The economy isn’t doing well, correct? The average American is going backwards, right? Isn’t that all we heard before the elections?
Well, in another post-election stunner, the Christian Science Monitor has chosen to share the truth with Americans, sadly almost two weeks after the nation went to the polls. In an article amazingly titled “A brisk rise in American wages; Pay rose faster than the cost of living for the first time in years” (h/t to Drudge), author Mark Trumbull wrote what many on the right have been claiming for quite some time:
American paychecks are rising again at a pace not seen since the 1990s.
The pay increase amounts to 4 percent on average over the past 12 months, and it comes at a very helpful time for millions of households.
Wait a minute. The press have been saying for years that wages are declining. How can this be? Trumbull continued:
Four percent may not sound like much, but you have to look back to 1997 to find a calendar year with a gain that big.
Equally significant, tamer energy prices mean that the "real" wage gains, after inflation, are above 3 percent for the past 12 months. That, too, hasn't happened since the 1990s, even though the economy has been expanding over the past five years.
Wait a minute. Doesn't this mean that wages are rising faster now than in the last three years under Clinton? Didn't the media tell us that was the greatest economic period known to mankind?
Shocking. Think such news relayed to the electorate prior to the elections might have had an impact on the results? What did Roger Daltrey say in the famous song by The Who? Anybody think that media control of information dissemination is totally out of hand?
As a post script, NBers should be aware that we have done our darnedest to keep you apprised of the truth concerning wages. Most recently, NewBusters published articles here and here on the subject.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Shouldn't the MSM start datin
November 20, 2006 - 12:32 ET by Chris NormanShouldn't the MSM start dating their reports with either BE or AE?
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Sounds like a job for Winston
November 20, 2006 - 13:13 ET by dscottSounds like a job for Winston Smith at the Ministry of Truth.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
No way. More good news for
November 20, 2006 - 12:33 ET by kwNo way. More good news for President Bush? Oh that's right, I didn't read his name in the text of this article. Another example, the small amount of good news ignores the words "President Bush". All bad news articles cite "President Bush" front and center.
kw,They didn't need to put &q
November 21, 2006 - 11:55 ET by JoeBobkw,
They didn't need to put "President Bush" in the text of the article - it's right there on the chart, don'tcha know? W. :-)
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
This is just the media buildi
November 20, 2006 - 12:37 ET by mattmThis is just the media building up evidence they can point to later to prove they're not biased.
It's sort of like crooked cor
November 20, 2006 - 12:49 ET by Chris NormanIt's akin to crooked corporations who amend and then backdate documents - and the MSM just hates those companies.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
This article and what it does
November 20, 2006 - 13:14 ET by ghotifunThis article and what it doesn't say is an example of why I rely on NB to disseminate the real issues of news stories.
Sadly, it seems that the economy wasn't much of an issue to voters, since most of them fell for the "Iraq's a disaster" theme spelled out night after night on the MSM attempts at news reporting. That and "macaca".
One really sad fact is that so many people view FNC as biased to the right and that we conservatives are being fed what we want to hear from FNC. People are so condittioned to believe the alphabets...
It's so sad!!!
Ghoti
November 20, 2006 - 13:25 ET by Noel SheppardG,
Don't kid yourself. 39 percent of voters felt that the economy was extremely import to their decision. Of these, 59 percent voted for Democrats. Furthermore, 37 percent of voters felt that the economy is not good; 74 percent of these voted for Dems. And, 13 percent said the economy is poor; 85 percent of these voted for Dems.
As such, there is NO QUESTION in my mind that if the media had been more honest about the currently strong economy, regardless of Iraq, the Reps would have easily kept both Houses. ns
Noel: I agree completely t
November 20, 2006 - 14:06 ET by ghotifunNoel:
I agree completely that economic issues are what most Americans feel is in our best interest. Getting the MSM outlets to evenly report on that topic is what ticks me off.
My father is a prime example of the belief that the country is "going to hell in a hand basket" economically. It's too easy for him NOT to believe that since that's all he's heard.
The point I was trying to make is that the alphabets' agenda wasn't to point out the tremendous economy. Their agenda was to oust President Bush at any cost.
The problem is, can we, as a country, afford that debt?
Ghoti
November 20, 2006 - 14:32 ET by Noel SheppardG,
Can we afford the current level of debt? Yes. No problem, because as a percentage of today's budget and today's GDP, it's not historically large. However, if we don't reform Social Security and Medicare soon, we won't be able to afford it. Not even close.
I figure we have ten years to reform our social program structure before the debt will become unmanageable. This is what makes our failure to address SS in 2005 so deplorable, and the Democrats' position on this issue bordering on immoral. ns
Noel: The"debt" I was refe
November 20, 2006 - 15:05 ET by ghotifunNoel:
The"debt" I was referring to is that the MSM was trying to get rid of W "at any cost". It's the debt the media is piling up that we can't afford. Sorry for the poorly worded analogy.
Thanks for the economics stats. I am convinced that the average blogger on this site is way more intelligent than on those on lib sites. Afterall, how smart does one have to be to have emotion as the sole basis of an argument!
Wait a minute. Doesn't this m
November 20, 2006 - 13:42 ET by Dave RWait a minute. Doesn't this mean that wages are rising faster now than in the last three years under Clinton?
It's even more amazing when you consider that the new congress hasn't even been sworn in yet and wages have already began increasing.
Can't wait to see what suddenly fixes itself next.
I think we are now seeing the results of the libs efforts to remove any and all economics education from government schools.
Dave
November 20, 2006 - 13:45 ET by Noel SheppardDave,
Well, let's not omit the obvious conclusion that employers must have been recently raising the wages they pay their employees due to their anticipation that the Dems would take over Congress and fix the economy. :-) ns
And it will interesting to wa
November 20, 2006 - 13:54 ET by dscottAnd it will interesting to watch the spin on raising the minimum wage when most of those people work in the restaurant/hospitality industry making $2/hr plus tips. You do realize they declare just enough tips to make up that difference between the base wage and the minimum wage? This is the biggest joke there is. The Dems will make their claim they gave everyone at the bottom a raise. What a joke. The teenagers and part time working seniors will be happy to have their ranks thinned a little to give the remainder a pay raise.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Dan
November 20, 2006 - 14:00 ET by Noel SheppardDan,
Well, I've got a different view on the minimum wage. My belief is that this impacts such a small percentage of employees and employers that it's a bad position for the Republicans to make a big issue of. What percentage of company's in America will be impacted by such an increase? Pretty small, right? Maybe less than 5 percent?
Yet, if the public believes this will be positive for workers, and there is little downside for the economy if at all, why fight it? ns
I agree, fighting it isn't wo
November 20, 2006 - 14:33 ET by dscottI agree, fighting it isn't worth the political capital. According to BLS 1.88 million people work at minimum wage out of 75 million workers. That's roughly 2.5%. I don't see it as a big hit on the economy, it won't even register a blip unless they go overboard to fulfill the "living wage" rhetoric of $10/hr. (I have a theory on why they shoot for $10/hr on living wage rhetoric, people won't like what I have to say)
It's a crass political scam by Dems to justify their other agendas as being good for the country and it makes them feel better for doing the "White" thing because all they are going to do is validate what the market has already determined, that being around $7 or $7.50/hr. Anything greater than this will cause job dislocations and force employers to find more labor saving means to get the job done.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Dan
November 20, 2006 - 14:37 ET by Noel SheppardDan,
Agreed. However, the larger point was the waste of energy on the part of Republicans to block this. If we both agree that it will impact few, but the public sees it as necessary, why not throw the public a bone? Why fight the public on such a trivial issue right before a crucial election?
If a Republican Congress would have passed a minimum wage hike, and Bush had let Rummy go before the elections, we wouldn't be talking about Pelosi and Dingy Harry right now. ns
Hind sight being 20/20 that (
November 20, 2006 - 14:51 ET by dscottHind sight being 20/20 that (minimum wage) might have been so by removing an issue, but then again with the MSM shilling for the Dems it would have be couched as a liberal victory and a divided Repub majority, thus the spin would say elect more Dems to get more legislation. I don't think the election swayed in any part on the minimum wage issue.
