Wage Deflation, another accomplishment of Obamanomics

The folks over at ZeroHedge continue to do the digging which the LSM will not.

Their comparison of BLS numbers for employment versus Treasury receipts reveals a disturbing trend.

During a period when BLS reported employment on the rise, Treasury reported less withholding collected from that larger work force.

So, either the BLS numbers are seriously fudged, or wages are deflating.


A “Quality Assessment” Of US Jobs Reveals The Ugliest Picture Yet

By Tyler Durden | ZeroHedge

Over the past week we have repeatedly exposed the BLS’ shennanigans to both keep the headline unemployment rate suppressed and to generate an upward bias in the market courtesy of a “bigger than expected beat” of expectations. Granted, various semantics experts continue to scratch their heads in attempting to explain a collapsing labor force when even Goldman’s Sven Jari Stehn just predicted that it will drop to 63.1% by the end of 2012 (and 62.5% by the end of 2015). Funny then that the US will have no unemployment left when the participation rate drops to 58.5%. And no, the “population soared argument based on revised data” doesn’t quite cut it when the bulk of said surge not only did not get a job, but was not even counted toward the labor force. Yet what the biggest flaw with all these arguments that vainly (and veinly) attempt to defend the US economy as if it is growing, is that they focus exclusively on the quantity of jobs, doctored or not, and completely ignore the quality. We have decided to step in and fill this void.

In other words, the US Treasury collected $310 million more in tax withholdings in the first 4 months of fiscal 2011 than in the first 4 months of fiscal 2012.

More importantly, between January 31, 2011 and January 31, 2012 the US added 1,953,000 jobs.

  • The 130.456MM workers “employed” at January 31, 2011 created a total of $592.985MM in withholdings, or on average of $4,545.48 per worker over the first 4 months of the fiscal year 2011.
  • The 132.409MM workers “employed” at January 31, 2012 created a total of $592.675MM in withholdings, or on average of $4,476.09 per worker over the first 4 months of the fiscal year 2012.


That indicates a 1.5% drop in taxable income (wage deflation).  Some recovery.

Click over and read the whole thing.

Hat Tip: Aussie Torres on Google +

The GOP Presidential Message
I endorse . . .
  • 914

    Ghetto economics is what Barry does best..

    •  lol… right off the bat. What racism?

      • 914

        Drink your koolada and zip it!!

        •  lol… Is this guy a bot?

      • lol… Graves Law right off the bat.

        Stephen, you should look up the origin of the word “ghetto” before accusing someone of racism. The word is Italian and originally referred to a place in a European city where Jews were forced to live.

        In the modern era, the word “ghetto” refers to a place in a city that is plagued with poverty. What 914 is saying is that Obama’s economic policy is making people poorer.

        So, you might as well throw away your race card, because it expired a long time ago.

        •  Yeah, I’m sure “914” had the Italian origin in mind when he made the comment.


          • It’s not as if Obama has any legitimate skin in the ghetto game. His ancestors were perpetrators of slavery, not victims.

          • PBunyan

            No, he had poor people in mind.  The number of people falling into poverty these past couple years is yet another historic first for Obama.

            I’ve found that it’s usually the most rasict bigots amongst us who see racism in everything.  Project much Stephen?

          • 914

            I am  Italian, so it is possible you neo-dweeb! More likely, your infertile imagination is cashing checks reality cant cash again!!

  • Gmacr1

    I am confused…

    “In other words, the US Treasury collected $310 million more in tax withholdings in the first 4 months of fiscal 2011 than in the first 4 months of fiscal 2012.”

    is this projected returns? It IS Feb 8th, 2012…

    • Jwb10001

      I’m not sure but I suspect the Fedreal Fiscal calendar is different than the actual calendar, I seem to remember it starts in Sept. Can anyone actually verify that?

      • Lee

         The Federal Fiscal year starts on Oct 1.

      • MichaelLaprarie

         Federal fiscal year begins Oct. 1.  Federal Q1 = Oct-Nov-Dec.

