It's hard to tell right now. Some say it's getting better, while others say it's getting worse. One thing to look at is the declining housing market. Also, Ford and GM have been struggling. On the other hand, Dow Jones is at a record high, the stock market is improving, and gas prices are coming down.

I think it has been getting better.

A rise in the Dow-Jones often just means the workers are taking it in the shorts and the capitalist parasites are lighting their Cohiba Espl

I am giving the same answer as I did in the other forum.  It is doing about the same as always.

The economy is a constant cycle.  It bounces between growth and recession.  The longer and faster the growth, the longer and harder the recession.

The one thing that makes me feel positive about this period is the fact that we have now had a long period of slow but steady growth.  And yes, it is only a matter of time until we have another recession.  It is as predictable as the rain.  However, when we do have another one, it will likely a slow recession.

President Clinton gave us a period of sharp growth.  And that was good, but it also lead to a sharp abrupt recession.  In 2000-2001, we had a crashing recession that badly shook up the economy.  Our stock market is only now recovering to the point where it was in the late 1990's.

Currently, we are still seeing slow steady growth in the economy.  Unenployment is still declining, interest rates are slowly rising, sales are slowly rising, and inflation is staying pretty level.  However, we are creaping closer and closer to the 7 year mark.  Traditionally, our economy moves in 7 year cycles.  If that trend continues, by 2009, we will probably start to slip into a recession.

And this can't be blamed on Congress, or the President, or anything else.  It is simply the way things are.  I find no fault in presidents Carter, Bush Sr, or Clinton for causing the recessions that started during their terms.  They simply were the people in charge when the cycle hit.  But some people simply like to place blame.

Definately worse. Hugh defects, real wages in the toilet, jobs being outsources, etc. Many years ago, a family needed only 1 paid worker to survive. Now, even with 2 paid workers in the family, it is a struggle. Heath insurence is sky-high, and the minimum wage hasn't even been raised in something like 10 years. People are working longer hours for much less.



Cat

Definately worse. Hugh defects, real wages in the toilet, jobs being outsources, etc. Many years ago, a family needed only 1 paid worker to survive. Now, even with 2 paid workers in the family, it is a struggle. Heath insurence is sky-high, and the minimum wage hasn't even been raised in something like 10 years. People are working longer hours for much less.



Cat

When you mention it used to take only one full-time income to buy a house and raise a family, the right-wingers never mention the real reasons this was the case: organized labor, a production-based economy, and a fair tax system.  The Righties always say, "It's taxes, it's because of taxes, gotta cut taxes!"  The right-wing pundits use it to further the core of their agenda: tax cuts for the rich.
Reagan's policies actually raised taxes on people who were struggling to buy a house and raise a family!  Reagan was about tax cuts--tax cuts for the rich.  So is Dubya.  The people are catching on, but decades too late!
::)

The economy is better for the haves.  For the people who get up and go to work for a living it has been stagnant for the past 30 years, and will continue to go down until they stop identifying themselves with The Donald, Jack Welch, and Lee Iaccoca, and realize that economically they are much closer to the ghetto than the boardroom.

The economy is better for the haves.  For the people who get up and go to work for a living it has been stagnant for the past 30 years, and will continue to go down until they stop identifying themselves with The Donald, Jack Welch, and Lee Iaccoca, and realize that economically they are much closer to the ghetto than the boardroom.

Karma +1

When you mention it used to take only one full-time income to buy a house and raise a family, the right-wingers never mention the real reasons this was the case: organized labor, a production-based economy, and a fair tax system.  The Righties always say, "It's taxes, it's because of taxes, gotta cut taxes!"  The right-wing pundits use it to further the core of their agenda: tax cuts for the rich.


But there is one major impact that people do not consider when women started to enter the workforce 30 years ago.  That is that they left less of the higher paying jobs available for men.  That often forced more men to work at lower wages, which meant that their spouses had to get jobs also to take up the slack.

Now I am not placing any blame on this at all.  It is simply the way things are.  Women entering the workforce in large numbers simply made the labor pool grow larger, which caused more people to fight for the jobs that were available.  A lot of job areas went from having to firght to find workers, to having more workers then they knew what to do with.

