Inequality In U.S. Is Scarily High, Rising (INFOGRAPHIC)

yeah and you guys had NOTHING to do with it.

This is your standard line of crap desh. No one said the Reps had nothing to do with it. You on the other hand like to pretend it is just 'the right' that deregulates. Which is complete nonsense.

Did you know that Carter deregulated multiple industries and he had Dem majorities in the House and the Senate while in office? Who are you going to blame for that Desh?
 
I literally have a headache right now from speaking with Desh for the past hour (and yes it is my fault because I could choose not to engage her). I have no problem speaking with those who disagree with me and have different ideas than me. Lord knows I don't know everything so I enjoy hearing differing opinions. With Desh it is the same conversation over and over and it is mind-numbing.
 
With all due respect, inflation is cost of living. And according to some, we are experiencing ZERO inflation by historical standards. I am not saying that, but many on the left do, like Darla's economic hero Paul Krugman. In fact Krugman says and Darla fully agrees that we need MORE inflation.

With all due respect, you're wrong.....when you said that, I kind of questioned myself...so I looked it up....

http://askville.amazon.com/difference-inflation-rate-cost-living/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=4238947
 
Let's start with the assumption that there is plenty of blame to go around. Obama care Republicans will eventually grow to hate the fact they honored the legislation with this name as it will work better than they want it to) is committee designed legislation which should have been much better if it had been designed to solve problems, not satisfy constituencies which could not be satisfied by divine decree. Both sides have determined their their way is more important than the best way. Faced with facts, the first question of both parties is not, are these correct, but do they agree with my preconceived version of truth. It is astounding how many people who flunked basic biology and physics have announce that they know the truth about evolution and climate change. And I am not condemning one side in favor of the other. The Democrat who knows that climate change is true without beginning to understand the reasoning is in exactly the same position as the Republican who knows it is false. also without a clue of the science involved. Perhaps you can get away with "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like," but it is simply evidence of stupidity when applied to science. Wouldn't it be fun, just occasionally, to have a discussion on this site based on fact, not opinion or judgment? Any takers?
 
Let's start with the assumption that there is plenty of blame to go around. Obama care Republicans will eventually grow to hate the fact they honored the legislation with this name as it will work better than they want it to) is committee designed legislation which should have been much better if it had been designed to solve problems, not satisfy constituencies which could not be satisfied by divine decree. Both sides have determined their their way is more important than the best way. Faced with facts, the first question of both parties is not, are these correct, but do they agree with my preconceived version of truth. It is astounding how many people who flunked basic biology and physics have announce that they know the truth about evolution and climate change. And I am not condemning one side in favor of the other. The Democrat who knows that climate change is true without beginning to understand the reasoning is in exactly the same position as the Republican who knows it is false. also without a clue of the science involved. Perhaps you can get away with "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like," but it is simply evidence of stupidity when applied to science. Wouldn't it be fun, just occasionally, to have a discussion on this site based on fact, not opinion or judgment? Any takers?

What would a sample conversation look like to you based strictly on fact and with no opinions or judgment.
 
Fair enough. But they are often used interchangeably. I was however technically incorrect

Regardless....minimum wage back in 1956 at $1/hr was a more sustainable wage than the $7.25 is now. That's the point.

I know....wages should be what the "market" bears....well...obviously those worker's "markets" can't bear it.
 
Those that didn't lost their jobs in the past 8 years, are close to stagnant in their salaries and buying power. Their homes have lost value, but they are much better off than those that lost their jobs, thus the divide between the 'haves' and 'have nots.' It's never been about the really rich, they've always been in a class unto themselves.

The schism is those that were once middle class and no longer are.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...s-obamacare-and-the-growth-of-part-time-jobs/
The Insiders: Obamacare and the growth of part-time jobs

By Ed Rogers, Published: July 8, 2013

The Wall Street Journal editorial “Part-Time America” may not have gotten all the attention it deserves because of the Fourth of July holiday, but it raises an important point regarding Obamacare that I believe has been underreported.