  • Commander_Chico

    Great, Zero Hedge again.  You people are learning.

    Wage deflation means “mission accomplished” for the oligarchy, who want to drive all wages down to a low global (Chinese sweatshop) average. 

    Obama’s a tool of the oligarchy, Romney’s a tool too.

    This is from another Zero Hedge posting today:


    When the rule of law is routinely bypassed, flouted, negated or simply ignored without triggering uniformly applied consequences, then the system is thoroughly, totally, completely, hopelessly corrupt. Since America’s financial and political Elites have routinely bypassed, flouted, negated or simply ignored the laws governing mortgages, finance, insider trading, etc., actions that would lead to an average citzen’s arrest, indictment and routine conviction, then we must conclude that America itself is thoroughly, totally, completely, hopelessly corrupt. There is no other logical conclusion.

    There are thus two distinct problems. The system, though nominally legal, is corrupt. The financial and political Elites (the Power Elites, or the Plutocracy) as a matter of course are not bound by the same laws that control the non-Elite citizenry.

    Is it any wonder than the average citizen has surrendered their autonomy, independence and will to resist in such a pervasively corrupt society and economy? No wonder the average American is busy extending and pretending, remaining passive, quiet and complicit in the corruption. Why put my slice of the swag at risk when everyone else is getting away with perfectly legal looting, illegal but “enabled” predation and unparalleled financial parasitism enforced by the Central State?

    But hey, there’s going to be quite a battle of gladiators in the Coliseum tomorrow, and free bread will be distributed before the entertainment extravaganza.

    •  Commandante,

      Does this mean you won’t vote for either one?

      • Commander_Chico

        I am voting for Gary Johnson, who should be getting the Libertarian nomination.

        • Gary who?

        • jim_m

          In other words I’m pissing away my vote because I don’t like obama but I don’t want to replace him with someone who will change his policies.

          • Jay

            Welcome to the world of the horrid First Past the Post/Electoral College system.  People forget to look up other voting systems that majorities agree with and try to ridicule others for voting for whoever they want.  

          • jim_m

            That’s fine if you have a multiparty parlimentary system with proportional representation. Then you aren’t pissing away your vote to cast it for some peipheral candidate.  But that isn’t coming here any time soon, so yes, we are forced to vote for the lesser of evils.

            Sanctimoneous comments about how other systems might be better aren’t productive.  The electoral college works very well in a two party system.  Since one party will always have a majority it gives leverage to small states whose concerns would otherwise be ignored in a direct election.

            Multiparty systems work well too in some instances, but then you still get people complaining about the major parties being subjected to the demands of fringe groups in order to have enough votes to form a coalition. 

            Nothing is perfect. Learn to live with it.

          • Jay

            Since one party will always have a majority it gives leverage to small states whose concerns would otherwise be ignored in a direct election.

            [Citation needed]

            The candidates spend disproportionate amounts of time in smaller states and the electoral system further kills this argument by taking electoral power from larger states based on the rules of the system.  Let’s look at Ohio really quickly:

            They have a population of 11.5M people.  Based on a direct voting system they should get 20 electoral votes since we have 538 Seats to fill.  But Ohio only gets 18 electoral votes.  Instead, those votes go to Rhode Island.  RI has about 1.1M so it should get 2 votes.  Yet it gets 4.

            Further, you ignore the mathematical distribution of cities.  New York has 8 million people living there.  It’s 2.6% of the US population while being the largest city.  LA 3.8M, Chicago (2.7M).  If you add in the top 10 cities by population, you would get 7.9% of the vote, which won’t win an election.  If you go as far as Spokane Wa, you (the 90th biggest city) will only guarantee 20% of the vote.

            So unless you can explain where your reasoning is coming from, it’s based on faulty logic that isn’t backed up by reality.  The electoral college needs to be abolished.

          •  Get started on the amendment process, not that I think you’ll ever get such an amendment adopted.

          • Jay

            Already working on it with others.  

        •  IOW, you’re voting for Obama to be reelected without accepting any responsibility for it.

