lostyankee
enthusiast
Posts: 1261
Reg: 10-27-05
|
05-04-12 05:43 PM - Post#149021
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/people-not-labor -for...
|
asmile4u
enthusiast
Posts: 773
Loc: Allen
Reg: 04-20-08
|
05-04-12 10:28 PM - Post#149030
In response to lostyankee
Unemployment dropped from 8.2% to 8.1% in April! Wait, 342,000 Americans gave up looking for a job out of frustration and removed themselves from the market. So there was actually no decrease in the unemployment. Only those who gave up from frustration.
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4934
Reg: 05-30-08
|
05-07-12 08:24 AM - Post#149078
In response to asmile4u
Did anyone notice this 10 year trend started under George Bush???
You guys are reporting symptoms of a changing global and more productive economy that cannot be changed by any President, not even walk on water Obama.
The United States is still the largest exporter in the world, we are the largest manufacturing nation in the world, but most importantly we are the most productive country in the world. By most productive I mean we produce the most products with the fewest human hours of work, this is mostly due to robots and automation.
The S&P is up by 105% and the DOW is up 164% since Obama took office. And thanks to the credit crisis companies are hanging on to more cash then ever in history. The number of government jobs Under Obama, a Record Decline in Government Jobs
The big companies are growing in output, making big bucks, and they need very few people to do it.
This is the 21st century, automation has killed millions of jobs. People dropping out of the labor force started back in 2000. It is the way things are changing.
I love that the GOP says government can't create jobs, but then they blame Obama for people dropping out of the job market which is a 10 year trend.
You guys had better open your eyes. As automation continues and salaries decreases how does that effect your lives? You should see that automation will have a bigger impact on your lives, the lives of your children and your salaries than Obama or Romney ever will.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
Edited by carygold on 05-07-12 08:24 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
lostyankee
enthusiast
Posts: 1261
Reg: 10-27-05
|
05-07-12 07:31 PM - Post#149106
In response to carygold
There goes the Bush derangement syndrome. It didn't even take you but one sentence to bring that up.
News flash Cary...BUSH IS NOT IN OFFICE AND OBAMA HASN'T DONE JACK TO CHANGE THE TREND. IT'S GETTING WORSE AND WE'RE DOING NOTHING TO FIX IT!
If you can't refute the facts, blame the other guy.
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4934
Reg: 05-30-08
|
05-08-12 12:54 PM - Post#149134
In response to lostyankee
You want ask why the neighborhood looks so bad today and ignore that a hurricane went through it a few year ago.
The nation's economy almost collapsed.
Unemployment hit the second highest rate in 70 years.
The global economy still might collapse.
40% of all jobs created by US Corporations are created overseas.
There are tax breaks and tax holidays for corporations that take business oversea's
Automation has driven many people out of business.
One side effect of the internet is the closing of brick and mortar stores, fewer mom and pop stores.
The trend is over 10 years old. Bush could not turn it around with all of his tax breaks, the largest housing market in history, and the cheapest money in history over his 8 years in office.
But now after the hurricane has passed through you want Obama to solve the problem in three years... how?
Come on, you're so smart, you solve it.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
Edited by carygold on 05-08-12 12:54 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
lostyankee
enthusiast
Posts: 1261
Reg: 10-27-05
|
05-08-12 07:13 PM - Post#149147
In response to carygold
So you don't deny Obama hasn't fixed it...
Bush had to deal with a major terrorist attack on our soil, pull the country out of a recession started under Clinton... blah blah blah
You can't refute the facts, so you just pull out the old "Bush did it" excuse.
How about a president who actually focused on getting our country back to work? How about a president with courage to tackle our tax code issues instead of playing partisan games?
Please refute the facts that Obama hasn't fixed jack. You can't, hence the usual spin.
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4934
Reg: 05-30-08
|
05-08-12 09:46 PM - Post#149154
In response to lostyankee
I didn't say Bush did it, I said after eight years he couldn't fix it either. The major terrorist attack ended his first year in office, all he had to do was send troops to Afghanistan, the rest was his doing. Yet at the end of his eight years, the eoncomy was the worst it had been since the depression, losing 500,000 jobs a month.
