Conquer Club

Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds.

At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.

Those records reflect a long-term trend accelerated by the recession and the federal stimulus program to counteract the downturn. The result is a major shift in the source of personal income from private wages to government programs.

The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says.

"This is really important," Grimes says.

Read more

If everybody jumps in the cart, there will be no one left to push.

GabonX wrote: The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says.

This part is not correct, or rather, it is only correct because those getting non-work government pay make so much less. Even those employed by the government most often make less than those in private industry with similar education and experience requirements.

Just as an example, the government heads of the BP operation make less than many of the workers on that rig.

This trend is disturbing, but hardly surprising, given the Baby boom generation is maturing and the down economy.

Please, tell us more..

And what? You have just got out of a recession where the unemployment rate is very high, of course entitlements are going to be paying out more and people will be on average earning less. Thats common sense.

As for the long term trend, Obama and the Democrats have helped to cut down in the exponential rise in healthcare costs but its going to take another big political effort to sort out Social Security. Blame it all on the politicians of the past 30 years who have failed to actually do anything substative on the issue and just continually passing it off to the next generation.

Like I said before..

.. One of these days you guys are going to run out of Kool Aid.

Socialism in America is a lot like meeting a new woman.

#1 you must keep in mind that you are meeting the woman's personal representative, especially for the first 2 dates. She wants to reel you into a lie. She wont let you see her without her make-up on. She wont let you see her tits on the first date, but she will take those saggers with stretchmarks and push them puppies up and out all nice and squirt a sweet smelling frangrance in the crack of the cleavage.

And then, when you finally see those titties, they are all saggy and stretched out and even lopsided....and you are like "shit, I wish I would have known these tits were so frompy, I would have never took her out for lobster and steak" Of course, the woman knew all along that if you see her tits, it's over.

Socialism is a pair of lopsided boobs with a birthmark contating a mole containing 2 wild hairs...But they know if you see it you are outti 5000

likewise, Socialism has to seem to pay its employees well, even when the debt is so large it is bigger than every penny the country produces for the entire next year. It's all a lie

Phatscotty wrote:Socialism in America is a lot like meeting a new woman.

#1 you must keep in mind that you are meeting the woman's personal representative, especially for the first 2 dates. She wants to reel you into a lie. She wont let you see her without her make-up on. She wont let you see her tits on the first date, but she will take those saggers with stretchmarks and push them puppies up and out all nice and squirt a sweet smelling frangrance in the crack of the cleavage.

And then, when you finally see those titties, they are all saggy and stretched out and even lopsided....and you are like "shit, I wish I would have known these tits were so frompy, I would have never took her out for lobster and steak" Of course, the woman knew all along that if you see her tits, it's over.

Socialism is a pair of lopsided boobs with a birthmark contating a mole containing 2 wild hairs...But they know if you see it you are outti 5000

likewise, Socialism has to seem to pay its employees well, even when the debt is so large it is bigger than every penny the country produces for the entire next year. It's all a lie

Wow.. Uhmm....

I couldn't have said it better myself?
No, that's not right...

Phatscotty wrote:Socialism in America is a lot like meeting a new woman.

#1 you must keep in mind that you are meeting the woman's personal representative, especially for the first 2 dates. She wants to reel you into a lie. She wont let you see her without her make-up on. She wont let you see her tits on the first date, but she will take those saggers with stretchmarks and push them puppies up and out all nice and squirt a sweet smelling frangrance in the crack of the cleavage.

And then, when you finally see those titties, they are all saggy and stretched out and even lopsided....and you are like "shit, I wish I would have known these tits were so frompy, I would have never took her out for lobster and steak" Of course, the woman knew all along that if you see her tits, it's over.

Admittedly, I haven't needed to date in 25+ years, but you sure seem to have some odd dating habits.

GabonX wrote:Like I said before..

.. One of these days you guys are going to run out of Kool Aid.

I guess those Democrats must be VERY powerful.. they can undo 8 years before one has even passed in a new term!

PLAYER57832 wrote:

GabonX wrote:Like I said before..

.. One of these days you guys are going to run out of Kool Aid.

I guess those Democrats must be VERY powerful.. they can undo 8 years before one has even passed in a new term!

The forest for the trees..

