Signs of declining economic security

[j-mac]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream.Survey data exclusive to The Associated Press points to an increasingly globalized U.S. economy, the widening gap between rich and poor and loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs as reasons for the trend.
The findings come as President Barack Obama tries to renew his administration's emphasis on the economy, saying in recent speeches that his highest priority is to "rebuild ladders of opportunity" and reverse income inequality.
Hardship is particularly on the rise among whites, based on several measures. Pessimism among that racial group about their families' economic futures has climbed to the highest point since at least 1987. In the most recent AP-GfK poll, 63 percent of whites called the economy "poor."
"I think it's going to get worse," said Irene Salyers, 52, of Buchanan County, Va., a declining coal region in Appalachia. Married and divorced three times, Salyers now helps run a fruit and vegetable stand with her boyfriend, but it doesn't generate much income. They live mostly off government disability checks.

Exclusive: Signs of declining economic security

Was this the change you liberal progressives were waiting for? Was this the plan? All this talk, and excuse making for a failed liberal agenda of bringing all boats down in the name of "fairness" is bull****! We are NOT better off with Obama in office! We are NOT recovering under his administration, because that was never the plan. We are in decline, ushered in, and sped up by this progressive trash in the WH for the purpose of bringing this country down, because he can't stand what our place in the world was.

Don't agree with me? I couldn't care less! IF all you want to do is attack, then do us all a favor and don't post in this thread. If you want to discuss the conclusion of the AP report, then I am listening.

 

[ItAin'tFree]

Food stamps are stimulus! LOL.
Tax increases are good for the economy. LOL
A list of absurd statements such as those made by liberals would be more than a mile long but they are exactly why we are in the mess we are in.

But no, liberals will not be satisfied until our country is in complete ruins. It's been their aim all along as near everything they push for has proven itself failure in other parts of the world already, if not here. But still, they insist.

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Was this the change you liberal progressives were waiting for? Was this the plan? All this talk, and excuse making for a failed liberal agenda of bringing all boats down in the name of "fairness" is bull****! We are NOT better off with Obama in office! We are NOT recovering under his administration, because that was never the plan. We are in decline, ushered in, and sped up by this progressive trash in the WH for the purpose of bringing this country down, because he can't stand what our place in the world was.

Don't agree with me? I couldn't care less! IF all you want to do is attack, then do us all a favor and don't post in this thread. If you want to discuss the conclusion of the AP report, then I am listening.

In high school I had a teacher that regularly discussed economics before class started, and when we discussed the future of labor in the United States he told us to expect that each of us would average about five to seven careers throughout our working careers. Gone was the job security of our parents and grandparents who had a reasonable expectation that they would work at a single employer their whole lives and enjoy the job security that came with it.

Those discussions took place in 1999. To act as if this trend is something that has happened over the last few years, rather than the last three or four decades, is foolish.

As for the article, I am not surprised at all of the findings. With the emphasis on capital over the recent decades, labor is no longer that important when companies can have laborers in developing nations build their products at a fraction of the price of their American counterparts. Along with the prevalence of robotics, the manpower necessary to manufacture goods is drastically less than what was needed in post World War II America.

In order to better compete in the global market education is now the key to prosperity. Now no longer does a college degree guarantee success, but in order to do well one must have a post-undergraduate work. Unfortunately, this means that blue collar workers of the future will become something of a perpetual underclass with little chance of upward mobility. It is sad, but that is capitalism for you.

 

[zimmer]

Was this the change you liberal progressives were waiting for? Was this the plan? All this talk, and excuse making for a failed liberal agenda of bringing all boats down in the name of "fairness" is bull****! We are NOT better off with Obama in office! We are NOT recovering under his administration, because that was never the plan. We are in decline, ushered in, and sped up by this progressive trash in the WH for the purpose of bringing this country down, because he can't stand what our place in the world was.

Don't agree with me? I couldn't care less! IF all you want to do is attack, then do us all a favor and don't post in this thread. If you want to discuss the conclusion of the AP report, then I am listening.

I waited a day to see how the Demokrats would respond to Obama's abysmal failure.
They haven't.

That says volumes. Their lack of response illustrates clearly Obama has failed miserably, and for that they have no defense.

 

[minnie616]

In high school I had a teacher that regularly discussed economics before class started, and when we discussed the future of labor in the United States he told us to expect that each of us would average about five to seven careers throughout our working careers. Gone was the job security of our parents and grandparents who had a reasonable expectation that they would work at a single employer their whole lives and enjoy the job security that came with it.

Those discussions took place in 1999. To act as if this trend is something that has happened over the last few years, rather than the last three or four decades, is foolish.

As for the article, I am not surprised at all of the findings. With the emphasis on capital over the recent decades, labor is no longer that important when companies can have laborers in developing nations build their products at a fraction of the price of their American counterparts. Along with the prevalence of robotics, the manpower necessary to manufacture goods is drastically less than what was needed in post World War II America.

In order to better compete in the global market education is now the key to prosperity. Now no longer does a college degree guarantee success, but in order to do well one must have a post-undergraduate work. Unfortunately, this means that blue collar workers of the future will become something of a perpetual underclass with little chance of upward mobility. It is sad, but that is capitalism for you.

Well said.
I well remember over 30 years ago when my oldest child was still quite young that my generation was last generation that would be better off financially than our parents generation.

We are now a global society and with the ease of hiring overseas our country and our younger generation has paid dearly.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I often wonder why members of competing political parties always blame the seated President for every woe? Is that what the Presidency is, a whipping boy, a scapegoat for whatever ails the nation?

You do know the President has very little control over the workings of the nation. Yes, he "guides the ship of state" but only so much as his party, and the opposing party, let him. He has some control over the agencies under the Executive branch, but not as much as people think since it is really run by civil servants who are there regardless of which party controls the White house and are bound by the Act's which created them.

He can only suggest, and then try to convince, Congress to go along with whatever plan he sees as helping the nation while he is in office. But Congress is controlled by special interests who pay members very well through private "donations" and PAC campaign support to do what they want in every situation. Recent example? Health care; the Democrats controlled both Houses when Obama proposed a measure that would create a system very similar to Canada's. Congressional leaders balked, and forced him to accept an "advisory committee" made up of Health Insurance providers, Big Pharma, and the AMA and we ended up with "Obamacare."

Our economy is in the state it is because Corporate America likes it that way. Under the current set-up they make all the profits with little risk; government will now bail them out despite what the people want. Companies are welll aware America still has a wealth of resources, including a large population with all the skills and capability to handle any industrial employment. Still, Corporations know it is cheaper to build factories in developing nations and outsource labor there too. They blame unions as a PR move, but even without unions they know American's won't work a 12 hour day for $1.50 per hour. They also know they won't have to face environmental regulations for environmental destruction, or high fixed costs for utilities and maintenance, or other major costs of operating in the USA.

Investment Banks need fiat money, it allows them to juggle such funds in order to take control of the real wealth of our nation, land and the resources it contains. They don't care about how inflation affects the common citizen, they have economists to explain "how it is good for the country." Inflation hardly affects the rich, their investments bring in enough to allow them to shrug inflation off.

So why do we focus our blame on whichever President holds office? It's been a long time since any President has held real power to affect our nation. They are just tools of special interests, serving to focus ire away from the real sources of our problems.

 

[zimmer]

We are now a global society and with the ease of hiring overseas our country and our younger generation has paid dearly.

Global, schmobal.

We had it all, and pissed much of it away by following idiotic European socialist policies... a form of economic HIV.

The fruits of the socialists (Demokrats) bending over the nation time and again... and giving us one good one after another.

No whining... Enjoy!

 

[fmw]

Adverse is correct in the sense that the President has nearly nothing at all to do with the state of the economy. The government can't fix an ailing economy. It simply can't. Globalization is the cause of our current state of affairs. We decided to become a consumer economy and we sent our manufacturing and jobs and much of our wealth abroad. Globalization has caused some economic leveling between countries. The wealthy ones have gotten poorer and the poor ones have gotten wealthier. The only thing the government might do to help is impose some draconian import duties. That would raise the price of imported goods and, perhaps, begin to motivate businesses to start bringing manufacturing and agriculture back home. The only alternative I see is just more of the same. This has been going on for a long time with only a serious blip in the 90's because of the internet bubble. It won't get fixed overnight and certainly won't get fixed by a President.

 

[minnie616]

Global, schmobal.

We had it all...

No whining... Enjoy!

Hey, I'm not whining.
My generation is enjoying the wealth.
My children will inherit a nice egg.

 

[TheNextEra]

Was this the change you liberal progressives were waiting for? Was this the plan? All this talk, and excuse making for a failed liberal agenda of bringing all boats down in the name of "fairness" is bull****! We are NOT better off with Obama in office! We are NOT recovering under his administration, because that was never the plan. We are in decline, ushered in, and sped up by this progressive trash in the WH for the purpose of bringing this country down, because he can't stand what our place in the world was.

Don't agree with me? I couldn't care less! IF all you want to do is attack, then do us all a favor and don't post in this thread. If you want to discuss the conclusion of the AP report, then I am listening.