Obama has repeatedly, to the anger of his supporters, offered a bipartisan attempt at solving this countries problems. The GOP is the party of NO even to it own cutting of taxes.
Look at Reagan, his stimulas package was $2 trillion in Military buildup. No one said no then. He spent an Obama stimulus every 18 months.
Obama has, with no help from the GOP, helped to turn around this economy around, from a crashing stock market and losing 500,000 jobs a month, and the threat of a depression.
Today, the stock market is 160% higher, more manufacturing jobs than in 2007, and the most US oil production in 8 years, he saved the Auto industry when we needed jobs the most, we are now exporting oil, more illegal aliens deported than by ANY other President, promoted more green technology than any President, and he did it all while being left the worst economy since the depression.
Face it, Obama has done a great job with 1/2 of congress blocking his every move. You should be thankful we didn't get McCain. We might be in a depression.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
|
cp
enthusiast
Posts: 195
Reg: 12-14-11
|
05-09-12 06:33 AM - Post#149162
In response to carygold
I didn't say Bush did it, I said after eight years he couldn't fix it either. The major terrorist attack ended his first year in office, all he had to do was send troops to Afghanistan, the rest was his doing. Yet at the end of his eight years, the eoncomy was the worst it had been since the depression, losing 500,000 jobs a month.
Obama has repeatedly, to the anger of his supporters, offered a bipartisan attempt at solving this countries problems. The GOP is the party of NO even to it own cutting of taxes.
Look at Reagan, his stimulas package was $2 trillion in Military buildup. No one said no then. He spent an Obama stimulus every 18 months.
Obama has, with no help from the GOP, helped to turn around this economy around, from a crashing stock market and losing 500,000 jobs a month, and the threat of a depression.
Today, the stock market is 160% higher, more manufacturing jobs than in 2007, and the most US oil production in 8 years, he saved the Auto industry when we needed jobs the most, we are now exporting oil, more illegal aliens deported than by ANY other President, promoted more green technology than any President, and he did it all while being left the worst economy since the depression.
Face it, Obama has done a great job with 1/2 of congress blocking his every move. You should be thankful we didn't get McCain. We might be in a depression.
I have yet to see the proof in the numbers you speak of above. Matter of fact, I have yet to see proof of anything you've posted thus far when it comes to numbers, period.
The bottom line is: you like government, you love government, and you simply want more of it. Or, if more of it were offered, you'd suck it right up.
While there may be a few good things here and there since BO took office, overall, it hasn't been the pretty picture you paint by any stretch of the imagination. Apparently, your imagination is a living reality for you, while many others of us, if not most, are living in reality without the fairy tale mentality.
Where you get the idea/assumption/whatever you want to call it that we'd probably be in a depression if McCain got in office is hilarious. But, spare me the explanation. You'll try to justify anything and everything that comes to your mind if it sounds just right to you.
| "In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination..." -Samuel Langhorne Clemens, better known as Mark Twain |
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4934
Reg: 05-30-08
|
05-09-12 10:07 AM - Post#149165
In response to cp
I didn't say Bush did it, I said after eight years he couldn't fix it either. The major terrorist attack ended his first year in office, all he had to do was send troops to Afghanistan, the rest was his doing. Yet at the end of his eight years, the eoncomy was the worst it had been since the depression, losing 500,000 jobs a month.
Obama has repeatedly, to the anger of his supporters, offered a bipartisan attempt at solving this countries problems. The GOP is the party of NO even to it own cutting of taxes.
Look at Reagan, his stimulas package was $2 trillion in Military buildup. No one said no then. He spent an Obama stimulus every 18 months.
Obama has, with no help from the GOP, helped to turn around this economy around, from a crashing stock market and losing 500,000 jobs a month, and the threat of a depression.
Today, the stock market is 160% higher, more manufacturing jobs than in 2007, and the most US oil production in 8 years, he saved the Auto industry when we needed jobs the most, we are now exporting oil, more illegal aliens deported than by ANY other President, promoted more green technology than any President, and he did it all while being left the worst economy since the depression.
