Statistics. Bah.
In Quality of New Jobs Is Focus of Election-Year Debate, the Washington Post presents the two views of the jobs Bush wants credit for:
"Despite the well-advertised pick-up of job growth, recent trends in real wage income remain very disappointing," lamented Stephen S. Roach, chief economist at Morgan Stanley, in a June 7 memo to clients. "This, in my view, underscores one of the most serious shortcomings of this recovery -- an unprecedented shortfall of the most important piece of personal income growth," wages and salaries.
Over the first 29 months of the economic recovery, total wages and salaries have risen less than 3 percent after adjusting for inflation -- a fraction of the 9 percent gains of the previous six upturns, Roach said. That works out to a $280 billion income gap between where workers are and where they should be, he concluded.
CIBC World Markets, a Toronto-based investment banking firm, reached a similar conclusion in a report issued Monday. That study found that U.S. job creation since late 2001 has been concentrated in low-paying industries such as hospitality, education and personal services, while job losses have hit higher-wage sectors such as transportation, manufacturing, utilities and natural resources.
"The message is clear: The vast majority of the jobs that evaporated during the job-loss recovery were high-quality jobs," the CIBC study concluded.
and
The Bush campaign has countered with a different base for comparison. Average hourly earnings, adjusted for inflation, have risen 2.4 percent since Bush took office. But, the campaign adds, at this point in President Bill Clinton's first term, average hourly earnings had risen just 0.1 percent.
When benefits are included, total compensation rose 1.1 percent from December 2003 to March 2004, and is up more than 13 percent since Bush's inauguration, the campaign says. At this point in Clinton's first term, total compensation was up 10.5 percent.
Most important, campaign officials say, is that real disposable personal income -- the amount of money in people's pockets after taxes -- is up 10 percent since 2001, compared with a 7 percent increase under Clinton. That measure, which is adjusted for inflation, includes wages and salaries, rental income, interest and dividend payments and the proceeds from the president's tax cuts.
Do you feel like you have ten percent more money to spend than you had in 2001? And how much of the increased value of benefit packages is attributable to higher rates on lesser coverage?