Again this was mentioned, however, this has been the trend for decades. This didn't just pop up in 2008 when Obama became president. This is the result of hiring overseas, global economy, etc.

My question is why did the GOP (you know the people you seem to worship) do NOTHING about this? They have had the reigns as well. Funny how you blame "progressives" yet have nothing to say about the GOP that have stood by and let this happen as well.

BTW, this isn't due to "progressive" ideas alone. This has also been done by greed, outsourcing, and the worship of the almighty dollar.

My parents remember a time when companies didn't care JUST about profit, but also what was good for America and the American worker. Those times are long gone and what we are left with is the wake of greed. Greed isn't exclusive to one party or political ideology.

You can disagree with me all you want, but that is the truth and it seems most conservatives and liberals alike want to blame the other without looking in the mirror.

 

[Samhain]

Well said.
I well remember over 30 years ago when my oldest child was still quite young that my generation was last generation that would be better off financially than our parents generation.

We are now a global society and with the ease of hiring overseas our country and our younger generation has paid dearly.

I disagree. There is still plenty of opportunities for upward mobility.

I come from a family, with 2 brothers, where my dad worked two jobs as a mechanic( didn't graduate high school ) and my mom stayed at home( graduated high school ). My youngest brother just started college, and my older brother and I were better off financially than my parents our 2nd year out of college. We were never on welfare nor did we receive food stamps, but they lived within their means. Additionally, I've been with the same company for 14 years and my brother has been with the same for 12.

The American dream is still there for those willing to put in the time and effort. Sometimes it takes generations for dramatic improvement, but nobody said it was supposed to be easy.

 

[TheNextEra]

I disagree. There is still plenty of opportunities for upward mobility.

I come from a family, with 2 brothers, where my dad worked two jobs as a mechanic( didn't graduate high school ) and my mom stayed at home( graduated high school ). My youngest brother just started college, and my older brother and I were better off financially than my parents our 2nd year out of college. We were never on welfare nor did we receive food stamps, but they lived within their means. Additionally, I've been with the same company for 14 years and my brother has been with the same for 12.

The American dream is still there for those willing to put in the time and effort. Sometimes it takes generations for dramatic improvement, but nobody said it was supposed to be easy.

That is the exception, not the norm. Yes, people do move up, but it's not easy and a lot of time it requires connections.

Is it impossible? No, but let's not pretend that it can happen to everyone. As for companies, again, that's not the norm now and you know it.

 

[ItAin'tFree]

Globalization? LOL. How long has it been since we have not been in a global economy?

We're in the mess we are in because we did it to ourselves. We overtaxed. We overspent. We overregulated. We didn't protect our borders. We elected Democrats and RINO's.

Pointing the finger outward is silly because other countries are not to blame for the mess we are in. The finger pointing needs to be at ourselves.

 

[TheNextEra]

I waited a day to see how the Demokrats would respond to Obama's abysmal failure.
They haven't.

That says volumes. Their lack of response illustrates clearly Obama has failed miserably, and for that they have no defense.

Yeah, because ALL of this happened just from 2008 right? Everything was A-OK before that, no unemployment, no welfare right, no economic problems at all right? :roll:

 

[Fenton]

I often wonder

why members of competing political parties always blame the seated President for every woe? Is that what the Presidency is, a whipping boy, a scapegoat for whatever ails the nation?

You do know the President has very little control over the workings of the nation. Yes, he "guides the ship of state" but only so much as his party, and the opposing party, let him. He has some control over the agencies under the Executive branch, but not as much as people think since it is really run by civil servants who are there regardless of which party controls the White house and are bound by the Act's which created them.

He can only suggest, and then try to convince, Congress to go along with whatever plan he sees as helping the nation while he is in office. But Congress is controlled by special interests who pay members very well through private "donations" and PAC campaign support to do what they want in every situation. Recent example? Health care; the Democrats controlled both Houses when Obama proposed a measure that would create a system very similar to Canada's. Congressional leaders balked, and forced him to accept an "advisory committee" made up of Health Insurance providers, Big Pharma, and the AMA and we ended up with "Obamacare."

Our economy is in the state it is because Corporate America likes it that way. Under the current set-up they make all the profits with little risk; government will now bail them out despite what the people want. Companies are welll aware America still has a wealth of resources, including a large population with all the skills and capability to handle any industrial employment. Still, Corporations know it is cheaper to build factories in developing nations and outsource labor there too. They blame unions as a PR move, but even without unions they know American's won't work a 12 hour day for $1.50 per hour. They also know they won't have to face environmental regulations for environmental destruction, or high fixed costs for utilities and maintenance, or other major costs of operating in the USA.