          The election will be between TWO, and only two, candidates no matter how many names appear on the ballot.  It’s a binary proposition:  Obama OR the GOP nominee will win.  If you do not vote to replace the incumbent by voting for his only viable opponent, you are in effect voting to reelect him.

          You are just too gutless to admit it.

          • PBunyan

            “If you do not vote to replace the incumbent by voting for his only viable opponent, you are in effect voting to reelect him.”

            As common as that sentiment is, Adjoran, I don’t think it’s a logical argument because someone like Stephen could say:  “If you do not vote for Obama, you are in effect voting to elect the Republican.” and that statement would be no less valid than what you said.  Chico can’t “in effect” vote for both Obama and his Republican opponent by casting the exact same vote, so no, what you said was just Obama-talk.*

            The only reason “it’s a binary proposition:  Obama OR the GOP nominee will win”, is because you and almost everybody else allows themselves to believe it. (And yes, I do too.)  Well, that and the fact that there’s metric assloads of old money controlling both parties and politics in America is more about popularity and propaganda than logic and facts so that old money can fabricate its own realities at will.

            Jim’s right.  Chico is pissing away his vote away, but I can totally respect that.   If I believed what Chico appears to believe I wouldn’t vote for either of the big two myself.  And it sure would be nice to have a choice other than big government socialist conservative Republican vs. massively big government Marxist-Fascist Democrat.

            Yeah, I know there’s Ron Paul, but I’m just not into that whole World War thing.  Contrary to the M.A.S.H. theme song, that particular suicide would not be painless for most of us.

            (*Obamatalk= a neologism meaning: using nothing but logical falacies and/or lies to make your point)

          • Commander_Chico

            All of the GOP candidates except Ron Paul are warmongers.  They have all promised more war.  Obama is weak and a tool, but those guys appear to be dangerous.  Fools like Gingrich and Santorum can’t wait to be the big War Leader. 

            The only hope is that Romney will flip-flop again and govern as an Eisenhower or Rockefeller Republican, or follow Reagan’s realist foreign policy.  But that’s just a hope, we’ve had enough of that.

          • DocEpador

            Obama is a weak President internationally, and weak Presidents encourage war.  Warmongers don’t encourage international war as much as weak ones.  If Roosevelt and his ilk had been seen as strong war mongers by Germany and Japan (or maybe he was complicit in the early stages, who knows), WWII might not have evolved.

    •  That’s like saying if you find one piece of accurate information in a Chico post at Wizbang, you have to endorse them all.

      IOW, as stupid as most of your suppositions.

      • Commander_Chico

        There’s nothing wrong with saying Zero Hedge is a good blog, there’s lots of good info on it, even if you don’t agree with everything on it.  You can say the same thing about Wizbang if you wish.

        The point is that ZH covers a lot of mischief that does not get into the MSM or the propaganda blogs.

    • Jwb10001

      I’m going to buy stock in tin foil your usage alone should raise demand by 10% in the country.

  • IN any recession workers are transitioned out of the workplace at a relatively higher wage and re-enter at a lower wage.

    A Fact of life.

    No wonder the conservatives have never heard of it.

    1.5% is miniscule and means nothing.

    In fact, isn’t 1.5% less than the payroll tax which was rolled back?

    Mission accomplished. Asshats made to eat their…. hats.

    • MichaelLaprarie

      When this occurred under Reagan, the liberal establishment response was “What recovery?  OMG, all we have is burger flipper jobs!!!”

      Now that it’s been documented under Obama, let’s see what the liberal establishment’s reaction is …

      • Wait a minute! If this occurred under Reagan why is it a bad thing when it occurs under Obama?

        Ooooohhhhhh, I see what’s different.


        • jim_m

          No one said it was a good thing under Reagan.  The point was that, as you said, this is a fact of life, but under Reagan the left screamed that the sky was falling and now under obama it is saying “nothing to see here, move along.”

          However, since the workforce continues to shrink the problem is that more and more people are unemployed and theose who are able to secure employment do so at increasingly lower wages.

          It would be one thing if obama was growing the labor force and not shrinking it to the smallest size in 30 years.

          •  “but under Reagan the left screamed that the sky was falling”

            Really? The left screamed?

            Got a link?

            No? I thought you probably made it up – thanks for confirming…

          • jim_m

            It’s not hard for those of us old enough to remember that the left complained about Reagan’s tax cuts, that they complained about his military spending, that the left seized upon GHWBush’s “Voodoo economics” comment and that they still complain about “trickle down economics”. 

            If you have failed to hear any of those (especially the last) I can’t help you because you are irredeemably stupid.

            Oh BTW the internet wasn’t invented by Al Gore until after Reagan left office so contemporary links are really hard to come by. Dolt.

          •  I knew you couldn’t back up your bullshit, ‘cept with more bullshit.

          • Gmacr1

            You are to ignorant to learn from the past, present or any tactile input.(2×4)
            The only one flinging poo around here is you.

          • Jwb10001

             Back up your bull shit where you claim some think it was a good thing under Regan… Can’t? That’s what I thought.

          •  Jim,

            I believe we have a cartoon liberal for a troll.  The Commander and Mr. Henry can make intelligent points, even if we disagree with them.  I believe the ignorant bob armstrong was hit by Thor’s hammer and re-incarnated as our new cartoon.

          • jim_m

            I agree.  Too many times have I seen others answer his comments and he ignores the answer or calls it a lie.  And you are right Spongebob was fond of calling people liars and ignoring their points.  About the only difference is that Stephen is slightly (very slightly) less likely to call everyone else a racist.

          •  I try to ignore off-topic comments.

          • Jwb10001

            Said the boy who cried racist.

          • It’d be interesting to track their IP addresses.  Lee Ward’s was in Seattle.  For some reason, I wouldn’t be surprised to find Bob’s, Stephen’s, and some of the drive-by posters clustered in the same area.

          •  Gentlemen, there is an old fashioned solution to this which is well known to you both.  I suggest you start using it.

          •  Do your own research, Nancy.

          • Idiot . How many newspaper articles or links to televised news is on the net from the early 80s compared to today?

          • The world didn’t exist before the internet – just like it wasn’t in color before the invention of color photography.

          • PBunyan

            Got a link?

            No link we just lived it.

        • Jwb10001

          Got a link where anyone said it was a good thing under Regan? No, I thought not thanks for just making shit up so you can fling racist slurs.

        • donwalk

          Big difference though!
          It ocurred under Reagan as he took office.
          It is still occurring under B.O. THREE years into his administration – no improvements showing!
          Nobody said it was a good thing in the eighties, either.

          • That’s why we need to elect Obama President for Life, so he can have a chance to get enough OJT to become a good leader.

            Shouldn’t take much more than about 40 years… and we can all hang pictures of him in our houses, and have mass choreographed singing of “Obama Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm”.

            It’ll be all so ‘progressive’.  Just like North Korea!

            /sarc, as if you couldn’t tell…

    • Jwb10001

      Wage deflation is a good thing? Who knew.

      • It’s normal in a recession. People re-enter the job market at a lower wage.

        A fact of life.

        • 914

          Yeah, only this time time its without their houses, food and fuel through the roof and an arrogant sob in the White House who has no clue..

          And $15 tr in national debt.

          • When you’re unemployed, a job that pays 98.5% of what you were making in your old job isn’t a bad thing.

            Unless the President is black… right 914? You know, the guy with the “Ghetto economics” you cited earlier?

          • Stephen, see my response to your first comment.

          • jim_m

            When you’re unemployed, a job that pays 98.5% of what you were making in your old job isn’t a bad thing.

            True.  However when you shrink the labor force by 2% since taking office and U-6 unemplyoment is still running around 15% it doesn’t feel like a good economy.  You might have found work, and you will be damn happy that you have done so, but 3 in 20 people still can’t find a job to make ends meet.

          • Jwb10001

            Where’s your proof people are entering the workforce at 98.5% of their previous wages after being unemployed. Can’t show any? That’s what I thought just another bunch of BS you made up.

          • You left out and with a $15 tr  national debt.

          • 914


        • Jwb10001

          But only when the black man is president is it considered a good thing right?

          •  Who said it was a good thing?

            I know jim-m said the MSM is cheerleading and defending Obama on this issue – but we all know Jim lies through his teeth and makes crap up.

            So maybe you can show us who thinks this is a good thing…?

            No? Are you lying too?

          • jim_m

            Everyone lies except you Stephen.  Perhaps you should discuss it with your therapist.  But then you probably think he’s a liar too.

          •  Well- I was right, wasn’t I – once again, time and time again – you can’t back up your claims with a simple link.

          • Jwb10001

            You seem to be defending it like it’s a good thing. Can you show me where you said it was a bad thing, cause all I see is you calling people racists.

          • When the only tool you’ve got is a worn-out hammer….

          •  …and a dull sickle.

        • Jay

          It’s normal in a recession. People re-enter the job market at a lower wage.

          Here’s the problem… People aren’t re-entering the work force.  They’ve given up entirely.  They’re going to different professions entirely because entering the work force is ridiculous.  There’s no way for these people to find new jobs, and now you have overqualified workers competing for the lower paying jobs.  So it’s making the situation even worse.

    • emrengineer

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but the 1.5% drop is not in taxable income, but in average tax receipts per worker.  Therefore the reduction in taxable income is even greater (at a 20% tax rate, that would amount to a 7.5% drop in taxable income, 25% a 6.0% drop.) 

      • Ok, You’re wrong.

        Don’t confuse tax rates with tax receipts.

        If tax receipts are down 1.5% income is down 1.5%

        Not a 6% drop.

        With your math, a 25% drop in tax receipts would indicate a 100% drop in income.

        So we’d be collecting 75% from nobody…

        • jim_m

          No he is right.  The 1.5% is the decline in withholding per worker.  So it isn’t wages but the change in (total withholdings)/(# of workers).  The decline in totoal withholdings is increased by the decline in the work force.  With millions having been calculated out of the labor force the denominator has shrunk.  The data does not actually tell us what the decline in average wages is because it does not correct for the decline in # of workers.

          Wages may indeed be deflating but the data in the original post does not tell us if they are or by how much.

          • No, he is wrong. It figures the jimmy the half-wit can’t figure this out either.

            From the post above:

            The 130.456MM workers “employed” at January 31, 2011 created a total of $592.985MM in withholdings, or on average of $4,545.48 per worker over the first 4 months of the fiscal year 2011.The 132.409MM workers “employed” at January 31, 2012 created a total of $592.675MM in withholdings, or on average of $4,476.09 per worker over the first 4 months of the fiscal year 2012.

            According to these calculations by Wodney, the number of wrkers employed has increased by approx 2 million, from 130.456MM in 2011 to 132.409MM in 2012.

            jimmy the nit wit wrote: “The decline in totoal withholdings is increased by the decline in the work force.”

            The workforce increased by 2 million – it didn’t decline. Remember, this comparison is January 2011 vs January 2012.

          • jim_m


            I stand corrected. You are correct about the post up top.

            However it is interesting to read the Zerohedge article that was linked where they suggest the obvios: that the BLS employment numbers are entirely bogus and have been for years (not an obama dependent issue)

            What is very notable is that in January, absent BLS smoothing calculation, which are nowhere in the labor force, but solely in the mind of a few BLS employees, the real economy lost 2,689,000 jobs, while net of the adjustment, it actually gained 243,000 jobs: a delta of 2,932,000 jobs based solely on statistical assumptions in an excel spreadsheet!

          • “The Obvious” is that the numbers are bogus?

            Weird logic. Occam’s Razor suggests “nope”

            And if the workforce numbers are misstated and actually higher then there is no wage deflation – cause the tax receipts are up, and if you claim fewer workers then the per worker average for 2012 increases and is higher than 2011, disproving Wodney’s theory that everything Obama touches turns to shit – and proving my theory that.conservatives make up crap to smear Obama.

