is no hope. This has never been easy, nor has it ever not had elements of extreme risk.

That's what Richard Bolles is about. A few seconds glancing over his Web site might give you an impression that he's selling college, but college is just a part of the whole deal. The whole deal is you, what you are made of and how you got to where you are at, plus where you can go from here (highly important). What Bolles is really selling has a little bit to do with higher education and a lot to do with coming to understand yourself.

There is no silver bullet. There's no magic carpet. A good part of this has to do with luck, and one line from Bolles' work sticks to this day: Organize your luck.

BTW, his book first came out in the 1970s. Thirty some years later, it still is relevant even though the world has changed significantly. I won't harangue anyone to get faith, but without it you're not going very far. I'm not talking about God faith either, although that helps too. It has to do with your belief in yourself.

The faith falters as well. Tell me about it. I deal with this stuff each and every day.

And I would not expect any of us to take “meandering” as definitive proof, BecomingHuman. As with any opinion cited here at AD, data must be provided to back up said meandering. Such was done in the opinion pieces I provided. For example, the 215,000 jobs added in November was from a Bloomberg article which cited the Labor Department as their source. The article goes on to quote Alan Greenspan who said, “The economy ``has delivered a solid performance thus far in 2005,''…”`economic activity appears to be expanding at a reasonably good pace as we head into 2006.''

In addition. the article states that “Consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of the economy, expanded at a 4.2 percent annual rate.” This information specifically shows that we (consumers) are spending more, which means we must be doing some better.

It cited the Bureau of Labor Statistics for it’s data that “the economy has added 1.84 million jobs or around 167,000 per month.”

It cited the Bureau of Economic Analysis for such things as growth of GDP.

Kudlow did nothing more than wrap it all up in a pretty package. Perhaps, due to his vast experience in government and the private sector, his meandering should be taken with more than a grain of salt. On the other hand, his opinions could be dismissed because he worked for a Republican administration.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

RedCedar, I did find this:



You asked me to find where median or real income is actually increasing. From the data above, we see that real median income remained unchanged. Do you see that as a positive or a negative?

Here’s some other interesting data:



How do we address the data that indicates that sales in housing increased, as did minority ownership? Do we not opine that minorities are many times the poorer in this country? If that is in fact true, could a rise in home ownership by minorities indicate the poor are doing better?

It seems a slightly mixed bag. It’s hard to look at all this good news about the economy and then see that our poverty levels have increased and be completely positive. But I am very optimistic. I do believe our economy is in the pink and I am hopeful that it will continue to grow making all of us better off in the long run.

Or it could mean consumer debt is very high. You can spend more and not be "doing better".



What kind of jobs?



Well he's quite the right wing conservative. Just because Hitler had a lot of gov't experience doesn't mean he was best for the job. Personally I can't stand the guy, he'd shrug off people starving if it meant tax cuts. He's in a different world than most.



Well, when people brag about the booming economing, low inflation, high GDP, booming stockmarket and record profits.....where's it going? That's exactly the point of this thread. The rich are benefitting from anything good in the economy while the workers aren't seeing any benefit.




Are you saying minorities are all poor? I have one word for why housing is doing so well: SmartLoans!




This is the point of the thread. Some are doing very well, those with a lot of disposable money. And some are doing not well, those that have no money and have income mostly from their wages.

Beladonna said: In addition. the article states that “Consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of the economy, expanded at a 4.2 percent annual rate.”  This information specifically shows that we (consumers) are spending more, which means we must be doing some better. 

RedCedar said: Or it could mean consumer debt is very high. You can spend more and not be "doing better".

Well, I can say with complete confidence that consumer debt is high. MOST people in this country are in debt. I, for instance, have a mortgage, a car payment, a personal loan, a credit card, and a store credit card. This puts me in debt. But, I can also say with complete confidence that I am doing better this year than last.

In many cases, debt can be a bad thing. But just saying "or it could mean that consumer debt is high" which means you "can spend more and not be doing better" isn't really a rebuttal.

Consumers have to have credit to go into debt. Credit is established based on our salary, our ability and willingness to repay debt, etc.

Consumer spending is defined as the purchase of goods and services by U.S. individuals and according to this article, consumer confidence may be at a six-month high.

Do you have any information that shows that the data I provided which shows that consumer spending was higher is wrong? Do you have any information that indicates consumer spending was based mostly on credit?

Beladonna said: It cited the Bureau of Labor Statistics for it’s data that “the economy has added 1.84 million jobs or around 167,000 per month.”

It cited the Bureau of Economic Analysis for such things as growth of GDP.

RedCedar asked: What kind of jobs?

Must I do all the research in this conversation? According to Don Evans, Secretary of Commerce, they are "in virtually every sector, including traditionally high-paying sectors such as information, construction, financial activities, and professional and business services."

Beladonna said: Kudlow did nothing more than wrap it all up in a pretty package.  Perhaps, due to his vast experience in government and the private sector, his meandering should be taken with more than a grain of salt.  On the other hand, his opinions could be dismissed because he worked for a Republican administration.

RedCedar responded: Well he's quite the right wing conservative. Just because Hitler had a lot of gov't experience doesn't mean he was best for the job. Personally I can't stand the guy, he'd shrug off people starving if it meant tax cuts. He's in a different world than most.

Wow. "A comparison to Hitler, shrug off starving people." Pretty strong words. I look forward to the facts that back up these assertions.

Beladonna said: RedCedar, I did find this:

You asked me to find where median or real income is actually increasing.  From the data above, we see that real median income remained unchanged.  Do you see that as a positive or a negative?

RedCedar responded: Well, when people brag about the booming economing, low inflation, high GDP, booming stockmarket and record profits.....where's it going? That's exactly the point of this thread. The rich are benefitting from anything good in the economy while the workers aren't seeing any benefit.