Face it, Obama has done a great job with 1/2 of congress blocking his every move. You should be thankful we didn't get McCain. We might be in a depression.
I have yet to see the proof in the numbers you speak of above. Matter of fact, I have yet to see proof of anything you've posted thus far when it comes to numbers, period.
The bottom line is: you like government, you love government, and you simply want more of it. Or, if more of it were offered, you'd suck it right up.
While there may be a few good things here and there since BO took office, overall, it hasn't been the pretty picture you paint by any stretch of the imagination. Apparently, your imagination is a living reality for you, while many others of us, if not most, are living in reality without the fairy tale mentality.
Where you get the idea/assumption/whatever you want to call it that we'd probably be in a depression if McCain got in office is hilarious. But, spare me the explanation. You'll try to justify anything and everything that comes to your mind if it sounds just right to you.
Never Challenge me on the numbers I have studied them since 2003 when I started my masters degree and I have been helping my wife with her PhD in public policy. I may have a typo, but my data is solid... how about yours?
Lets see...Unemployment rate...
Reagan entered office with $937.6 Billion in National debt, he left office with $2.69 TRILLION, in debt. Most of which he spent on a military build up. Reference
In 2009 dollars relative to GDP that's $8.8 trillion dollars that Reagan spent. Obama spent $800 billion 1/10 of Reagan's debt.Reference
The stock market on Jan 20th 2009... 7,949
The stock market on May 7th 2012... 13,008
Change.. a 163.64% increase.
Manufacturing...
After Decades of Outsourcing, Manufacturing Jobs Coming Home to US
Oil...
U.S. oil production is up, so why are gas prices so high?
As far as McCain is concerned we would still be in Iraq, his economic policy's would not be any different that either Bush I, Bush II or Reagan all which got us to this point where the wealthy take a growing share of the profits, stagnate middle class labor pay, layoff people and replace them with automation.
Look this up.
At the meeting with George W. Bush, on the economic crisis, John McCain said nothing, because he knew nothing, remember McCain suspended his campaign to attend? Who lead the meeting, Barack Obama and Tim Geithner. Why because Obama had been working with Geithner and Bernanke for several months on the economic issues, long before he was elected to office. McCain didn't have a clue.
You really can't challenge me on real numbers, I have hours of study time behind me.
Just for reference I voted Republican since 1981, I vote for Bush as both governor and President. Then I found out the real numbers.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
Edited by carygold on 05-09-12 10:19 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
mgrayar
enthusiast
Posts: 3154
Reg: 09-25-09
|
05-09-12 10:34 AM - Post#149168
In response to carygold
And his dad could beat up your dad too, so there.
Learn more about Cystic Fibrosis and how you can help at:
http://www.cff.org
Everyone can make a difference! |
|
bugs
enthusiast
Posts: 132
Reg: 05-09-12
|
05-09-12 10:51 AM - Post#149170
In response to carygold
Reagan entered office with $937.6 Billion in National debt, he left office with $2.69 TRILLION, in debt. Most of which he spent on a military build up. Reference
In 2009 dollars relative to GDP that's $8.8 trillion dollars that Reagan spent. Obama spent $800 billion 1/10 of Reagan's debt. Reference
8 yrs of Reagan vs. 1 Obama bill.
Are you serious?
|
cp
enthusiast
Posts: 195
Reg: 12-14-11
|
05-09-12 10:59 AM - Post#149175
In response to carygold
I didn't say Bush did it, I said after eight years he couldn't fix it either. The major terrorist attack ended his first year in office, all he had to do was send troops to Afghanistan, the rest was his doing. Yet at the end of his eight years, the eoncomy was the worst it had been since the depression, losing 500,000 jobs a month.
Obama has repeatedly, to the anger of his supporters, offered a bipartisan attempt at solving this countries problems. The GOP is the party of NO even to it own cutting of taxes.
Look at Reagan, his stimulas package was $2 trillion in Military buildup. No one said no then. He spent an Obama stimulus every 18 months.
Obama has, with no help from the GOP, helped to turn around this economy around, from a crashing stock market and losing 500,000 jobs a month, and the threat of a depression.
