[Vision2020] Costco Preferred Over Wal-Mart

[Art Deco]

"There are many more things in the world than dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio (Gary)."
--Shakespeare

Family income up, but not pay

Updated 8/29/2006 10:44 PM ET 
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY


Household income rose faster than inflation last year for the first time since 1999, but families got ahead only by working at more jobs that paid less money, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday.
Median household income adjusted for inflation climbed 1.1% to $46,326 in 2005. That means half of U.S. households earned more and half earned less. Per capita income rose 1.5% to $25,036, the agency said.

The rise in income hid some somber news.

Earnings actually fell for people working full time. Household income rose because more people in the households worked, although at lower-paying jobs. Median earnings of men declined 1.8% last year. For women, the decline was 1.3%.

"It tells us the economy is still not generating the higher-paying jobs we'd like to see," says Douglas Besharov of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington. He says some of the earnings decline reflects demographic changes found in an aging population: older workers cutting back on hours and more women entering the workforce as their children grow up.

Immigrants made progress last year, enjoying a 3.3% increase in median household income to $42,040. For people born in the USA, income climbed 0.2%, to $46,897.

Black households fared worse: Income dropped 0.8% to $30,858. Asians did best: a 2.8% increase, to $61,094, cementing their status as the most prosperous racial or ethnic group. Hispanic income grew 1.6% to $35,967. Non-Hispanic whites had a 0.5% increase to $50,784.

The Census Bureau also reported on:

.Poverty. The portion of Americans living in poverty was 12.6% in 2005, essentially unchanged from 2004. The poverty rate had been rising since 2000. About 37 million people in 2005 lived in poverty, defined as annual income of $19,971 or less for a family of four.

.Seniors. Income jumped 2.8% for people 65 and older. Older Americans benefited from greater income from Social Security, pensions and dividends.

.Women. Wages for full-time female workers were 77% of men's wages. Women's wages have risen in relation to men's from 71% in 1995.

The Census report is an imperfect measure of income and poverty. The numbers do not include the value of food stamps, housing subsidies, Medicaid, Medicare or the earned income tax credit.

The earned income tax credit is the nation's largest cash assistance program for the poor, providing an average of $1,600 to 21 million households in 2005.

University of Notre Dame economist David Betson says the income trend is "not good news for the American worker. We keep saying, 'You'll get yours in the future.' At some point, that future is supposed to arrive."

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
To: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>
Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Costco Preferred Over Wal-Mart


> Mr. Schou, let's take this discussion back to its original starting point 
> which was, I believe, the contention that Wal-Mart should be kept out of the 
> community because Costco was a more desirable employer and examine your 
> argument. How is the worker who is unemployed/under employed served by there 
> being one less option available to him? I would be willing to concede the 
> point that there is some group of people that take a job at WM that will 
> stagnate in a low level position. How is this worse then their starting 
> point? Some will rise in the organization to better paying jobs. Some will 
> parlay their work experience to more lucrative jobs with other companies, 
> perhaps even the much esteemed pinnacle of success, Costco. Unfortunately, 
> some will also quit or be fired but even then they are little worse off then 
> when they started. I know you are a compassionate guy but I fail to see how 
> depriving the area of a potential source of entry level employment does 
> anyone any favors. The idea that because the next step up from no job at all 
> isn't a position that pays $16.00/hr with a  benefits package and all the 
> hot dogs you can eat makes no sense to me at all. It would seem that what 
> you are seeking is a world where people with no skill or drive can jump into 
> a situation where they will be provided for (at some arbitrary level 
> determined by?)  and settle in for life. No further effort will or should be 
> required on their part. I think that this has been tried and found wanting.
> 
> gc
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060831/04b0e9db/attachment.htm