If the trend continues then I would be worried, but if by next year these numbers are reversing then I won't be too concerned. No reason to get excited by a recent jump, you have to think long term here.

maasman wrote:If the trend continues then I would be worried, but if by next year these numbers are reversing then I won't be too concerned. No reason to get excited by a recent jump, you have to think long term here.

Those records reflect a long-term trend accelerated by the recession and the federal stimulus program to counteract the downturn. The result is a major shift in the source of personal income from private wages to government programs.

California is already bankrupt and is being bailed out by the Feds...

The situation isn't totally unlike the situation with the EU and Greece.

"It's the system working as it should," Van de Water says. Government is stimulating growth and helping people in need, he says. As the economy recovers, private wages will rebound, he says.

If this is indeed true, then there should be no problems. Sadly, things rarely work out like they should, but hopefully this one does.

maasman wrote:

"It's the system working as it should," Van de Water says. Government is stimulating growth and helping people in need, he says. As the economy recovers, private wages will rebound, he says.

If this is indeed true, then there should be no problems. Sadly, things rarely work out like they should, but hopefully this one does.

Hopefully, because we're kind of on the brink of disaster in oh so many ways...

PLAYER57832 wrote:

GabonX wrote: The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says.

This part is not correct, or rather, it is only correct because those getting non-work government pay make so much less. Even those employed by the government most often make less than those in private industry with similar education and experience requirements.

Just as an example, the government heads of the BP operation make less than many of the workers on that rig.

This trend is disturbing, but hardly surprising, given the Baby boom generation is maturing and the down economy.

Working on an oil rig is no picnic. You are in a dangerous environment away from your friends and family working extremely long hours with limited entertainment options for months at a time. No one would do those jobs for low pay.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

GabonX wrote: The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says.

This part is not correct, or rather, it is only correct because those getting non-work government pay make so much less. Even those employed by the government most often make less than those in private industry with similar education and experience requirements.

Just as an example, the government heads of the BP operation make less than many of the workers on that rig.

This trend is disturbing, but hardly surprising, given the Baby boom generation is maturing and the down economy.

You are just wrong on so many levels on so many topics!


I work for NYS. I make over 50k. I have a high school education, some college- no degree. There are very few private sector jobs where this is possible. I work a lot less now then I did working outside the government. My income has doubled in the past 10 years working for the gov.

GabonX wrote:

maasman wrote:If the trend continues then I would be worried, but if by next year these numbers are reversing then I won't be too concerned. No reason to get excited by a recent jump, you have to think long term here.

Those records reflect a long-term trend accelerated by the recession and the federal stimulus program to counteract the downturn. The result is a major shift in the source of personal income from private wages to government programs.

California is already bankrupt and is being bailed out by the Feds...

The situation isn't totally unlike the situation with the EU and Greece.

The US long term situation is totally unlike the budget deficits in the EU and Greece.

rockfist wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

GabonX wrote: The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says.

This part is not correct, or rather, it is only correct because those getting non-work government pay make so much less. Even those employed by the government most often make less than those in private industry with similar education and experience requirements.

Just as an example, the government heads of the BP operation make less than many of the workers on that rig.

This trend is disturbing, but hardly surprising, given the Baby boom generation is maturing and the down economy.

Working on an oil rig is no picnic. You are in a dangerous environment away from your friends and family working extremely long hours with limited entertainment options for months at a time. No one would do those jobs for low pay.

Agreed, but their bosses, who don't have such dangerous jobs make a good deal more. I have heard you claim that CEOs deserve high pay because they have so much responsibility, are responsible for the company making profits, etc. A coast gaurd commandant might not be the best example, because he is military. However, are you going to argue the the head of the EPA really has no more responsibility than an average oil rig worker?

Conservatives like to through out these claims of government workers who are overpaid, wasteful. However, that is based on their belief that there simply should not be these government positions. They dislike the EPA, for example, because the EPA "gets in the way" of industry. Now, there absolutely are idiots, overpaid people in the government. That is true in private industry as well. You hire people, some will not pan out. Departments might be created that seem to make sense, at least to some people, for a while, but that wind up being wastes.

However, the REAL reason so many titons of industry are anti-government precisely because the government, when it is not raped of funding, etc., does a good job. They dislike that scientists are telling industry to stop certain activities.

