<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=datestamp><FONT color=#0000ff size=4>"There are many more
things in the world than dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio
(Gary)."</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=datestamp><FONT color=#0000ff
size=4>--Shakespeare</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=datestamp></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=datestamp>
<DIV><SPAN class=inside-head><FONT size=6><STRONG>Family income up, but not
pay</STRONG></FONT></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=datestamp></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=datestamp>Updated 8/29/2006 10:44 PM ET</SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=byLine>By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY</DIV>
<DIV class=inside-copy><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV class=inside-copy><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV class=inside-copy><FONT size=4>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.</FONT></DIV>
<P class=inside-copy><FONT size=4>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.</FONT></P>
<P class=inside-copy><FONT size=4>The rise in income hid some somber
news.</FONT></P>
<P class=inside-copy><FONT size=4><FONT color=#ff0000><STRONG>Earnings actually
fell for people working full time.</STRONG></FONT> 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%.</FONT></P>
<P class=inside-copy><FONT size=4>"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.</FONT></P>
<P class=inside-copy><FONT size=4>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.</FONT></P>
<P class=inside-copy><FONT size=4>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.</FONT></P>
<P class=inside-copy><FONT size=4>The Census Bureau also reported on:</FONT></P>
<P class=inside-copy><FONT size=4>•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.</FONT></P>
<P class=inside-copy><FONT size=4>•Seniors. Income jumped 2.8% for people 65 and
older. Older Americans benefited from greater income from Social Security,
pensions and dividends.</FONT></P>
<P class=inside-copy><FONT size=4>•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.</FONT></P>
<P class=inside-copy><FONT size=4>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.</FONT></P>
<P class=inside-copy><FONT size=4>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.</FONT></P>
<P class=inside-copy><FONT size=4>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."</FONT></P>
<DIV>----- Original Message -----
<DIV>From: "g. crabtree" <<A
href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">jampot@adelphia.net</A>></DIV>
<DIV>To: "Andreas Schou" <<A
href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com">ophite@gmail.com</A>></DIV>
<DIV>Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <<A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>></DIV>
<DIV>Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:10 AM</DIV>
<DIV>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Costco Preferred Over Wal-Mart</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>> Mr. Schou, let's take this discussion back to its original
starting point <BR>> which was, I believe, the contention that Wal-Mart
should be kept out of the <BR>> community because Costco was a more desirable
employer and examine your <BR>> argument. How is the worker who is
unemployed/under employed served by there <BR>> being one less option
available to him? I would be willing to concede the <BR>> point that there is
some group of people that take a job at WM that will <BR>> stagnate in a low
level position. How is this worse then their starting <BR>> point? Some will
rise in the organization to better paying jobs. Some will <BR>> parlay their
work experience to more lucrative jobs with other companies, <BR>> perhaps
even the much esteemed pinnacle of success, Costco. Unfortunately, <BR>> some
will also quit or be fired but even then they are little worse off then <BR>>
when they started. I know you are a compassionate guy but I fail to see how
<BR>> depriving the area of a potential source of entry level employment does
<BR>> anyone any favors. The idea that because the next step up from no job
at all <BR>> isn't a position that pays $16.00/hr with a benefits
package and all the <BR>> hot dogs you can eat makes no sense to me at all.
It would seem that what <BR>> you are seeking is a world where people with no
skill or drive can jump into <BR>> a situation where they will be provided
for (at some arbitrary level <BR>> determined by?) and settle in for
life. No further effort will or should be <BR>> required on their part. I
think that this has been tried and found wanting.<BR>> <BR>>
gc<BR> </BODY></HTML>