Despite the mostly favorable coverage of last week’s jobs report, the fine print of the report included the revelation that the number of Americans who want to work full time but could only find part-time work went up by 322,000. The number of part-time employees is now at an all-time high of more than 8.2 million. To put that number into perspective, that’s equal to the entire population of the state of Virginia. It appears that employers were already preparing for Obamacare by working to reduce the number of full-time employees they would have had to buy health-care insurance for. Maybe the White House knew for certain what the rest of us just suspected, or the administration had a sneak peek at the June data and realized that the need to delay the Obamacare employer mandate was urgent.

With the employer mandate delayed, the White House has bought itself a year — but what is it about a one-year delay that will make the choice for business any less obvious? A one-year delay won’t make employers’ choices any better or make them anymore likely to want to take actions that will be harmful to their businesses.

The old adage is, “If you want less of something, tax it; if you want more of something, subsidize it.” Well, Obamacare creates a big new tax on full-time employees. So what does common sense tell us about that? It tells us there will be fewer full-time employees and more part-time employees as employers work to minimize their costs and vulnerability under Obamacare.

...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100870095

Why Underemployment May Be Worse Than It Looks
Text Size
Published: Monday, 8 Jul 2013

The level of underemployed workers looks bad on its face but even worse when it's not the government doing the counting.

When the Labor Department released its monthly nonfarm jobs report Friday, it was all sunshine and roses except for one glaring weakness: A big jump in the underemployment rate that includes those who have quit working as well as those who have had to take part-time jobs even though they'd rather work full-time.

That rate, which economists call the U-6, jumped from 13.8 percent in May to 14.3 percent in June—a 3.6 percent increase and indicative that the 195,000 new jobs created in the month weren't exactly of the highest caliber.

But what often doesn't get as much attention is the monthly labor count that the experts at Gallup conduct.

According to the pollster's results, the underemployment situation is even worse.

Gallup reports that 17.2 percent of the workforce is underemployed, a startling number compounded by its divergence from the government's count. While the rate is down from the 20.3 percent peak in March 2010, it has remained maddeningly high over the past three years even as economists tout the strength of the U.S. economic recovery.

From a broader perspective, the Gallup measure actually has increased from its 15.9 percent multi-year low in October 2012.

The potential significance of the recent trough is that it came a month before the Federal Reserve launched the third round of quantitative easing, the $85 billion a month bond-buying program that is supposed to help the central bank achieve its dual objectives of price stability—and full employment.

Amid questions of whether QE3 is about to come to end, and if it has been as effective as its predecessors, the underemployment rate will be one important metric to watch.

Aside from the Gallup numbers, the government's report was discouraging in its own right: A jump from 28.5 percent to 29.3 percent for the percentage of those working part-time for economic reasons in the labor force, and a year-over-year surge of 25.1 percent—1.027 million total—for those "discouraged workers" who have quit searching for jobs.

"It's a big deal. The labor market is far from healthy, so I don't want to minimize the fact" that underemployment is on the rise, said Joe LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank.

(Read More: Will the Obamacare Delay Spur a Hiring Boom?)

"To me, it's something that bears watching," he added. "Given the month it occurred, we have tremendous exit and entry into the workforce—teachers and students. You really need to reserve judgment. You need another month or two to see if it's a new trend."

Indeed, some of the other Gallup metrics point to a bit brighter labor picture.

The firm's adjusted unemployment rate, which in the past has diverged substantially from the BLS count, stood at 7.6 percent in June, directly in line with the government's numbers and down substantially from May's 8.2 percent reading.

Also, its payroll-to-population gage was at 44.8 percent, a 2013 high though below the 45.7 percent in late 2012.

But the labor market faces clear pressure ahead, particularly from government sequestration spending cuts and uncertainty over the looming Obamacare implementation.

(Read More: Jobless About to Take a Big Hit From the Sequester)

"We expect labor market pressure from the spending sequester in Washington to spread from reduced hours to job cuts," Ethan Harris, global economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said in a report for clients.

For now, though, LaVorgna said he is attributing the data point discrepancies to an unusual jobs climate that will out the kinks in the months ahead.

"The labor market is so far from normal that it wouldn't surprise me that all these metrics are not necessarily moving in the same direction," he said. "There's going to be some incongruity between these two series. When things normalize, you would expect these things to rectify themselves."

—By CNBC's Jeff Cox.
 
