Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Bush's Painful, Lopsided Economic 'Recovery' Continues

By Heather Boushey, AlterNet. Posted August 30, 2007.


New data show that while top earners are OK, this may be the first upswing in history in which middle-class families never fully rebound.
bush
bush teeny tiny
Advertisement

Global markets have been volatile over the past month and mainstream economists are now talking about whether recession may be just around the corner. A recession would certainly not be good news for America's working families, especially since most have not yet recovered from the last one.

The current economic rebound, which began in the middle of 2001, has been relatively weak, generating fewer jobs and less income growth than previous recoveries. And, companies have not been offsetting lower wages with better benefits. The opposite is true; the number of working people who get healthcare from their employers has fallen sharply in recent years.

On Aug. 28, the U.S. Census Bureau released its latest numbers on income and poverty. According to the data, despite the fact that the median household saw its income grow by 0.7 percent between 2005 to 2006, it remained 2.0 percent below where it had been in 2000, at the last economic peak. So far, this recovery has generated less income growth than prior ones: at this point in the recovery of the 1990s, household income was only 1.3 percent below its prerecession peak and at the comparable point in 1980s, household income was only 0.9 percent below its prerecession peak.

And what growth we have seen in family income has gone mostly to those at the very top of the income distribution. Since 2000, families in the top fifth of the economic ladder have seen their income rise by 1.0 percent -- they were the only ones to see any growth at all -- while those in the bottom fifth saw theirs fall by 4.5 percent [See Figure 1].

Click for larger version
(click for larger version)

What's more, it's been more work, not rising earnings, that have pushed incomes up at all. From 2005 to 2006, median full-time earnings fell for both male and female workers by over a percent (1.1 percent for men and 1.2 percent for women). This is the third year in a row that median earnings have fallen. Employment rates are higher for both men and women, indicating that families are coping with lower earnings by simply working more.

All of this is not very good news. By these measures, the current recovery has been inadequate for millions of families. It also indicates that the data for 2007 may not be that much better. In 2006, hourly wages increased sharply in the last half of the year and, as a result, 2006 was the first year in three years to show growth in inflation-adjusted weekly earnings. While inflation-adjusted hourly wages fell in early 2007, they are now growing but at a slower pace than in late 2006.

But wages and incomes are not the whole story. As we've moved through this economic recovery, access to health insurance has become increasingly a tale of the haves and the have-nots. Between 2000 and 2006, the share of people with employment-based health insurance has fallen from 64.2 to 59.7 percent, and the share without health insurance is now at 15.8 percent, an all-time high [See Figure 2].


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: economy, employment, jobs



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Economic Treason is the name of the crime
Posted by: Will Brady on Aug 30, 2007 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush, Cheney, the cheif execs who are engaging in blatent war profiteering; denying the majority of the citizenry basic health care, housing, educational and employment opportunities; skimming exhorbitant [and unearned] salaries and perks from the tops of corporate, semi-public and public coffers have long been engaged in commiting economic treason.

Treason is defined as: [1] the betrayal of trust, [2] the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or [3] to kill or personally injure the sovereign or his family.

Since we live in a society supposedly egalitarian in values and foundation, this means the lives and well being of the general populace have been endangered.

For a couple of decades now, the managers [lets not continue to glorify the actual role of corporate CEOS here] who have been contracted to enrich the assets of the public and shareholders of the companies they manage have -instead - individually enriched themselves and in the process "personally injured" the economic health and well being of society and our larger social fabric.

These managers have gotten wealthy through legal and accounting subterfuge, and their actions and efforts have, indeed, endangered the Economic Lives of the polity. As such, while they have not technically committed a series of felonious acts (arguable, as well) they may be accountable under some new form of legal construct.

Quite frankly, the laws needed to address this level of criminal action, might not yet be on the books. So maybe it is time to work to put them there.

I've written about this as far baack as 1990. http://www.rondak.org/treason.htm

Others have picked up the term and have expanded upon the conversation.

Impeachment, imprisionment for a couple of years at some federal "country club" prison is not the solution. Making the perptraitors [that's not a mis-spelling] personally feel the suffering they have caused might be. Haul them out of their offices, seize the properties they have wrongfully gained, strip them of any and all authority, deny them health care, security of housing and force them to live with, among and as part of the poorest of the poor, thay may be too kind, but it would be a start.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» First things first... Posted by: skoog5600
» RE: First things first... Posted by: Will Brady
Setting the stage for a revolution
Posted by: SayBlade on Aug 30, 2007 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One piece of history is showing signs of repeating itself. The growing numbers of people with diminishing incomes and those in poverty are becoming so frustrated with systems and policies that deny them a place at the table of economic comfort. They are organising and educating themselves. They are not buying the rhetoric that a rising tide floats all boats since they are metaphorically being washed out to sea, watching others around them capsized and drowning.