    • PBunyan

      “IN any recession workers are transitioned out of the workplace at a relatively higher wage and re-enter at a lower wage.A Fact of life.”

      That’s just more Obamatalk.  It sounds logical if you don’t think, but really it’s not.

      First of all you start with a falsehood:  “IN any recession”.  We’re not in a recession.  We are over two years into the “recovery”.  It seems like a recession, but that’s what they’re calling the new normal.  Can you point to any time in history other than during what will in the future be called “the first” great depression, when things were this bad 2 years out?  Can you point to a single example from the history of the United States when the economy added jobs at this rate, but federal revenues fell like this?    Another historic first for Obama.  He’s gonna historic first us to death.  

  • herddog505

    This is the sort of thing that will make Barry a one-termer.  Yes, BLS can report falling unemployment (after magically eliminating a million workers from the pool).  MiniTru can yap about “funemployment”.  That fool Jay Carney can tell us that the shrinking workforce – and only political enemies of the president care about that! – is due to all those meddling kids going to college, which is a Good Thing(TM).

    But, at the end of the day, John Q. Public is going to look around, note how many of his family, friends and neighbors don’t have work or had to take lower-paying jobs than they had five years ago*, and vote accordingly.

    Barry’s only hope is that MiniTru can convince enough people that the GOP candidate will be even worse.  That’s a tough sell.


    (*) This is a big reason that the housing market, despite all the gimics Barry has tried, is still doing poorly: when people make less money – perhaps FAR less money – than they did a few years ago when they bought their houses at inflated prices to begin with, they aren’t exactly is the best position to pay their mortgages.

    • Brucehenry

      “That’s a tough sell.”

      You might be right if the GOP candidate was gonna be someone other than Newt, Mitt, or Frothy Rick. But I don’t think it’ll be that hard to persuade folks that any of those three would be worse than what we have.

      But, hey, I could be wrong.

      • jim_m

        It might not be hard to persuade you and your friends, but not so the majority of the country.  The vote will boil down to a vote on obama and not on the GOP candidate, much like 2008 was a vote on the GOP.  The electorate may not be a PO’d as they were in 2010, but it doesn’t mean that they are satisfied with obama. 

        • Brucehenry

          You might be right. A Democratic ham sandwich could have been elected in 2008. But on the other hand, even after 8 years of George Bush, the ham sandwich may not have won against anyone other than John McCain.

          • Unfortunately you are right.  And we have McCain lite running this election.  I feel like liberals did when they had to pull the lever for Al Gore and John Kerry.

      • herddog505


        The amusing thing is that persuading people that they would be worse than Barry essentially relies on persuading people that they are JUST LIKE HIM.

        “They’ll do EVEN MORE bailouts!  And… and… and… they’ll bomb EVEN MORE COUNTRIES!!!  And… and… and… they’ll funnel taxpayer money to EVEN MORE big donors and Wall Street!!!!  And… and… and… they’ll make the debt EVEN BIGGER!!!”

        Obama 2012: The less incompetent choice!

        • Brucehenry

          I don’t see that. In the case of Mittens, it’ll be “He’s EVEN MORE of a tool of Wall Street!”

          Gingrich will be characterized as an egomaniacal blowhard, which is accurate. He’s a loose cannon, scary, and, even if Wizbangers don’t think so, most Americans, I think, see Obama as cool and level-headed, even if wrong.

          Santorum is a religious nut, and will be seen to be so. Loser, by a huge margin, of his own reelection to the Senate, what makes anyone think he can run a better campaign than McCain did?

          So yeah, “Obama 2012 — The Devil You Know!”

          • I  will tkae the devil I dont for another $10 trillion over the next 4 years.

          •  @yahoo-W6UJJOM4PP4XLSBG6N4LROVSQE:disqus Hopefully you meant to write:
            “I’ll take the devil I don’t know over another $10 Trillion in debt [under the SCoaMF] over the next four years.”