Today, the stock market is 160% higher, more manufacturing jobs than in 2007, and the most US oil production in 8 years, he saved the Auto industry when we needed jobs the most, we are now exporting oil, more illegal aliens deported than by ANY other President, promoted more green technology than any President, and he did it all while being left the worst economy since the depression.
Face it, Obama has done a great job with 1/2 of congress blocking his every move. You should be thankful we didn't get McCain. We might be in a depression.
I have yet to see the proof in the numbers you speak of above. Matter of fact, I have yet to see proof of anything you've posted thus far when it comes to numbers, period.
The bottom line is: you like government, you love government, and you simply want more of it. Or, if more of it were offered, you'd suck it right up.
While there may be a few good things here and there since BO took office, overall, it hasn't been the pretty picture you paint by any stretch of the imagination. Apparently, your imagination is a living reality for you, while many others of us, if not most, are living in reality without the fairy tale mentality.
Where you get the idea/assumption/whatever you want to call it that we'd probably be in a depression if McCain got in office is hilarious. But, spare me the explanation. You'll try to justify anything and everything that comes to your mind if it sounds just right to you.
Never Challenge me on the numbers I have studied them since 2003 when I started my masters degree and I have been helping my wife with her PhD in public policy. I may have a typo, but my data is solid... how about yours?
Lets see... Unemployment rate...
Reagan entered office with $937.6 Billion in National debt, he left office with $2.69 TRILLION, in debt. Most of which he spent on a military build up. Reference
In 2009 dollars relative to GDP that's $8.8 trillion dollars that Reagan spent. Obama spent $800 billion 1/10 of Reagan's debt. Reference
The stock market on Jan 20th 2009... 7,949
The stock market on May 7th 2012... 13,008
Change.. a 163.64% increase.
Manufacturing...
After Decades of Outsourcing, Manufacturing Jobs Coming Home to US
Oil...
U.S. oil production is up, so why are gas prices so high?
As far as McCain is concerned we would still be in Iraq, his economic policy's would not be any different that either Bush I, Bush II or Reagan all which got us to this point where the wealthy take a growing share of the profits, stagnate middle class labor pay, layoff people and replace them with automation.
Look this up.
At the meeting with George W. Bush, on the economic crisis, John McCain said nothing, because he knew nothing, remember McCain suspended his campaign to attend? Who lead the meeting, Barack Obama and Tim Geithner. Why because Obama had been working with Geithner and Bernanke for several months on the economic issues, long before he was elected to office. McCain didn't have a clue.
You really can't challenge me on real numbers, I have hours of study time behind me.
Just for reference I voted Republican since 1981, I vote for Bush as both governor and President. Then I found out the real numbers.
Okay, fair enough. I won't dispute any further on your research. I, myself, am a researcher but don't have the time like you to look so deep into something. If it was job-related, then I would. But, I'm not in a career that requires me to research finance and numbers.
Here's what I observe from many of the liberal folk. Throw in the conservatives also. After all, politics is nothing but a game of who can thrown the most mud at the opposing team.
One of the bigger news stories the last year or so has been Obamacare and the cost involved. Are you holding a contemptive attitude toward insurance companies for their lack of coverage for EVERY single American by supporting Obamacare? It's my observation from those I know that attitude exists, which tells me they believe every person deserves some kind of medical coverage at the expense of other people paying into their coverage, working or not.
What's the benefit of providing medical coverage for someone who knows the government will breastfeed them with all of its wonderful-tasting milk through program after program after program? And yet, still, they live in less-than-desirable conditions. Would that not send you the wrong message, knowing you're paying for someone else's coverage, someone who doesn't work or works for little to nothing many times by choice? Or would you side with the "woe is me" crowd, feeling sorry for them, knowing you're doing them a favor by providing them coverage. Bless their poor little heart, right?
Is someone who lives in Twin Creeks greedy since they live in a big home and very likely earned their way honestly, without any government assistance, or little if they did?
Would someone living at Jupiter and Bethany, behind Boyd, or behind Rountree automatically need medical coverage because they live in such a small, confined home and have 5 or 6 cars parked out front with rims and a nice sound system? "Oh, them poor people have to live in such a small house. Why can't those who live in Twin Creeks chip in and help. Those greedy b**tards."
