Anyone hoping that President Bush would produce a plan to help the nation’s workers through difficult times was sure to be disappointed by his State of the Union address. Not only did he fail to present any solutions, he doesn’t even seem to realize that we have a problem. He boasted about low inflation at a time when the Federal… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (3)Page 1 of 1 pagesI agree that President Bush has not done a fair job in boosting the economy. People are afraid to spend hard-earned money on anything that does not hold a permanent value, such as housing. The fact that the Federal Reserve has kept interest rates low is the only hope most middle-income, blue collar workers have for their future and that is a home over their heads. With the employment rates as high as they are and companies and factories closing at a tremendous rate, job security is no longer feasible. Therefore, people are not feeding our economy by spending as we had in the past. With Bush’s plans to continue tax breaks to the wealthy and feed more into war efforts, it is frightening to think where the middle class will be, should he be elected for another term.
Posted by Jessica Panos on Feb 11, 2004 at 9:31 PM In your opinion, will the middle class eventually be eliminated?
Posted by Jessica Panos on Feb 11, 2004 at 9:32 PM The ratio of employed workers to population is a statistic of very questionable value. At the time when Social Security was enacted, the actuarially-estimated life span of a person 65 years old was 4 years. Today, it would be closer to 15 years.
Assuming that the average person who had previously been in the work force retires at age 65, then it would be very relevant to know how this age group’s percentage of the population has increased over the years.
Other factors will also alter the ratio of employed workers to the general population. During the baby boom, when there was a higher percentage of children in our population, the ratio of employed persons to population would have been lower. Women’s entry into the labor market would have increased the ratio.
Without disputing your basic point that the Bush Administration has had a poor record on job creation, I question the value of the particular statistic you have cited to make your point.
Sincerely,
John F. Bradley
Posted by John F. Bradley on Feb 12, 2004 at 4:40 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Dean Baker
- Productivity: Is The Boom Over?
- Victory in the Medicare Drug War?
- Numbers Before Politics
- The Falling Dollar
The solution, not the problem - Cutting Our Benefits
Bush begins second term by attacking Social Security - The Economy
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
