But now we are going to be stuck with it for years to come:
The report looked at 366 occupations tracked by the Labor Department and clumped them into three equal groups by wage, with each representing a third of American employment in 2008. The middle third---occupations in fields like construction, manufacturing and information, with median hourly wages of $13.84 to $21.13---accounted for 60 percent of job losses from the beginning of 2008 to early 2010.The job market has turned around since then, but those fields have represented only 22 percent of total job growth. Higher-wage occupations---those with a median wage of $21.14 to $54.55---represented 19 percent of job losses when employment was falling, and 20 percent of job gains when employment began growing again.
Lower-wage occupations, with median hourly wages of $7.69 to $13.83, accounted for 21 percent of job losses during the retraction. Since employment started expanding, they have accounted for 58 percent of all job growth.
Guess this is kinda-sorta the predictable outcome when you over-rely on tax cuts and job creators to correct structural imbalances that tax cuts and job creators, well, created. Alternatives? Sure. (1) Raise taxes on the job creators, their estates and capital gains. (2) Use money to fund massive public-works programs. (3) Put a few million idle construction workers back to work in unionized jobs. (4) By doing so, show voters how Big Government can work for them by putting money in their pockets and food on their table. It's smart policy, and smart politics. So why was this alternative not even discussed? Yes I know, it's time to rally around Team Democrat because Supreme Court legitimate rape homosexual agenda, etc., but as long as they continue to run away from their most enduring New Deal/Great Society social legacies, they're going to give voters fewer and fewer reasons to keep on voting for them. That's how 43 million grumpy old white people who voted Teabilly in 2010 could cancel out the the 69 million people who voted for Team Democrat two years earlier.
Put another way: Who needs to worry about voter-suppression laws when Democrats are perfectly capable of suppressing their own voter turnout?
---Vitelius
Comments