A good example to see this is in computers.  At one time (as recent as 1995), computer experts could get premium wages, and almost any benefits that they wanted.  There were very few of them available, and everybody needed them.  Now there is a hugh glut in computer technicians.  In the last 5 years, hundreds of thousands of them got MCSE and other certifications, leading to 200 (or more) people applying for every job opening.  Wages then fell to the point where a company would hire 2 or 3 "basic qualified" MCSE technicians instead of 1 highly qualified network expert.  And those of us that were more highly qualified found ourselves trying to fight for jobs at the $25 an hour rate with people willing to work for half that amount.

There is a strong relationship between wages, jobs available, and the size of the workforce.  Up until the 1500's, there were normally more people available (because of slavery and feudalism) then there were jobs.  This made slaves cheap, and made wages dirt cheap with the exception of highly trained artisans.  When the plagues swept through Europe though, this suddenly reversed.  People were a scarce commodity, and Europe saw both slavery and feudalism die off for the most part.  This helped lead to the Renisance, helped by the fact that more people now had excess money to spend on other things, and improve their standard of living.

I guarantee, if we had a plague sweep through the country (or world) and kill off 10% of the population, we would see huge increases in wages.  But when this country has over 300 million people, wages will remain low and unenployment a problem unless there is demand for 250 million jobs.

And outsourcing is not the evil that a lot of people think it is.  The only jobs outsourced tend to be the most basic and low wage jobs.  Most "Help Desk" operators in the US only make $6-8 an hour in the first place.  A person could make that much at Wal-Mart.  You do not see many companies "outsourcing" their engineering departments, or their R&D departments.  They only outsource their most basic and lowest paid departments.

All the points you make here are valid.  They are also strong arguments in favor of stronger labor unions.  Whether it is a glut of women entering the workforce, a glut of computer technicians graduating from college, or an efficient way to offshore accountants and engineers, the bosses will use it to maximize profits and executive pay while depressing wages, benefits, and opportunities for workers.  The reigning propoaganda from a-holes such as Thomas Friedman (who is  considered a "liberal," that's how nazi-fied our country has become) is that the changes we see--al of which hurt the proletariat--are as unopposable as the laws of physics (hence The World is Flat).  Anyone who argues for more security and better wages gets instantly scolded about how it will make us "less competitive."

Less competitive than whom?  Western Europe and Japan?  Who makes better cars?  Germany, Japan, or Detroit?
::)

All the points you make here are valid.  They are also strong arguments in favor of stronger labor unions.  Whether it is a glut of women entering the workforce, a glut of computer technicians graduating from college, or an efficient way to offshore accountants and engineers, the bosses will use it to maximize profits and executive pay while depressing wages, benefits, and opportunities for workers.


This affects not just employment and workers, but every aspect of the economy.

For a good example, think about Televisions.  In the early 1980's, the best TVs probably came from Zenith, Magnavox, and Curtis-Mathis.  These were all outstending products, but they were also all made in the US, so sold for much higher then the imports.  At about this time, companies like Sony, Sanyo, Goldstar, and others started to hit the market.  Prices then started to fall.  When somebody went to buy a TV, they would look at a Zenith that cost $400, then at the Sanyo which sold for half as much.  The consumers then voted with their pocketbook and bought the Sanyo.

The end result is that by the mid 1990's, every US made television company had gone out of business.  Magnavox was closed in 1995.  Zenith was sold to LG in 1995.  Curtis-Mathis went belly-up in 1996.  The same thing is seen in every aspect of our economy.  Cars, motorcycles, computers, even clothes.

The need to maximize profits is one of the keys of a company staying in business, especially with the increasing pressure from overseas.  Chrysler did not face benkrupcy 20 years ago because of wages, it was increasing pressure from overseas companies like Volkswagon and Honda.  I bet almost nobody thinks of "buying American" when they shop for things.  They simply choose the cheapest item available and go with that.  Or they go with the latest "fad", buying it because it is what everybody else is buying.