Titanic wrote:And what? You have just got out of a recession where the unemployment rate is very high, of course entitlements are going to be paying out more and people will be on average earning less. Thats common sense.

As for the long term trend, Obama and the Democrats have helped to cut down in the exponential rise in healthcare costs but its going to take another big political effort to sort out Social Security. Blame it all on the politicians of the past 30 years who have failed to actually do anything substative on the issue and just continually passing it off to the next generation.

WTH did Obama and the Democrats do to "cut down in the exponential rise in healthcare costs"?

If you are referring to PPACA (the federal health care reform law), then please point to the specific sections (they are all numbered) in the law that do this.

Phatscotty wrote:Socialism in America is a lot like meeting a new woman.

#1 you must keep in mind that you are meeting the woman's personal representative, especially for the first 2 dates. She wants to reel you into a lie. She wont let you see her without her make-up on. She wont let you see her tits on the first date, but she will take those saggers with stretchmarks and push them puppies up and out all nice and squirt a sweet smelling frangrance in the crack of the cleavage.

And then, when you finally see those titties, they are all saggy and stretched out and even lopsided....and you are like "shit, I wish I would have known these tits were so frompy, I would have never took her out for lobster and steak" Of course, the woman knew all along that if you see her tits, it's over.

Socialism is a pair of lopsided boobs with a birthmark contating a mole containing 2 wild hairs...But they know if you see it you are outti 5000

likewise, Socialism has to seem to pay its employees well, even when the debt is so large it is bigger than every penny the country produces for the entire next year. It's all a lie

You've gotta change desperate singles agencies fella
What you never got laid with a really nice woman on the first date? God Bless England

PLAYER57832 wrote:

GabonX wrote: The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says.

This part is not correct, or rather, it is only correct because those getting non-work government pay make so much less. Even those employed by the government most often make less than those in private industry with similar education and experience requirements.

Just as an example, the government heads of the BP operation make less than many of the workers on that rig.

This trend is disturbing, but hardly surprising, given the Baby boom generation is maturing and the down economy.

Are you sure that government employees make less than similarly situated private employees? Wasn't there a big chart posted a couple months ago on this (that showed government employees make more money)? And didn't you, in that thread, indicate that this was because (to paraphrase) corporations were evil?

PLAYER57832 wrote:Conservatives like to through out these claims of government workers who are overpaid, wasteful. However, that is based on their belief that there simply should not be these government positions. They dislike the EPA, for example, because the EPA "gets in the way" of industry. Now, there absolutely are idiots, overpaid people in the government. That is true in private industry as well. You hire people, some will not pan out. Departments might be created that seem to make sense, at least to some people, for a while, but that wind up being wastes.

In the private sector, when a person doesn't pan out, they're fired. In the private sector, when departments end up being a waste, they are cut. When does this ever happen in the federal government?

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Conservatives like to through out these claims of government workers who are overpaid, wasteful. However, that is based on their belief that there simply should not be these government positions. They dislike the EPA, for example, because the EPA "gets in the way" of industry. Now, there absolutely are idiots, overpaid people in the government. That is true in private industry as well. You hire people, some will not pan out. Departments might be created that seem to make sense, at least to some people, for a while, but that wind up being wastes.

In the private sector, when a person doesn't pan out, they're fired. In the private sector, when departments end up being a waste, they are cut. When does this ever happen in the federal government?

In the private sector, when you mess up big you get fired. In government, you get promoted. (Just look at all the people who got promoted after 911)

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Conservatives like to through out these claims of government workers who are overpaid, wasteful. However, that is based on their belief that there simply should not be these government positions. They dislike the EPA, for example, because the EPA "gets in the way" of industry. Now, there absolutely are idiots, overpaid people in the government. That is true in private industry as well. You hire people, some will not pan out. Departments might be created that seem to make sense, at least to some people, for a while, but that wind up being wastes.

In the private sector, when a person doesn't pan out, they're fired. In the private sector, when departments end up being a waste, they are cut. When does this ever happen in the federal government?

Most government employees are temporary. So, no. You only see the few exceptions. Also, a lot of what you call "waste" is really codespeak for "not doing what big business wants" or "following a legitimate scientific line of investigation that just does not pan out."