While that has not been word for word what people have said, it's the underlying message to what's being said. Some people have that "poor pitiful me, I'm entitled to what Joe Smith has" mentality. And it's ridiculous. Joe Smith very likely worked his tail-end off to get what he has, yet Bo Jackson says he needs it to for little to nothing.
Whether it's medical coverage, a roof over their head, or a car to drive. The government wants everyone to have what everyone else has all in the name of equality. Ha! Equality also means equal sacrifice in case you didn't know. Why give someone something when they haven't sacrificed nearly as much as the other person who has?
Government is not the answer. It never has been, and never will be. Entitelemt is not the answer, yet too many people have a cold-hearted attitude of contempt toward those who work their tails off to earn and keep what they earn.
But, keep believing and being swayed by the corruption, regardless of left/right of the aisle. You'll end up paying for it just as much as the rest of us will...
| "In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination..." -Samuel Langhorne Clemens, better known as Mark Twain |
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4934
Reg: 05-30-08
|
05-09-12 11:15 AM - Post#149176
In response to bugs
Reagan entered office with $937.6 Billion in National debt, he left office with $2.69 TRILLION, in debt. Most of which he spent on a military build up. Reference
In 2009 dollars relative to GDP that's $8.8 trillion dollars that Reagan spent. Obama spent $800 billion 1/10 of Reagan's debt. Reference
8 yrs of Reagan vs. 1 Obama bill.
Are you serious?
The only money Obama has spent is the stimulus, congress has blocked everything else. The rest of the debt is due to loss of tax revenue, and 14 million people going on various safety nets.
Ronald Reagan was allowed to have the largest tax cuts in history while re-building the nations military at some $260 Billion a year. He found he was digging a massive hole and later had to raise taxes, just as Bush 1 did.
The main difference is the Democratic party worked with the Republican President in the 1980's to make life better for everyone. Today's GOP, would rather that the nation failed than help Obama as the debt ceiling crisis proved.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
|
bugs
enthusiast
Posts: 132
Reg: 05-09-12
|
05-09-12 11:36 AM - Post#149178
In response to carygold
The only money Obama has spent is the stimulus, congress has blocked everything else.
Please explain Obama Care and it's passage. And the 2 years of Democrat Super Majority in 08-10.
|
asmile4u
enthusiast
Posts: 773
Loc: Allen
Reg: 04-20-08
|
05-09-12 12:20 PM - Post#149184
In response to carygold
Did anyone notice this 10 year trend started under George Bush???
I didn't say Bush did it, I said after eight years he couldn't fix it either.
How can you deny you didn't say Bush did it and you so plainly stated it started under George Bush?
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4934
Reg: 05-30-08
|
05-09-12 01:48 PM - Post#149194
In response to cp
Okay, fair enough. I won't dispute any further on your research. I, myself, am a researcher but don't have the time like you to look so deep into something. If it was job-related, then I would. But, I'm not in a career that requires me to research finance and numbers.
Here's what I observe from many of the liberal folk. Throw in the conservatives also. After all, politics is nothing but a game of who can thrown the most mud at the opposing team.
One of the bigger news stories the last year or so has been Obamacare and the cost involved. Are you holding a contemptive attitude toward insurance companies for their lack of coverage for EVERY single American by supporting Obamacare? It's my observation from those I know that attitude exists, which tells me they believe every person deserves some kind of medical coverage at the expense of other people paying into their coverage, working or not.
What's the benefit of providing medical coverage for someone who knows the government will breastfeed them with all of its wonderful-tasting milk through program after program after program? And yet, still, they live in less-than-desirable conditions. Would that not send you the wrong message, knowing you're paying for someone else's coverage, someone who doesn't work or works for little to nothing many times by choice? Or would you side with the "woe is me" crowd, feeling sorry for them, knowing you're doing them a favor by providing them coverage. Bless their poor little heart, right?
Is someone who lives in Twin Creeks greedy since they live in a big home and very likely earned their way honestly, without any government assistance, or little if they did?