This is one of the reasons I normally encourage people to "buy local".  Dell may sell great computers.  Circuit City may have a large selection.  But of your local computer store or locally owned and operated electronics store closes it's door, it will likey not reopen.  And every time you spend money at one of those, it removes money from your local economy.  And who needs your money more?  Joe Bob's computer repair and Billy's Appliances, or Best Buy?

"Buy local" campaigns are big in my area.  The problem is a lot of families on tight budgets say the can only afford to buy where the products are cheapest.  In the LONG term it's better for the economy to keep Bob's or Billy's in business.  There also HIDDEN costs in that $7.00 toaster from Target.  However, most Americans are too stressed for cash these days to sacrifice immediate savings for them now for long-term economic health.  I don't begrudge the consumer in this case. 

It is not the "free market" alone that makes the Big Box stores cheaper than the Mom & Pops.  Corporations such as Wal-Mart pay the government to put its thumb on scales in their favor. 

If the Japanese could make a car or a television twice as good and half as expensive as American companies, whasn't it corporate America's responsibility to pull their sh*t together?  Apparently not.  The capitalist has no allegiance to America.  If Zenith can't cut the mustard, he's not going to take it in the shorts waiting for Zenith to make products as good as Sony.  He's just going to divest in Zenith and invest in Sony.  After the government bailed out Chrysler, Chrysler went right back to making crap cars.  It was more important to GM in the '80s to disempower the workers by closing the Michigan plants and putting the workers out of business than it was to incentivize American auto workers to stay loyal to the company and make the best product they could.  No way, that would be imitating the Japanese!  Hey, Tojo, whooo won Second World War you so smot! 

American capitalists had no loyalty to anything but lining their own pockets.  The Milton Friedman--Ayn Rand candyland told them it was their highest calling and their divine duty to get stinking rich no matter what it did to the rest of America. 

A quarter century later, you've got CEO pay 400 times higher than average worker pay and a country that is totally bankrupt.  The economic numbers may fluctuate a bit, and when they go in Bush's favor, he gets out there and says "We got a strong economy."  He does so even when the numbers are NOT in his favor.  The problem is long-term.  American family debt is at an all time high.  Young people are saddled with student debts that ruin their credit.  Old people can't pay for the life-saving medicines they need.  Economic strife contributes to marital problems and raises the divorce rate.  Medical bills are the most common reason people file for bankruptcy, thus our nazi legislature outlawed bankruptcy protection for everybody except the rich.

Capitalist greed wrecked this country.  The capitalists hire pundits from Heritage to tell us we are worse off than we've been since the Great Depression because we're lazy, immoral, make bad choices, and fail to take "personal responsibility."  It works too.  One of our inthe00s members called America an "ungrateful country."  To whom we should be greatful and for what he did not say.

I remember Howard Dean in 2003 shouting, "I DON'T WANT TO LISTEN TO RUSH LIMBAUGH ANYMORE!  I DON'T WANT TO LISTEN TO THE FUNDAMENTALIST PREACHERS ANYMORE!"  Thus, the corporate propaganda media, and their lapdog, the DLC, destroyed Dean.  Called him a nutcase.  Dean was calling for a profound shift in our priorities.  What messages about ourselves are we going to accept?  We've accepted the rhetoric of the far right and the preachers who serve the far right since 1981.  Look where it has gotten us.  The Bush crime family has stolen a trillion dollars from our country, and millions of hard-working Americans get threatened by bill collectors every day. 

It's time to not only give the Republican party its marching orders in November.  It is also time to kill off the entire right-wing brace of lies.  "Conservative" Democrats and the DLC will only return Republicans to power in 2008, they will also stay subservient to the corporate agenda, which is the real threat to America...not "radical Islam."
::)

"Buy local" campaigns are big in my area.  The problem is a lot of families on tight budgets say the can only afford to buy where the products are cheapest.  In the LONG term it's better for the economy to keep Bob's or Billy's in business.  There also HIDDEN costs in that $7.00 toaster from Target.  However, most Americans are too stressed for cash these days to sacrifice immediate savings for them now for long-term economic health.  I don't begrudge the consumer in this case. 