Change is coming. In the same manner as the oft-twisted Biblical story of mythical Sodom's sin is distilled in Ezekiel 16:49, our modern Sodom -- an incredibly wealthy elite -- is arrogant, over-fed and ignores the poor and needy. Maintaining this is unsustainable.

It may be called by another name, but revolution will happen resulting in some form of communism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Communism no.... Posted by: NumberSix
Grammar Crank
Posted by: UP58 on Aug 30, 2007 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, so this may not be the most critical issue, but I am a grammar crank. The first thing I noticed when I read the list of articles included here was this: "New data shows..." NO! NO! NO! "Data" is plural, so the sentence should have begun like this: "New data SHOW..." "Phenomena" is also plural, so beware. I'm cranky face-to-face as well. If I catch someone saying something like, "Jim told Bill and I," I wouldn't hesitate to point out that the pronoun should be "me." This misuse has nearly become universal, not only in the US, but also in the UK, so correcting it may be a lost casue. I won't give up, however.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Grammar Crank Posted by: solrev
» I agree Posted by: drcyflowers
» RE: Grammar Crank Posted by: Mamarianne
Much of this is the Consequence of ongoing tax cuts and deregulation.
Posted by: yellow on Aug 30, 2007 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These things skew income distribution and cut opportunities for poor and middle income people to get ahead. It raises costs of basic amenities which shifts income to the corporate rich and destroys business opportunities for the middle class concentrating everything in the hands of the rich. I expect it to keep going under Bush. The upper 1% is the only strata to see its real income truely increase over the past twenty five years and its tripled. As they used to say America nice country!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

funny money
Posted by: edith on Aug 30, 2007 10:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the worst is yet to come: the inevitable abandonment of the US dollar as the world's major reserve currency. the debt ridden US is "subprime" central. we pay for Iraq, social security and Medicare with printing presses.

stagnant wages held down by competition with china, low wage immigrants undercutting the working citizens of america, and the rocketing prices that will result from the world's refusal, probably after chaos hits the Middle East due to US or Israeli attacks on Iran- all of these will cause a Great Depression made worse by inflation.

modern history tells us fascism, not communism, is the product of social and economic chaos. and in addition, the breakup of the "united" states?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: funny money Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: funny money Posted by: drcyflowers
My commentary in Neoliberalism article applies here, too
Posted by: american on Aug 30, 2007 11:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"New data show that while top earners are OK, this may be the first upswing in history in which middle-class families never fully rebound." Not so. The Amercian standard of living has been declining in real terms since the 1950's. A milkman or clerk used to be able to support a middle class household. (he may have had a smaller house, but he has less or no debt; he may have not have had a DVD player, but he had a clean countryside to hunt in.)
--------------------------------
Money equals energy. That's what it is. Give money to a laborer and he will shovel dirt and a hole gets dug. Give money to a programmer and he will tap his fingers and engage his mind weaving a string of code. Give money to a mercenary or an assassin and they will kill people.

Money in reserve is potential energy, also known as power. If you have a million dollars in the bank, you can summon a laborer to dig a hole, a programmer to write code, or an assassin to kill.

If you are the laborer, programmer or mercenary, it is your power and energy. It is your food, water, shelter, and transportation. It is directly related to your physical freedom if you are inside the system. And you are: It is your power and energy and (physical) freedom.

The law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

The energy -- the money -- is always there. Right now it is just being allocated to a single group, the self-anointed "elite," to an unacceptable degree.

Money is energy, yes. It is also known as a note. A note is a document. A document is a deed. They all have in common that they are pieces of paper. Money notes could be green. They could be pink. They could be yellow. It doesn’t matter what color they are, does it? What matters about money is what it can do.

What puts it in force? What makes it have its power and energy?

The answer? Energy itself does. Power. Force.

How do power and force come about? Laws and organization (footnote 1).

How are laws and organizations upheld and sustained? Force (footnote 2).

Laws and organizations exist for one of either of two things, money or principles (as in moral principles).

A telltale sign of whether the force is positive or negative is whether debt is required to sustain the organization. Debt occurs where people, I the final analysis, are not willing to take on an obligation all at once. It occurs when they are not willing to pay for, work for, or otherwise buy what is offered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» More Posted by: american
» Notes Posted by: american