Hourly Pay in U.S. Not Keeping Pace With Price Rises

NYTIMES ^ | 07/18/04 | EDUARDO PORTER

[oceanview]

that's true - the fact that Kerry cannot form any kind of message centered around economic populism is good news for Bush, politically speaking.

[ninenot]

Although these numbers are valid (I've run them myself,) they are not the whole and complete story.

For whatever reason, DOL includes the employer-paid part of the cost of health insurance as part of 'hourly pay.' Since that has generally risen over the last several years, the DOL number is a bit misleading.

OTOH, the EMPLOYEE-paid portion of health insurance (not to mention co-pays and deductibles) has also risen substantially during the same period. Frankly, I don't know where DOL places this in their regimen.

I also suspect that (assuming job creation continues) there will be a sudden upward jerk on the 'compensation' numbers--that is, that the national average numbers will begin to rise, quickly.

If it does not, then there's a problem which neither the Dimowits nor the Pubbies have identified.

[ninenot]

Yeah. But actually stating the facts will get you the "he-hates-Bush" award from the 'bots on this thread.

Don't you just love the civil discussions?

[ninenot]

If ever Democrats returned to the old style New Deal with the concern for working class and morality they would win with the one hand tied behing their back each time like FDR was winning.

Truer words were never spoken, aside from your reference to the Dimmies as being "pigheaded" about decadence.

[tertiary01]

GOOD NEWS !!!!!!
I don't see this reported anywhere else, but on Glen Beck'e radio show last week he stated that we are now in a BUDGET SURPLUS by a few billion due to increased tax revenues from individuals and corporations.

[Redcloak]

Are you one of the 29?

[litehaus]

Well, THERE it was this AM!!

[ex-snook]

Confucius Say:

"American who look for job
find pay oriented."

[A. Pole]

Are you one of the 29?

Of course not - I prefer war on Iraq over war on Serbia, I do not like diversity gay training for school children etc, etc ... I am one of the 5 - I will write someone in.

[Nowhere Man]

The opening is already there and huge! But the Democrats are ever more pigheaded - as abortion, athesim and pederasty are the most important for them.

So when so called Reagan Democrats are given choice between promotion of decadence or undermining their wages they are forced to chose the second as smaller evil.

If ever Democrats returned to the old style New Deal with the concern for working class and morality they would win with the one hand tied behing their back each time like FDR was winning.

It looks that way, here in Pittsburgh, we still have lifelong Democrats that voted or could vote for Ronald Reagan, yet, they will not vote for President Bush because of the perception and reality of these economic issues. Most of these people are not for things like homosexual marriage, abortion, and tend to be conservative socially, but even with those shortcomings of the Democrats, they still can bring voters in on economic issues. Of course, the Democrats don't really do much when it comes to our borders and I think they do very little against the tide of free trade, but what matters is their rhetoric.

Myself, I'm staying with the President over social and military issues, but economically I do have some bones to pick with him (although equally, I think John Kerry is just as bad) but I feel overall President Bush is a lot better for the country. I could see myself voting for a Hubert Humphrey, Harry Truman, or even an FDR, or in today's world an Ed Koch, Zell Miller, Jim Traficant, or Joe Lieberman, but the Democrats keep offering these throwback hippies from the 1960's with their free love agenda and so on, no way. I guess I do have some "Pittsburgh Democrat" (pro-labor, pro-union, pro-gun, pro-family, protectionist, etc) in me after all. B-P I do realize though that most Democrats today are not like their ancestors though so I tend to stick Republican.

It sees like though both sides are out to luch when it comes to "borders, language, and culture." (with apologies to Michael Savage)

[freedumb2003]

, they will not vote for President Bush because of the perception and reality of these economic issues.

So the stupid steel subsidies were for naught.

[Nowhere Man]

So the stupid steel subsidies were for naught.

Well, according most of the people I've talked to that I have described, I would have to say that you're right. There are some who "get it" due to the war on terrorism and moral issues, but to those where the economy matters, I'm afraid they will still vote for Kerry even if they don't like his morals.

[phil_will1]

tax reform bump

Conspicuously absent from this article is any discussion of what policy alternatives are available to legislators to do something about wages. Senator Kerry, of course, will be anxious to expoit the issue for political gain, in spite if the fact that he has no idea how to stimulate the economy enough to generate more jobs and wage growth.

The White House, on the other hand, refuses to move on Fundamental Tax Reform (FTR), because Karl Rove considers it too risky politically. Apparently he does not consider allowing the economy to continue to operate well below its potential to entail any political risk.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: the impact of health care insurance costs on wages

I should have specified that I was talking about the cost of the insurance.

I believe that increased health care insurance costs do come out of wage increases. Does that mean that employers that don't "provide" health insurance give bigger wage increases? I don't know.

Solutions? This of course brings up, why are health care costs gong up so fast? At least I've seen many articles stating so.

Is it the millions and millions of ILLEGAL and legal aliens with millions and millions of ILLEGAL and legal aliens on the way here? Is it scum like John Edwards extorting billions and billions out of health care each year?

(Not that ILLEGAL and legal aliens should get no health care and that there aren't problems in health care.)

[ninenot]

The DOL includes in "wages" the employer-paid portion of health insurance.

But I have no idea how DOL accounts for the insurance premiums (or portion thereof) paid by employees--nor the increases in co-pays, or deductibles.

Employers who do not provide health insurance are almost by definition incapable of providing an increase in wage, except in the extreme cases of employer greed--in which case, any increase in free cash goes to the employer anyway.