Would someone living at Jupiter and Bethany, behind Boyd, or behind Rountree automatically need medical coverage because they live in such a small, confined home and have 5 or 6 cars parked out front with rims and a nice sound system? "Oh, them poor people have to live in such a small house. Why can't those who live in Twin Creeks chip in and help. Those greedy b**tards."
While that has not been word for word what people have said, it's the underlying message to what's being said. Some people have that "poor pitiful me, I'm entitled to what Joe Smith has" mentality. And it's ridiculous. Joe Smith very likely worked his tail-end off to get what he has, yet Bo Jackson says he needs it to for little to nothing.
Whether it's medical coverage, a roof over their head, or a car to drive. The government wants everyone to have what everyone else has all in the name of equality. Ha! Equality also means equal sacrifice in case you didn't know. Why give someone something when they haven't sacrificed nearly as much as the other person who has?
Government is not the answer. It never has been, and never will be. Entitelemt is not the answer, yet too many people have a cold-hearted attitude of contempt toward those who work their tails off to earn and keep what they earn.
But, keep believing and being swayed by the corruption, regardless of left/right of the aisle. You'll end up paying for it just as much as the rest of us will...
I think you have a poor view of your fellow Americans. I think the people on one side of Allen work just as hard as those on the other side. The difference is some work smarter, some have had better opportunities, some missed better opportunities and some just had some bad luck.
Most people do not want a handout, even when they are force to put their handout. Its humiliating.
And most people are too busy making a living to worry about those that have more.
What is happening, since you seem to miss it, is that all those Chinese products that are coming here have removed American jobs. And those cheap products are being sold at an American prices, not at Chinese prices, and US companies are taking huge profits and not sharing those profits with the middle America, instead they are giving the money to the CEO's, Board members, and VP at a growing rate...216% increase in the last 10 years.
At the same time Hedge Funds are skimming billions of dollars out of the stock market and from the hard work of millions of Americans at all levels, while enjoying a 15% tax rate for taking that money.
The tax rate for the middle class has increased over the years since 1981, to its highest level compared to the wealthy in US history.
People are not jealous of success, in fact most people are all for unlimited wealth. But the fact is "If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000."
I think you missed the fact that Obamacare forces everyone to purchase private insurance. It will be a big deal for insurance companies and they are happy about it. It will also increase the number of people in the insurance pool and that will decrease what YOU will have to pay.
If you look at the real numbers the average American will spend $360,000 in a lifetime for health care. If you start paying for that at age 25 until your 65 that's $750 a month. When do we start paying that? When we need a doctor?
That's how many people are using health insurance today, but that is not how insurance is intended to work.
You might do some research and ask the question what is wrong with what the GOP is saying...you will be surprised.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
Edited by carygold on 05-09-12 01:50 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
lostyankee
enthusiast
Posts: 1261
Reg: 10-27-05
|
05-09-12 07:38 PM - Post#149204
In response to carygold
Your post:
"Did anyone notice this 10 year trend started under George Bush???"
Anything else? Please dispute the facts. You and Jack Friday, you're all about the facts. Please disprove my statement.
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4934
Reg: 05-30-08
|
05-10-12 08:40 AM - Post#149220
In response to lostyankee
Yes I did say that. My point being this is not a new trend, nor is it a result of Obama being in office.
We have to stop letting the politics of the day avert our attention to things are not real.
The nature of employment in the 21st century is changing, the reasons have little to do with Bush or Obama or the next POTUS.
For example...
Big businesses are flush with cash and some say they have the lowest debt in decades, yet they are not hiring. Well, you can follow the politics and play the D & R blame game or you can look at the facts.
The facts are demand is down, consumers are buried in debt, we just went through the worse banking crisis since the 1930's, unemployment was just at a 20 year high, and the European Banks may still create a second credit/Banking crisis.
Outside of political finger pointing, there are good reasons to hold on to cash right now, even with the very low interest rates, and the reasons have little to do with Republicans or Democratic's.
Outside of political finger pointing, there are good reasons that the Labor force Participation Rate is the Lowest Since 1981.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
Edited by carygold on 05-10-12 08:41 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
|