It is not the "free market" alone that makes the Big Box stores cheaper than the Mom & Pops.  Corporations such as Wal-Mart pay the government to put its thumb on scales in their favor. 

If the Japanese could make a car or a television twice as good and half as expensive as American companies, whasn't it corporate America's responsibility to pull their sh*t together?  Apparently not.  The capitalist has no allegiance to America.  If Zenith can't cut the mustard, he's not going to take it in the shorts waiting for Zenith to make products as good as Sony.  He's just going to divest in Zenith and invest in Sony.  After the government bailed out Chrysler, Chrysler went right back to making crap cars.  It was more important to GM in the '80s to disempower the workers by closing the Michigan plants and putting the workers out of business than it was to incentivize American auto workers to stay loyal to the company and make the best product they could.  No way, that would be imitating the Japanese!  Hey, Tojo, whooo won Second World War you so smot! 


But as Abraham Lincoln himself said, "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

My problem is that in modern America, labor is often the problem.  I agree in general with unions.  Most especially in areas where work is dangerous, or workers are being badly exploited.  But I also feel it is the responsibility of the union to dissolve (or cut back) it's pressure once things stabilize.  But that never happens.  Instead we see the greed and corruption that they place on Business happinging in the union.  I know that I have not forgotten all of the scandals about union pension funds.

If you want to see how corrupt Unions can be, look at the Teamsters under (and after) Jimmy Hoffa and Frank Fitzsimmons.  Rotten, corrupt, and only out for itself.  The workers be damned, as the big bosses in the union pulled down 6 figure incomes (James P. Hoffa makes $250k, not counting "bonus").  It is one thing to "represent the workers", it is quite another to take up to 20% of their income for "dues", which they have to pay if they want to keep working.

Companies have to be profitable.  Without profit, there is no business.  We have had many examples of "Profitless Business" in the past.  How many cars did the Soviet Union or East Germany export (other then to their client states)?  Not very many.  The products were cheap, and quality and workmanship shoddy.  And in the days of company-supported 401k, workers have even more incentive to help keep a company profitable" a big chunk of their retirement is based on company growth.

And most people simply do not care about quality.  They only shop price.  The Japanese cars of the 1960's until the early 1980's were normally worse then the American product.  But they were cheap.  You will rarely see 25 year old TV sets from Japan work as well as my 1982 Curtis-Mathis.  They have less then half the features, and lasted only half as long.  But tell that to somebody who is shopping for one.  All they care about is price.

And the same goes for the "Big Box" stores.  Most people simply do not think about local economy, or quality.  They simply want to get everything in one place, cheap.  This is why so many people have press-board furniture and cheap appliances.  Who wants to shell out $200 for an American made walnut bookcase, when a pressboard one from China costs only $25?  Why shell out $300 for a Kitchenaid mixer, when there is one from Taiwan next to it for $75?

Of course with less sales, there is less demand for a product.  And with less demand, you either cut wages or you cut jobs.  Otherwise, you end up by cutting all the wages and jobs, because the company is bankrupt.

And this is not a recent trend.  Americans have always tended to buy the cheapest thing they can.  I know a doctor that makes 7 figures a year, yet he buys Canadian Club and shops at Wal-Mart.  He lives in a $2.5 million home and has a limmo and gets a new Mustang every year.  Yet he will drive 3 miles to save 2 cents per gallon for gasoline.  He will buy an investment property for $500,000, then argue with the contractor over every nickle and dime in the rennovation cost.

And he is no different from anybody else in this country.  After all, how often do you go out of your way to buy a more expensive item, just because it is made local (or domestic)?  And when you come right down to it, how many things really are made domestically anymore?  I used to have a choice of over 20 companies in the US that made computer motherboards.  Today, there is only 1: Intel (and even half of those are made overseas).  If I want to use a computer with an AMD processor, I have no choice but to buy one from overseas.