I doubt seriously if Rummy resigning prior to the elections would have accomplished anything other than emboldening more demands for resignations. They love to play pile on. Cheney being next to the top of their list. You did hear more noises saying Cheney's time is up? They (MSM and Dems) will keep floating that trial balloon occasionally until it occurs or use it as a means to tarnish the Admin. This tactic is nothing more than Politcal Terrorism. No, Rummy left at the right time, he pulled the rug out from under any hearings the Dems might want to hold on the Iraq issue. With the recommendations coming out from the Iraq study group and no Rummy, the whole atmosphere is "what do we need to do now" not "who can we blame for not having instant success".
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
thug money
November 20, 2006 - 14:40 ET by RackieI think labor unions use every rise in the minimum wage to negoitate/demand/threaten/force a raise in their hourly rates
Unions
November 20, 2006 - 14:46 ET by nkviking75From what I've been reading lately, it sounds as though a lot of union contracts are indexed to the minimum wage. If the minimum wage goes up, union wages automatically go up.
NK and Rackie
November 20, 2006 - 14:55 ET by Noel SheppardNK and Rackie,
This seems bizarre to me. As the minimum wage goes up so infrequently, why would unions index contracts to it rather than something like CPI? After all, the minimum wage was $1.60 in 1968. If it had just risen at the rate of inflation, it would be $9.28 today instead of $5.15. As such, unions that are tying their contracts to the minimum wage have been hurting their members for almost 40 years! ns
Unions and minimum wage
November 20, 2006 - 15:39 ET by nkviking75Noel, I'm still trying to find the article I read about union wages being indexed to the minimum wage. In the meantime, ask yourself why unions lobby so hard for a higher minimum wage when none of their members earn the minimum wage. They must have a stake in it. One would think a low minimum wage would make union membership seem more attractive.
Rush Saying Same Thing
November 20, 2006 - 16:15 ET by PSPCplRush is saying the same thing about the unions supporting this, especially the government unions. The real issue is that this will hurt those companies that hire workers with a minimum of education and skills, e.g., Walmart, Kmart, etc. It will also hurt the chances of someone who is breaking into the labor market as an unskilled person: a small business will hire someone with skills at the new wage level before it will hire someone without skills. Who hires more unskilled people? Small businesses do, contrary to popular belief.
nkviking, I've heard of the
November 20, 2006 - 17:18 ET by John in CAnkviking, I've heard of the automatic escalators in some union contracts. What better way of extorting wage hikes from union infiltrated industry than to have it legislated by the Congress. Saves the cost and acrimony of union contract negotiations and a possible strike.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
Unions / Minimum Wage
November 20, 2006 - 20:08 ET by BlondeJohn,
The thing you have to remember about unions is that they'll use anyone's increase to jack management for their own purposes.
I spoke to a finance person at one of the larger municipalities in South Florida. That city had five separate unions. In a manner that sounds collusive, the police union's contract always came up for renewal first. Then the fire fighters, sanitation workers and the other ones (don't remember which at this point) all pointed to the police union's increase as the starting point for their demands. (And please note, I'm not saying the first responders are undeserving of a good wage). But if that union get's 8%, then the sanitation guys think they should get at least that much.
The unions will use any increase in the minimum wage the exact same way. "Minimum wage has been increased by X%, therefore our contract should be increased by X+3%.
Well tyeh city dont work on j
November 21, 2006 - 02:42 ET by Dan The Man 2Well tyeh city dont work on just one department and those Police dont work alone. Without streets you have no transport, without water you cant fight fires, and so on. I bristle when just teh police and fire get raises. Sore subject. Support needs raises also. My city doesnt work by union btw. There is a police and fire association but unions do not rule.
Next time your garbage is picked up and the water flows from the tap thank teh average city worker.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
You can't just look at the nu
November 20, 2006 - 15:58 ET by Steve L.You can't just look at the number of people earning minimum wage. You must also look at those people in the range between the current minimum wage and the new minimum wage. Also, those people who have worked their way up from minimum wage to a small distance above the new minimum would expect a raise as well. Who wants to have spent a couple of years learning a job only to be making the same as the new kid on the block? Additionally, there are union pay scales that are tied to the minimum wage. Increases in it create increases in union pay.
At some point, it does become something that the Repblicans will need to resist.
Wage plunge began in 1997? Oh my.
November 20, 2006 - 15:09 ET by Gary HallNoel, you accurately noted: "Wait a minute. Doesn't this mean that wages are rising faster now than in the last three years under Clinton? Didn't the media tell us that was the greatest economic period known to mankind?"
If one takes a good look at the chart (any chance you can get that posted?) in the article you linked, it rather clearly illustrates that weekly wage growth, adjusted to accommodate inflation, took a steep dive beginning in about 1997, continuing until about the beginning of 2000. This certainly suggests that the great hyped up bull [dot.com bubble] market - for which the Democrats want to hold onto as "the era of warm mushy feeling economic bliss" wasn't providing what the MSM has been pounding us with for the past 5-6 years, was it?
Reminded me of the little piece that slipped into the NY Times back on March 20, 2006":
"If you look at the numbers, the 1990's was a bad decade for young black men, even though it had the best labor market in 30 years," said Harry J. Holzer, an economist at Georgetown University and co-author, with Peter Edelman and Paul Offner, of "Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young Men" (Urban Institute Press, 2006).
Has the MSM actually presented anything of truth to it's audience?
Gary
November 20, 2006 - 15:23 ET by Noel SheppardGary,
Your wish is my command. :-) ns
Noel - thanks
November 20, 2006 - 15:26 ET by Gary HallA picture tells a thousand words. (it's already in my wallet - handy for that big T-day party discussion). (;~> gh
Gary
November 20, 2006 - 15:28 ET by Noel SheppardGary,
I'm glad to have made your Thanksgiving celebration more controversial! :-) ns
well...NS
November 20, 2006 - 15:39 ET by Gary Hallwell...Noel... gloat all you want (kidding, of course).. but just like the arctic is sure to get really cold this winter..a little controversy in my weekend was already inevitable.
Even have my little hurricane chart handy - right side shows "fear" - radically increasing number of hurricanes for last 30+ years. Then you open up the left side fold - shows radically decreasing number of hurricanes since from the 1940's to the 70's. I had a lot of fun with that one a couple of weeks ago. Oh, how I hate myself for baiting that one. Someone actually said, "oh, that's bs, Gary. If that were true, that stupid chart [of yours] would have been all over the news." hee hee.
Thanks for adding to the fun, for sure. :-) gh
Actually this is indicating
November 20, 2006 - 15:38 ET by dscottActually this is indicating is that wage growth begins to decline prior (almost 3 years) to the end of the economic cycle. Is this consistent with prior business cycles?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
The dems are already attempti
November 20, 2006 - 16:01 ET by NazarethThe dems are already attempting to take credit for the increases. If it's good, it's their doing, if it's bad, and obviously their fault, they deny it- guess I'm stating the obvious, but oh well.
http://sacredscoop.com
Let's burst this bubble quick
November 20, 2006 - 16:28 ET by FastEdLet's burst this bubble quickly - there is madness to the msm (Lsm) way of reporting. If wages go up, and stated mimimum wages don't, then you are making the point that mim. wage NEED to go up as well. If wages and then take-home goes up, meaning more spending, then there must be MORE corporate greed, coupled with unfair wage disparity, between workers and mgmt. THEN, with more money in the pocket, average person, will drive more, to buy more, meaning polluting more, more global warming. This all occures now, 'cause back then mis-direct pres was in office, people were supposed to get more from demo-libs and there wasn't any global warming, 'cause her thighness and hubby had enough power to ignore it, like they did with algore.
Then, you need to remember that this kind of news, distracts us from what is going on in Iraq - think of those possibilities.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
MinWageUnions
November 20, 2006 - 16:52 ET by Rackiehttp://www.imakenews.com/cppa/e
This explains alot about the effects of the rise of the minumum wage on different classes of workers. Really worth your time to read it.
Thank you Nancy, Chuck, Harry
November 21, 2006 - 01:40 ET by SvenThank you Nancy, Chuck, Harry, Steny and all other Dems!! Not only is the air a little cleaner today, but my wallet feels fatter!