Re: Good Bush economy
- From: lorad474@xxxxxx
- Date: 31 Aug 2006 09:25:18 -0700
Taylor wrote:
Wages up. Total employee compensation higher than during 90's...
____________________________________________________
Meaning the super-rich CEOs got more money.. while everyone else got
less.
Report shows economy plugging along
GDP above, inflation below expectations
Expectations are not reality.
The economy grew...
The gross domestic product, adjusted for inflation, increased at an annual
rate of 2.9 percent, up from an earlier estimate of 2.5 percent,
Just yesterday I showed why GDP is a fallacious measure of economic
health.
while a
closely watched measure of prices that excludes food and energy rose 2.8
percent, rather than 2.9 percent. But the growth rate for the economy still
slowed sharply from the 5.6 percent pace of the first quarter.
Why were energy costs excluded. Any particular reason?
Maybe because they are unbearably high?
Perhaps the biggest surprise in Wednesday's report was new evidence of a
surge in wage-and-salary income in the first half of this year. Between the
fourth quarter of last year and the second quarter of 2006, pay grew at an
annual pace around 7 percent after adjusting for inflation, up from an
earlier estimate of 4 percent, according to MFR, a consulting firm in New
York.
Only for the super-rich 1%
Total compensation, including employee health benefits, which have risen in
cost in recent years, equaled 57.1 percent of the economy, down from 59.8
percent in 1970. Still, compensation makes up a larger share of the economy
than it did through the 1950s and early '60s, as well as during parts of the
mid-1990s and the last couple of years.
Economists said that this increase in income suggested that the recent
slowdown in the overall economy was less likely to turn into something more
dangerous, because households might have more money to spend than earlier
estimated.
At a time when the number of people living in poverty has jumped 13% in
just the last year, I find it intellectually offensive to have a highly
slanted article "that excludes food and energy" like the above,
attempting to assure people that everything is wonderful in la-la land.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: "Speaker" Pelosi would be a disaster
- Next by Date: Re: Three strangers strike up a conversation in the airport passenger Lounge...
- Previous by thread: Bush has no balls.
- Next by thread: Re: Good Bush economy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