Investment Banks need fiat money, it allows them to juggle such funds in order to take control of the real wealth of our nation, land and the resources it contains. They don't care about how inflation affects the common citizen, they have economists to explain "how it is good for the country." Inflation hardly affects the rich, their investments bring in enough to allow them to shrug inflation off.

So why do we focus our blame on whichever President holds office? It's been a long time since any President has held real power to affect our nation. They are just tools of special interests, serving to focus ire away from the real sources of our problems.

Thos President after the collapse of a Sub-Prime Bubble built on the pretense of "redlining " dug in his heals on Health Care and never properly addressed the economy.

YES, the President and his policies have a HUGE impact on our economy or lack of and NO, we're not suffering because of globalization.


Its no coincidence that things have gotten much worse. The dumbest of our electorate chose our path.

 

[TheNextEra]

YES, the President and his policies have a HUGE impact on our economy or lack of and NO, we're not suffering because of globalization.

Yes, but then Congress (you know the house that controls the purse and is GOP dominate) could defund ObamaCare if they REALLY wanted to. They don't. What does that say about the GOP?

Its no coincidence that things have gotten much worse. The dumbest of our electorate chose our path.

That's been happening for decades. While I think Obama has done worse, it's no excuse for the morons that elected Bush twice. I think the last president I actually had respect for was Bush Senior and I hated his policies, but I respected the man.

 

[Samhain]

That is the exception, not the norm. Yes, people do move up, but it's not easy and a lot of time it requires connections.

Is it impossible? No, but let's not pretend that it can happen to everyone. As for companies, again, that's not the norm now and you know it.

For folks not working for the same company for their careers, I think its because individuals are always looking for the next best thing. Not everyone wants to put in the time and effort to move up the corporate ladder, but instead find its easier for upward mobility to switch jobs. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be dozens of career sites for people to always troll for something else. And corporations know that in today's instant gratification society, there is a ready pool of new bodies waiting in the wings that believe the grass is always greener.

Some are always looking for the easiest path in which to traverse life. Some prefer the hard work. I believe hard work is more meaningful.

As Thomas Edison once said, "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work."

 

[trfjr]

That is the exception, not the norm. Yes, people do move up, but it's not easy and a lot of time it requires connections.

Is it impossible? No, but let's not pretend that it can happen to everyone. As for companies, again, that's not the norm now and you know it.

it is supposed to be hard it is not supposed to be easy, the left wants it handed to them with minimum effort on their part, lets take professional athletes do you think the become high paid athletes because of their talent alone? no they are where they are at because of talent and training many and many hours of hard training

I worked for a company that during the summer we would hire for a second shift. we would get young college students and most wasn't worth a dam. one day i asked one why his work performance was so poor he told me if i paid him more he would produce more i told him you have it all wrong you have it backwards you show me you can produce more then we can talk about paying you more

Pay is the product of what you produce its not what you produce is a product of your pay

 

[CRUE CAB]

Yeah, because ALL of this happened just from 2008 right? Everything was A-OK before that, no unemployment, no welfare right, no economic problems at all right? :roll:

Obama had all the ideas to fix all that.
He has done nothing.
He spent a good part of his first term ramming Obamacare through, started his second term with gun control.
Obama care is already a massive failure and his gun control efforts fizzled.
So, please tell us. Just what has Obama done for the working middle class in this nation except tap our taxes for more and more entitlements for those that dont work.

 

[TheNextEra]

it is supposed to be hard it is not supposed to be easy, the left wants it handed to them with minimum effort on their part, lets take professional athletes do you think the become high paid athletes because of their talent alone? no they are where they are at because of talent and training many and many hours of hard training

Hard yes, but let's be honest for a second. Yes, professional athletes do train hard, but let's compare their pay to a solider, police officer, or firemen. Do you really think putting your LIFE on the line isn't worth the same as an athlete? So again, the pay is disproportionate to the work. Using athletes as an example only points out how ****ed up our priorities are as a society.

I worked for a company that during the summer we would hire for a second shift. we would get young college students and most wasn't worth a dam. one day i asked one why his work performance was so poor he told me if i paid him more he would produce more i told him you have it all wrong you have it backwards you show me you can produce more then we can talk about paying you more

Of course there are those people out there and they don't just follow a "liberal" ideology. There are conservatives that also do this. Politicians are a prime example. They only act as a "pretty face" most of the time and live lavish lifestyles with taxpayers money. That goes for ANY politician. Do you think your politician can work harder? I do.