          • PBunyan

            “Santorum is a religious nut, and will be seen to be so.”

            Not many Americans agree with you that people with moral values, conviction, and principles are “religious nuts”.

            “Loser, by a huge margin, of his own reelection to the Senate, what makes anyone think he can run a better campaign than McCain did?”

            Because this isn’t 2006. This year Obama is orders of magnitude worse that what President Bush was perceived by many to be back then.

          • Brucehenry

            I didn’t say that people with moral values, conviction, and principles are religious nuts. I said Santorum is.

            I know it’s not 2006, but Santorum lost by a much bigger margin than your average Republican who lost his seat that year.

          • PBunyan

            1) Can you give me one specific example of why you thing Santorum is “nuts”?

            2) True that Santorum’s loss in 2006 is his biggest negative, but he’s still better on this particular subject than Romeny who lost relection to his opponent by infinity percent because he didn’t even run and has NEVER been reelected in his entire life and Gingrich who was run out of town on a rail.

      • Lets hope so Bruce.  Romney would be a disaster for conservatives but not nearly the disaster that Obama currently is.

        • May I suggest you amend to read:

          Lets hope so Bruce.  Romney would be a suboptimal for conservatives but not nearly the disaster that Obama currently is for the nation as a whole.

  • Point in Clarification.  The recession (in the US) ended in q3 of 2009.  This is wage deflation two years into a “recovery.”

  • herddog505

    Another possibility:

    Along with the housing bubble, did we also have a “wage bubble” in last decade or two, and wages are adjusting down to their “real” level?

    • There’s some of that going on, I suspect. Wages being rolled back and folks hired at lower wage levels then what the employers were paying the same positions a few years ago.

      When the unemployment rate is so high and so many people are out of work corporations can fire people one year and then hire back replacements at lower wages the next year.

      It’s why your corporate overlords want you to hate unions… unions protect the rights of workers and insure fair wages.

      Can’t have that… so they buy Republican politicians who are good  at convincing their followers that unions are bad, bad, bad…

      • herddog505

        Absolutely.  Nothing like formalizing wage inflation to help create and maintain a healthy, vibrant economy that offers opportunity for people.

        Personally, I resent the fact the No. Carolina isn’t a closed-shop state.  I do so long to pay somebody else for the privilege of being able to work.

        / sarc

    •  Energy and Food are inflating, housing expense hasn’t changed for those who already own (or may have gone down slightly for those with ARM or who were able to re-finance) or rent (at least in my area).  Health care and Education are both inflating.  Where then is the deflationary wage pressure?  Oh yes, many more applicants looking for fewer jobs.  But the BLS assures us those not in the U1 figures are no longer looking…

      • Dont Forget gas is about 100% higher than when Obama came into office and is expected to hit $4+ a gallon in a month or so.

        •  That would be part of Energy, though electricity will spike too with coal plants being sacrificed on the alter of AGW.

      • herddog505

        I suggest that deflationary wage pressure comes from having (shall we say?) a buyer’s market: when people are out of work long enough, they’ll start taking just about any job that they can if for no other reason than to keep SOME skills fresh and demonstrate to prospective employers that they have a good work ethic.

  • Oysteria

    Why do you guys feed the troll?  He offers nothing and your words are wasted on that empty skull he carries around with him.  He’s here only to insult, denigrate and regurgitate what he’s told in his emails. 

    • @Oysteria:disqus I have long since stopped feeding the trolls.  I have been responding to the non-trolls.

      • DocEpador

        Every time I violate that concept I get another grey hair and a new wrinkle.
        Yeah I’m ugly and I take full responsibility for that.
        Maybe there’s a 12-Step program out there for me.

        •  Not saying it’s easy…  Just saying life is better when we don’t feed the trolls.

          • Sky__Captain

            Yeah, I’ll agree ith that.
            It’s most frustrating whn the troll won’t answer your questions or cite links to support his arguments and generally goes into name-calling.
            The overt racism is tiresome, also.