>"Slow," as you can appreciate,
watch it...!
is a relative term.
>4 percent is pretty good for economic growth, not
>so good as a rate of profit.
okay. so look, i'm at the bottom. i ain't feeling pleased by any of it. got that?! so talk of how it's moderately great ain't doing much for me. my rent went up almost 10%
>Go to our "Datazone," then to National Data, then
>to "Hourly Wage Decile Cutoffs," then to "All."
>Then check the first few deciles over the most
>recent three years in the chart.
>
>>>>>>>>>>
now THAT was rilly rilly rilly rilly depressing. if i had that fancy bottle of scotch someone owes me, i could drown my sorrows....
>The gap refers to relative positions of top and bottom.
>This could get worse, even if the bottom is growing in
>real absolute terms.
>>>>>>
i suspect it is and i also suspect that the income inequality is distributed in regional/metro pockets. traversing the two hours between here and central florida is like moving between planets. ditto where i used to live. syracuse: dull, drab, gray, depressed; rochester: shiny, bustling. of course, within each area are still more pockets of even deeper poverty
> Two different metrics.
normally appreciate the parsimony, (b/c i suck at it) but... whatchya mean?
>The broader context for this was some careless yakking
>by persons who shall go nameless, as opposed to having
>many names, to the effect that wages
>had been squeezed more than ever, or something to that
>effect, whereas the reality is nearly the opposite.
well, my guess is this (please, i beg you, give me a spanking if i'm wrong): it was highly regional. the "uplift" came from those places that already had relatively depressed wages, those pockets that hadn't benefitted from the "new economy" and were still reeling from the deindustrialization of the 70s/80s. when i did the economic analysis for the five county area in CNY we were just pulling out of the mess and unemployment was low --but only because thousands of people had packed up and left. so the biz community started whining about tight labor market. wages went up sharply but that was in comparison to already depressed wages --comparatively.
>now now. you're not a yut. You are merely musically
>confused. This can be easily remedied with counseling.
>Forget about the foo-fighting goo-goo biscuits et al.
>and settle down with some Blonde On Blonde. Or if
>you need to be up try Axis: Bold as Love. If you
>want to put your brain on suspend for a while, ZZ Top.
hey! i llike ZZtop. don't listen to 'em much anymore, but i did not grow up in the backwoods listening to my gramps play the fiddle at the weeklly ho downs at the rod 'n' gun club while granny made beer pancakes with all the other grannies fer nuttin honey. have you even bothered to get your hands on rockpile and have a listen -- as i demanded of you some months ago???????
>No I wasn't referring to cycles. Only the fact
>that there have been real wages gains across the
>board for the past couple of years, something
>new in recent history. As cycles go this one
>is long but otherwise not all that special in
>terms of investment, GDP, aggregate wages,
>but unusual in terms of the generality of
>wage gains, very low unemployment, low
>accompanying inflation, and some quarters
>with out-of-sight real growth rates.
but you're not one to get out the silk boxers for this are ya?
kelley