yeah

11/9/2006 7:46:14 AM

even the top story for fox is that dem's won VA & senate.

11/9/2006 9:46:32 AM

since when does a talking point automatically mean something isnt true

11/9/2006 12:29:52 PM

it doesnt. but it does mean that trikk is a clown

[Edited on November 9, 2006 at 5:18 PM. Reason : didn't he say the repubs would retain both chambers? oops]

11/9/2006 5:13:55 PM

dude....your such a clown

11/9/2006 5:22:41 PM

I know I posted this in another thread but I think this is a better place for it. There is an old Jamaican saying, "Who feels it knows it. Who knows it shows it." That's just another way of saying, "You can't tell me the economy is good when my budget is tighter by the year". I think people did vote their wallet, despite everyone assuring them they were doing just fine:

Republicans talk about the great economy, but I get the impression that it's great mostly for investors.

Productivity is up, but not wages. Corporations are able to pit American workers against the lowest wages in a global economy - hence the all-time high in the stock market. It's great environment for investors.

I happened on a New York Times article from the end of August 2006 talking about what effects negative wage growth might have on the mid-term elections ... foresight sometimes is 20/20.

Quote :

"With the economy beginning to slow, the current expansion has a chance to become the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that fails to offer a prolonged increase in real wages for most workers. That situation is adding to fears among Republicans that the economy will hurt vulnerable incumbents in this year’s midterm elections even though overall growth has been healthy for much of the last five years. The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable, economists say, because productivity — the amount that an average worker produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation’s living standards — has risen steadily over the same period. As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the current period as “the golden era of profitability.” Until the last year, stagnating wages were somewhat offset by the rising value of benefits, especially health insurance, which caused overall compensation for most Americans to continue increasing. Since last summer, however, the value of workers’ benefits has also failed to keep pace with inflation, according to government data. At the very top of the income spectrum, many workers have continued to receive raises that outpace inflation, and the gains have been large enough to keep average income and consumer spending rising. In a speech on Friday, Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, did not specifically discuss wages, but he warned that the unequal distribution of the economy’s spoils could derail the trade liberalization of recent decades. Because recent economic changes “threaten the livelihoods of some workers and the profits of some firms,” Mr. Bernanke said, policy makers must try “to ensure that the benefits of global economic integration are sufficiently widely shared.” Political analysts are divided over how much the wage trends will help Democrats this fall in their effort to take control of the House and, in a bigger stretch, the Senate. Some see parallels to watershed political years like 1980, 1992 and 1994, when wage growth fell behind inflation, party alignments shifted and dozens of incumbents were thrown out of office. “It’s a dangerous time for any party to have control of the federal government — the presidency, the Senate and the House,” said Charles Cook, who publishes a nonpartisan political newsletter. “It all feeds into ‘it’s a time for a change’ sentiment. It’s a highly combustible mixture."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?ex=1163134800&en=de55bb05a0a1709e&ei=5070

[Edited on November 9, 2006 at 6:25 PM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

11/9/2006 6:24:20 PM

Speculators are taking their money out of real estate and putting it in the stock market.

11/9/2006 10:04:03 PM

Ah, the ever-present scarcity of economic knowledge, how invigorating.

Quote :

"Productivity is up, but not wages."

It bears pointing out that "wages" are not the whole story, as wage data excludes tips, commissions, EITC, government assistance, employer provided health-care, etc. As the cost of health-care has continued to grow faster than the rest of the economy (8% a year, last I heard) just holding median wages flat would mean total median compensation was rising. Of course, even here, average compensation does not include tips, EITC, or government assistance; it only includes costs directly bore by the employer.

Compensation data tends to be all over the place depending on exactly which collection of data you choose to look at. However, now that unemployment is getting quite low (4.4%, see graph) it has nowhere to go but up.

As you can see from this graph, assuming the CBO knows something, it is assumed below the red line firms become skiddish about losing workers and become compelled to increase compensation to retain workers.

Quote :

"Corporations are able to pit American workers against the lowest wages in a global economy"

I feel this is only fair as American consumers are able to pit American corporations against the cheapest producers in a global economy.

Plus, the New York Times is not exactly a non-partisan newspaper. They have shaded the data, in this case.

11/9/2006 11:27:13 PM

The article implied that wages at the high end were bringing up the average. It doesn't mean that the median is moving up - which is to say wages for the vast majority of workers.

Low unemployment at low wages is no bargin, unless you are an investor.

Quote :

"Until the last year, stagnating wages were somewhat offset by the rising value of benefits, especially health insurance, which caused overall compensation for most Americans to continue increasing. Since last summer, however, the value of workers’ benefits has also failed to keep pace with inflation, according to government data."

11/9/2006 11:48:46 PM

am i going crazy or is gas going back up?

11/10/2006 10:01:52 AM

$2.14 as of yesterday

11/10/2006 10:07:50 AM

i just checked http://www.raleighgasprices.com/

and it looks like the trend is 'up'

11/10/2006 10:11:26 AM

11/10/2006 1:51:46 PM

http://www.consumptionjunction.com/content/detail.asp?ID=62545&type=1&page=2

11/11/2006 3:21:01 AM

Quote :

"Democrats at one point nearly gave up hope of defeating U.S. Representative Robert C. "Robin" Hayes (R-NC) after their first choice for challenger Iraqi War veteran Tim Dunn (D-NC) withdrew. The party ended up nominating second string candidate Larry Kissell (D-NC), a teacher and former textile worker. With little help from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Kissell has come within 440 votes of defeating Hayes, who outspent Kissell by more than 3-to-1. Up to 1,492 provisional ballots will be counted Friday. Democrats generally fare better than Republicans when provisional ballots get counted. In 2004, Hayes challenger Beth Troutman (D-NC) won 44.4 percent of the overall vote, but she captured 56.9 percent of the provisional votes. Still, Kissell would need 69.7 percent of the votes to pass Hayes. "

11/13/2006 8:44:09 AM

Quote :

"am i going crazy or is gas going back up?"

You aren't crazy and "welcome to the holiday season"

This was expected and is not election related.

11/13/2006 9:28:07 AM

correct

11/13/2006 9:33:52 AM

Quote :

"Democrats generally fare better than Republicans when provisional ballots get counted."

Why is that?

11/13/2006 9:40:19 AM

^

Quote :

"In 2004, Hayes challenger Beth Troutman (D-NC) won 44.4 percent of the overall vote, but she captured 56.9 percent of the provisional votes."

I dunno. Maybe more Democrats vote absentee in this district on average?

11/13/2006 10:00:31 AM

What's the deal with provisionals? They include absentee? I thought they were contested ballots, like for people who vote in a district they aren't really assigned to (or at least aren't obviously assigned to)

11/13/2006 10:42:50 AM