So the data I provided that shows that real disposable personal income increased 0.7 percent means nothing? I am not rich by any means, RedCedar, but I can see the benefits. I see it in my tax returns. I see it in my salary.

Beladonna asked: How do we address the data that indicates that sales in housing increased, as did minority ownership?  Do we not opine that minorities are many times the poorer in this country?    If that is in fact true, could a rise in home ownership by minorities indicate the poor are doing better? 

RedCedar asked: Are you saying minorities are all poor?

No, RedCedar. All minorities are not poor. Not everyone in the majority is rich either. I am not sure why you asked this specific question. What was your point?

RedCedar said: I have one word for why housing is doing so well: SmartLoans!

And Smart loans are a bad or wacky idea because?

Beladonna said: It seems a slightly mixed bag.  It’s hard to look at all this good news about the economy and then see that our poverty levels have increased and be completely positive.  But I am very optimistic.  I do believe our economy is in the pink and I am hopeful that it will continue to grow making all of us better off in the long run.

RedCedar said: This is the point of the thread. Some are doing very well, those with a lot of disposable money. And some are doing not well, those that have no money and have income mostly from their wages.

RedCedar, it has always been the case that those with no money aren't doing well. There is no doubt that there is a poor class in this country. I don't think you'd find anyone here that would debate you on that point.

But to assert that those who only have income from their wages are not doing well is stretching it. I am in that category. I have no other income except for my wages. I know many others just like me. It's life, RedCedar. We go to work, we have debt, we pay our bills every month, we live.

What do you think the state of the economy is? And how does it vary for the different classes in the US?

I think I forgot to say how I think it's doing for the different classes. As pessimistic as I am about some things, I think it's doing quite well for the majority. I happen to be one of those people in the minority who ended up having to leave the country in order to find work to pay the bills with. Before coming to Korea, I was earning $7/hr.

A couple nights ago, I had been doing research about the corruption in the Higher Education system. It has gotten so bad that even the Ivy League Schools have been caught engaging in Grade Inflation. What this means is that people who earn their diplomas often have to rely on the Good Ole Boy system to get in the door because the Diploma no longer has the value it used to have.

I understand the true meaning of what AuthorMusician said when he mentioned "Young People without Roots." With the Education Diplomas having such diminished values, the people who don't have the right connections ("Good Old Boy System") have to go through the Help Wanted Ads and be faced with unrealistic job requirements. And so the Economy today is especially harsh on the young people.

skeeters,

The economy can be discussed in abstract terms that mean nothing to the individual or in personal terms that mean everything. Job hunting is especially tough on those starting out on a career, but it's also tough on those who have passed the age of desirability, usually around 40. It's a sobering thing to realize that we all have a narrow window of desirability in the job markets, 15-20 years.

College degrees seldom mean automatic desirability, except for brief periods of very low unemployment as in the 1990s or while trying to get into a specific field like health care. I agree that the value of a college degree is less today than fifty years ago, partly from grade inflation, mostly because it's getting to the point that you need a degree to get any kind of decent job. The bachelor's is becoming what the high school degree once was.

Beladonna, I can't say that I'm doing better economically now than one year ago. A year ago I was knocking down good money on an IT contract. Now I'm scraping for a living again with freelance work. Do I care if consumers are spending more? Not really. I care if IT outfits are hiring. Do I care if job growth is up? Sure, but it isn't up for me, not so far anyway.

There you go. One can point to the river and say, gee lookit all the fish out there! But with an empty creel, so what. However, this is not to say that it is useless to get yer line in the water and try to nab a fishie. Nope, gotta keep on trying with the faith that something is going to bite. It's just human to get discouraged after a while. If nothing bites for a very long time and one does not have alternative food, this can be a highly dangerous situation.

The stock market can boom, consumers can go wild, job growth can be out the roof, but if your personal economic situation is in the tank, it all means very little. About the only consolation is that this is not a new human condition.

I will say that the numbers are looking better. Not great, but better. Maybe something will bite this year -- my horoscope says I'll finally figure out how to make decent money doing what I like to do. Hey, I'll take that over economic blathering any old day. There's only one economic statistic that I care about, and that's my monthly income. Well, I'll take it in one big fat royalty advance check too.

Well it is if your assumption is that people are earning more rather than racking up debt from their mortgage refi HELOC.

Your assumption is that people are spending more, i.e. people must be earning more. Not necessarily the case. It is indeed a rebuttal.




No. But there is plenty of evidence that real wages are not increasing when considering inflation. So if spending increase, you can draw your own conclusions.



Do you consider "plenty of government experience" as proof of wisdom? If you have ever read or seen Kudlow, you know he loves cutting taxes. There's not a hint of concern from what I've seen from the guy for anyone aside from the "investor class". Hist term, not mine.



But when considering inflation, it's actually flat....or zero. And I'm not talking just between now and last year, I'm talking the economy since the recession. If you want anecdotal evidence, I'm not seeing it all. I'm making 25% what I did in 2001. Hard to believe it's been that long since I made a decent income.



Interest only loans should not be for the majority of people. Only a select few should be in such loans. It's allowing people with no equity to rent their home from the bank. When property prices come crashing down or even softly come down, people with SmartLoans are going to be in pretty bad shape.




But the point is, who is benefitting from the economy now. Are the poor getting breaks? Are the middle class improving their standing? That's the question, who is benefitting in this economy. And by all accounts it's the folks with the big tax breaks, tax breaks on their dividends, the people raking in all the stock market gains.

It's not the people living paycheck to paycheck. Real wages are flat, inflation is moving up. The real cost of living is becoming unbearable. Mortgages out of control, gas and energy prices out of control, food prices increasing. Like someone said before me, who cares if your DVD player if you can't afford the basic necessities.