With all due respect, inflation is cost of living. And according to some, we are experiencing ZERO inflation by historical standards. I am not saying that, but many on the left do, like Darla's economic hero Paul Krugman. In fact Krugman says and Darla fully agrees that we need MORE inflation.

And we also need a corresponding boost in the minimum wage - with or without inflation right now, the wage is lower than it should be if it had kept up with inflation all along.
 
every time this country gets talked into deregulation by the right the people get screwed.

Enron


the banks


how dumb are you not to see the pattern?

Tell me about it... I went thru the energy deregulation in California. We got totally screwed.
 
How can anyone defend Republican policies? Under Bush: two unfunded wars, tax cut for the rich, the medicare prescription plan - without paying for it, and the economic crash - which might have happened regardless of president, true, but without the two unfunded wars and the tax cuts, we would have had money to weather it better.

Republican policies failed. Trickle down economics doesn't work. What works for this country is bolstering the middle class and having a safety net for the poor. Unfortunately, we have a country where the rich get richer, they get more tax breaks, they get more goodies, and the middle class and the poor are left scrambling.

Someday it will be 10% rich people and 90% serfs. I hate to see that day coming.
 
How can anyone defend Republican policies? Under Bush: two unfunded wars, tax cut for the rich, the medicare prescription plan - without paying for it, and the economic crash - which might have happened regardless of president, true, but without the two unfunded wars and the tax cuts, we would have had money to weather it better.

Republican policies failed. Trickle down economics doesn't work. What works for this country is bolstering the middle class and having a safety net for the poor. Unfortunately, we have a country where the rich get richer, they get more tax breaks, they get more goodies, and the middle class and the poor are left scrambling.

Someday it will be 10% rich people and 90% serfs. I hate to see that day coming.

I can only speak for myself but I don't defend a lot of Bush's policies. But Bush isn't every Republican. It's sort of like saying Obama was going to be Clinton just because they are both Democrats. You sound like Desh when you say Republican policies fail and you are much smarter than that. It seems to me you want a more European style economy here in the U.S. with higher taxes, more government regulation of the economy and a larger safety net. I'd argue the U.S. has far surpassed any of the European country's economically so why would we want to change to more like them?
 
I can only speak for myself but I don't defend a lot of Bush's policies. But Bush isn't every Republican. It's sort of like saying Obama was going to be Clinton just because they are both Democrats. You sound like Desh when you say Republican policies fail and you are much smarter than that. It seems to me you want a more European style economy here in the U.S. with higher taxes, more government regulation of the economy and a larger safety net. I'd argue the U.S. has far surpassed any of the European country's economically so why would we want to change to more like them?

Cawacko, while I agree every repub isn't bush, the repub politicians and people who run for president sure seem to be channeling him. If there are repub politicians who feel differently, they aren't getting much media play and most of them aren't voting counter to their party on these issues.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis


The California electricity crisis, also known as the Western U.S. Energy Crisis of 2000 and 2001, was a situation in which California had a shortage of electricity caused by market manipulations, illegal[5] shutdowns of pipelines by the Texas energy consortium Enron, and capped retail electricity prices.[6] The state suffered from multiple large-scale blackouts, one of the state's largest energy companies collapsed, and the economic fall-out greatly harmed Governor Gray Davis's standing




The financial crisis was possible because of partial deregulation legislation instituted in 1996 by the California Legislature (AB 1890) and Governor Pete Wilson. Enron took advantage of this deregulation and was involved in economic withholding and inflated price bidding in California's spot markets.[12]

The crisis cost between $40 to $45 billion.[13]
 
Energy deregulation[edit]

See also: California electricity crisis

Wilson supported deregulation of the energy industry in California during his administration due to heavy lobbying efforts by Enron.[4] Nevertheless, during the California energy crisis caused by companies such as Enron, Wilson authored an article titled "What California Must Do" that blamed Gray Davis for not building enough power plants. Wilson defended his record of power plant construction and claimed that between 1985 and 1998, 23 plants were certified and 18 were built in California.[20]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Wilson



most of his time as Governor, Wilson reduced per-capita infrastructure spending for California, much as he had done as the Mayor of San Diego.[9] Many construction projects – most notably highway expansion/improvement projects – were severely hindered or delayed, while other maintenance and construction projects were abandoned completely.[10]
 
Back
Top