The Social Security Administration just released figures taken from payroll taxes that track the number of workers in the United States and their median pay. These figures come from the Medicare tax database at the Social Security Administration, which processes every W-2 wage form. All wages, salaries, bonuses, independent contractor net income and other compensation for services subject to the Medicare tax are added up to the penny.
From 1999 to 2001, with Democrat Bill Clinton as President and a Republican Congress, an increase in both the number of people with jobs in our nation and their median pay. That's a good thing- give credit to Clinton and the GOP Congress inspired by the 1994 conservatives for doing some right things for our economy. The imminent election of Bush in late 2000 seemed to only add to the increase in median pay.
From 2001 to 2003, with Republican George W Bush as President and a divided Congress (House was GOP, Senate was Democrat), the number of workers and their pay remained flat. This is probably where the whole 'Bush's recover was jobless' rhetoric comes from, since once a liberal gets a view in their head, facts usually can't change it later on. It isn't good, but it isn't awful either, so let's see what happened after Democrats lost the Senate and see if that changed anything regarding Bush's term.
From 2003 to 2007, with Republican George W Bush as President and a full Republican Congress, there was a dramatic increase in the number of workers in our nation and (over time) a rise in the median pay for workers as well. This is a great thing- more people with jobs and the median pay of jobs also going up means a larger tax base, more people making goods and providing services, and America is better. The key variable here appears to be less a matter of Bush and more a matter of Republicans running Congress- and those Republicans from 2003 to 2007 weren't even especially conservative, principled, or driven by any sort of Tea Party ideals, they were just sort of Democrat-lites. 2007 was the peak in our nation in both workers and median pay, so putting back in charge whatever party did so well back then seems a reasonable assumption.
From 2007 to 2009, with Republican George W Bush as President and a full Democratic Congress, there was a slight drop from 2007 to 2008, and then in 2008 the bottom just fell out on our nation and we lost a ton of workers and the median pay for those workers who were still employed plunged. The massive bailouts, TARP, and other big government programs implemented by Bush late in his administration appear to have been considerable failures. The Democrats came roaring into Congress in 2007 on a platform of change and especially in 2008 began to really pass their agenda through Congress, so I would contend that the Democrats in Congress appear to be the key to destroying jobs and pay in an economy. The imminent election of Obama in late 2000 seemed to only add to the remarkable decrease in America's jobs and pay.
From 2009 to 2010, with Democrat Barack Obama as President and a full Democratic Congress, there was a slight drop in the number of workers in our nation, but another stunning drop in media pay. This data includes massive stimulus bills and spending programs that added stunning amounts of debt. The addition of Obama to the situation appeared to lead to a considerable drop in the median pay for our nation and did not bring any more jobs. I blame the Democrats in Congress more so than him at this point.
My prediction is that we will see another dip in jobs and median pay from 2010 to 2011, all of which Democrats can be said to be responsible. And it is too early to speculate on what effect the Republican take-over of the House in 2011 did to these numbers- after all, 2011 isn't even over. To be fair though, the steep drop in pay and workers should at the very least slow with this new divided Congress, as the data seems to fairly conclusively demonstrate that the more Republicans are in charge of Congress, the more workers we have as a nation and the more they are paid.
UPDATE: One loyal reader wanted me to pass on this caveat: "we must acknowledge the overriding influences on such data of the dot.com bubble of the 1990's which made everybody look good as 2000 approached and the real estate bubble of the early 2000's which made everybody look good until the crisis beginning in 2007. Both bubbles resulted in unsustainable highs which should not be considered new standards..."
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar