|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 6, 2013 21:55:55 GMT -8
This piece that I am recommending to your attention is pretty grim. In short, the U.S. economy is worse than many think, surely worse than at any time since the '30s. There are lots of facts presented herein which clearly show how bad things have gotten since 2008. Forget the standard line from D.C. about how the unemployment rate is going down. It is not, and federal statistics, as the author explains, prove the point. One disturbing conclusion by the author. . . It is clear that, for workers, there has been no economic recovery at all. One can argue about who is to blame. In one way that is a debate worth having, while, in another sense, it is a pointless exercise. The important fact is that things are only slightly less bad than in late '08 and early '09. And those in charge are essentially clueless. www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2013/05/06/why_fridays_jobs_report_was_ominous_100301.htmlAzWm |
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on May 7, 2013 6:17:18 GMT -8
Agree.
93% of the economic growth since 2008 went to the top 1% of our country.
Before the 1960's, each income group was growing at about 3% per year across the board. Since that time, wages for the bottom 80% of workers has remained stagnant or even decreased, while the top 20% has gotten all real income growth.
One in six American children doesn't know where their next meal is coming from.
About 60% of all families will spend at least one year in poverty, and every year about 50 million families live in poverty.
Over the last 30 years, CEO pay grew 127 times faster than median worker pay. Also over this time, CEO pay spiked 725% while worker pay rose 5.7%.
In 2010, CEO pay increased by 28%, and in 2011 CEO pay grew 15%, while both years average worker salary decreased by 2%.
In 1978, CEOs made 26 times what their workers made, today that figure is 210.
-----------
So the question is, what do we do about this?
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 7, 2013 14:04:33 GMT -8
Agree. 93% of the economic growth since 2008 went to the top 1% of our country. Before the 1960's, each income group was growing at about 3% per year across the board. Since that time, wages for the bottom 80% of workers has remained stagnant or even decreased, while the top 20% has gotten all real income growth. One in six American children doesn't know where their next meal is coming from. About 60% of all families will spend at least one year in poverty, and every year about 50 million families live in poverty. Over the last 30 years, CEO pay grew 127 times faster than median worker pay. Also over this time, CEO pay spiked 725% while worker pay rose 5.7%. In 2010, CEO pay increased by 28%, and in 2011 CEO pay grew 15%, while both years average worker salary decreased by 2%. In 1978, CEOs made 26 times what their workers made, today that figure is 210. ----------- So the question is, what do we do about this? Well, we could create a federal board tasked with setting the maximum salaries paid to CEOs. Would you support that idea? I would not. Certainly, creating a climate more favorable to expansion of the U.S. economy is the most important thing that government can do. Unfortunately, we now have a federal administration whose main goal is fairness rather than economic growth. Improving the economy will not be easy. There are no simple fixes. The new world economy has robbed us of many of the advantages enjoyed by the U.S. from 1945 to about the end of the 20th Century. On the other hand, we are blessed with huge resources, human as well as material. There is no reason why Americans cannot do well in the world economy of the 21st Century. Let me qualify that; we can do well provided that we make some important changes in behavior. One such change would be a serious re-commitment to education. I do not necessarily mean a lot more money. More money poured into the system without changes in attitude by all concerned will not do much. The most important change would be a personal commitment, especially on the part of students, to take getting an education much more seriously. In other words, our students, certainly the bottom 75%, must act a lot more like their fellows in Japan, China, Europe, etc. And our schools must offer a much more challenging curriculum, one that puts more emphasis on math and sciences. Also, it would help enormously if American parents were more responsible in the area of raising children. Prisons are filled with men who grew up without responsible fathers, or, perhaps in most cases, with no father in the family at all. One immensely important change in behavior would be this; Our citizens need to delay procreation until they have at least (the VERY least) a high school education and until they have established a two parent relationship that stands a chance of long term success. (By the way, I am dubious about some of your assertions. What does "One in six American children doesn't know where their next meal is coming from" mean? There probably are at least some Americans who have trouble getting enough to eat, but I doubt that the percentage is even close to what the statement I just quoted implies. With food stamps and various charitable organizations, there is no need to go hungry in America.) AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 7, 2013 15:03:17 GMT -8
I should add something to my suggestions for the improvement of education in the U.S. Our high schools are largely based on the German model from the 19th Century. In Germany, the Gymnasium (pronounced with a hard "g"; the German word for gymnasium, by the way, is Turnhalle.) was and is a very rigorous secondary school designed to prepare students to go to the university.
The importance of this is as follows: unlike in other countries, where one finds separate college prep and vocational high schools, we have tried to create comprehensive schools that are all things to all students. More and more, we have given up on vocational courses for students who are not cut out to do college work. The result is that such students, even if they graduate, tend not to be prepared for the world of work. They don't have the technical knowledge to pursue careers requiring lots of math and science, nor have they been given training in some useful trade which could enable them to earn a good living.
We hate to label students as either college prep or tradesmen based on a test taken at age 11; that's typically what happens elsewhere. I remember that such an issue was essential to the national debate topic when I was in high school (1958-59 school year). But clearly, students should be given a change to do useful works, and with vocational courses largely eliminated from current U.S. high schools, that's more and more difficult.
The kids in the bottom half, or perhaps bottom two-thirds, of the student body should be given courses appropriate for them. Not everybody can graduate from college. The fact is, way too many students who are poorly prepared and likely not suited for college work are encouraged to try to earn a college degree these days. The drop out rate among those is tragic. Why not design courses for them that will be useful and stop making them feel that they are losers because they could not keep up with the kids who are clearly better equipped to handle advanced academic classwork? The kind of vocational careers I am thinking about are useful and rewarding for many of our young people.
The problem is, we simply want to maintain the fiction that every kid can successfully complete a four year college curriculum. One very prominent person in America who might want to reconsider his position on this matter has the initials BHO.
AzWm
|
|