And interesting thing about Detroit and the "Big 3".  While they were loosing their shirts fighting with the UAW, we suddenly had car companies from Japan starting to make cars in the US.  The difference is that they did not build them in Detroit, they built them in places like Fremont California, Alabama, Kentucky, and South Carolina.  A few years ago, Hyndaui built a plant in the area and revitalized a town that had an average 35% unemployment rate.  They pay less in wages then in Detroit, but they pay almost 50% more then most jobs in the area do.  Locally, we joke about the exportation of jobs to the "Third World: Alabama".

I could go for union-bashing if more than 10% of private sector labor was unionized.  When the Right started its undeclared war on the middle class, they knew they had to crush labor unions.  They also knew they had to get folks who have to work for a buck to forever associate labor unions with corruption and Jimmy Hoffa.  Mushroom, your last post demonstrates they have succeeded in both.

I do not think it's uniquely American to bargain hunt.  Wherever in the world the consumer has a choice, the consumer will weigh price against quality.  If the consumer has very little to spend, he or she will sacrifice quality in favor of lower price.

If you wanted American consumers to purchase higher quality, more expensive, American-made products, you would have to insure X things:
1. Obviously, there have to be American-made products to purchase.  They're a little scarce in consumer electronics!
2. The American worker has to earn enough money for the purchasing power to buy the higher quality products.
3. To insure the first two, the American labor force must have bargaining power with management.  That means organized labor--labor unions!

Henry Ford paid his assembly line workers five bucks a day so they could buy Ford cars, the product they were producing.  As Barbara Ehrenrech demonstates in Nickled and Dimed, Wal-Mart doesn't pay its employees enough to purchase the products Wal-Mart sells--the cheapest products on the market made by Chinese slave labor!!!!  Henry Ford may have been a despicable, antisemitic little tinkerer, but he was a saint compared to Jack Welch, the retired GE chairman, who declared the ultimate factory would be built on a barge set to dock in the country offering the cheapest labor costs!  Henry Ford in 1915 was making sound business decision to favor management, not labor.  Ford would have paid starvation wages had he found it advantageous for his profits.

We're suffering from what I call end-stage Reagan disease.  Since Reagan smashed Patco, we've all been propagandized against unions and in favor of management.  Popular sign at workplaces in the '80s:
Rule no. 1: The boss is always right.
Rule no. 2: If the boss is wrong, see rule no. 1
That was not just a novelty gimmick, that was and is the reigning philosophy of labor relations in America.  The U.S. is turning into an economic joke.  Turns out the boss is not always right!

A company is more than just the sum of its parts.  If labor is underpaid, insecure, nervous, and ready to be either fired or jump ship at any time, the quality of goods and services diminishes.  When this country was at its strongest, there was more of a sense that we were all in it together.  It's not just labor that has no bargaining power, it's management too.  An executive making seven figures a year isn't worried financially, but if the company isn't loyal to him, he's not going to be loyal to the company.  A whole generation has had the "every man for himself" Ayn Rand hogowash drilled into their heads. 

Chainsaw Al Dunlap was a corporate media hero because he had the guts to fire 30,000 workers and close down factories.  Then he leaves and goes onto the next company like a hired hitman.  We've been told that what's good for the stock market is good for the country's economic health.  The two do not go hand in hand.  The Dow-Jones hits record highs---and poverty in America hits record highs not seen since the Great Depression.  This is why fascism doesn't work.  When you treat human beings as no more than economic figures, you end up with a desperate, hostile, and miserable nation.  Corporate management has a gap in its reasoning.  To them, all that matters is the shareholders and the customers.  The workers can go to hell if they don't like what the management does.  That's the nature of the corporate beast.  That's why you need a union.

Unions are susceptible to the same pathologies of human nature.  Within unions there must be checks and balances as well.  However, the union can do what management cannot do--even when it is in management's better interest--provide a hand for labor in the power game. 

There's a double standard: when Jimmy Hoffa screwed over the workers, it was called "corruption."  When Al Dunlap screwed over the workers it was called "efficiency" or "right-sizing."  However, more often than not, Hoffa did right by the working man.  Al Dunlap, on the other hand, not only screwed over the workers at Sunbeam-Oster.  He screwed over the shareholders too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Dunlap