Pay is the product of what you produce its not what you produce is a product of your pay

So then why are soldiers, firemen, police officers and others that risk their lives weekly sometimes paid what they are? Do you think putting your life on the line is far less than playing a football game? Your example supports my theory a lot more than yours.

 

[TheNextEra]

Obama had all the ideas to fix all that.
He has done nothing.
He spent a good part of his first term ramming Obamacare through, started his second term with gun control.
Obama care is already a massive failure and his gun control efforts fizzled.
So, please tell us. Just what has Obama done for the working middle class in this nation except tap our taxes for more and more entitlements for those that dont work.

Yes, he said that. As so did MANY presidents before him and failed. I'm not giving Obama a pass, simply pointing out that this has been happening for DECADES. Obama has made it worse, as did Bush before him.

The fact that people keep electing Dem/Rep politicians shows the stupidity and insanity of today's society. What's that saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

 

[trfjr]

Hard yes, but let's be honest for a second. Yes, professional athletes do train hard, but let's compare their pay to a solider, police officer, or firemen. Do you really think putting your LIFE on the line isn't worth the same as an athlete? So again, the pay is disproportionate to the work. Using athletes as an example only points out how ****ed up our priorities are as a society.




Of course there are those people out there and they don't just follow a "liberal" ideology. There are conservatives that also do this. Politicians are a prime example. They only act as a "pretty face" most of the time and live lavish lifestyles with taxpayers money. That goes for ANY politician. Do you think your politician can work harder? I do.



So then why are soldiers, firemen, police officers and others that risk their lives weekly sometimes paid what they are? Do you think putting your life on the line is far less than playing a football game? Your example supports my theory a lot more than yours.

athletes get paid what they do because people still go out and pay the high prices for game tickets to see them play. the advertisers pay the millions they do to advertising during their games. What you get paid is a direct result on how much money you make for the person you work for.
when policeman, soldiers, and fireman stop being policeman, fireman, and soldiers because the pay isn't worth the job done then the pay will go up so to attract more to the professions. as long as we have ones that continue to be policeman fireman and soldiers for the pay they make then the pay will stay the same

 

[CRUE CAB]

Yes, he said that. As so did MANY presidents before him and failed. I'm not giving Obama a pass, simply pointing out that this has been happening for DECADES. Obama has made it worse, as did Bush before him.

The fact that people keep electing Dem/Rep politicians shows the stupidity and insanity of today's society. What's that saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

Problem is not enough people vote.
The other problem is once people get into office, no one holds them accountable for their campaign promises or actions once in office.
That is across the board DEM and REP.
Then you have weak kneed congress that didnt stand up to Bush about going into Iraq. We all knew he was going to do it to "avenge daddys" nemesis.
How many billions did we piss away there to nothing but the detriment of our nation?
How many billions did we piss away fighting Al Queda, to get one man? A man that was being harboured by one of our "allies" in the war on terror.
While we are pouring billions into Pakistan, they are hiding enemy number one.
And people wonder why our nation is broke. Why are our cities looking at bankruptcy. Why are we in a flat "recovery"?
You cant keep pouring money into bottemless pits and expect to have positive results.

 

[TheNextEra]

athletes get paid what they do because people still go out and pay the high prices for game tickets to see them play. the advertisers pay the millions they do to advertising during their games. What you get paid is a direct result on how much money you make for the person you work for.
when policeman, soldiers, and fireman stop being policeman, fireman, and soldiers because the pay isn't worth the job done then the pay will go up so to attract more to the professions. as long as we have ones that continue to be policeman fireman and soldiers for the pay they make then the pay will stay the same

Again, society feels a life is less worth than a game. That is a ****ed up society no matter how you try to spin it and it knows no political ideology on that one. It only knows greed. Greed is worth more than life in this society.

 

[TheNextEra]

Problem is not enough people vote.
The other problem is once people get into office, no one holds them accountable for their campaign promises or actions once in office.
That is across the board DEM and REP.
Then you have weak kneed congress that didnt stand up to Bush about going into Iraq. We all knew he was going to do it to "avenge daddys" nemesis.
How many billions did we piss away there to nothing but the detriment of our nation?
How many billions did we piss away fighting Al Queda, to get one man? A man that was being harboured by one of our "allies" in the war on terror.
While we are pouring billions into Pakistan, they are hiding enemy number one.
And people wonder why our nation is broke. Why are our cities looking at bankruptcy. Why are we in a flat "recovery"?
You cant keep pouring money into bottemless pits and expect to have positive results.

No disagreement there. This government has really no effective oversight on what it spends and no accountability. People STILL continue to think "their" reps whether Dem or Rep will be the solution.