Libs in this forum seem extremely angry

[sandorski]

It is assumed by the OP, and others, that Anger is some "bad" thing. Anger is no more "bad" than Happy, each has its' time and place. The "Libs" might be justifiably confused as to why everyone isn't Angry.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
[ ... ]
1. "economy is in the dumper" We just had 4 record stock market closing in a row, the market does not hit records when the economy is "in the dumper" plus we had a HUGE increase in government revenue last year, another sign that the economy is healthy. Also economic growth since the 2003 tax cuts has been at 3.5% which is higher than the average for the 1980's AND 1990's.

More misdirection. Your claims have been soundly exposed in the threads you keep avoiding.

2. "foreclosures are at an all-time high" where are you getting your facts? I have not seen one article talking about any kind of "all-time high" Foreclosures are up for sure, but there are a variety of reasons for that. Mainly the fact that a lot of people bought to much house with all the interest rates gimmicks the banks pushed and now they can't pay them and since the housing market is slowing down they can't sell or refinance their way out of trouble. (I know it is callus, but rising foreclosures will force the lending industry to look at its practices and modify its behavior in the future to prevent this type of thing from happening again. In essence the market will correct its self. Which of course does nothing to help the poor people losing their homes.)

It probably would have been more accurate to say "foreclosures are at an all-time high since the Great Depression." Of course most people wouldn't try to spin the economy as being fantastic ... compared to the 1930's.

3. "job numbers are pathetic" unemployment is at 4.6% which matches a 5 year low. (In Florida the rate is less than 4%) And the rate is lower than the average of 1990's and lower than the first FIVE years Clinton was President. (Wasn't Clinton reelected because the economy was doing so well? And yet unemployment was 5.4% during his reelection campaign.) We've also added 6.6 million jobs since August 2003. AND best news of all wage growth this year is at 4.1% which is similar to the 1990's peak AND Real after-tax income is up 9% since 2001.

Also rebutted in one of the threads you're avoiding, the unemployment rate is artificially low since there are so many people who've abandoned hope of finding jobs. Were we to measure it the same way as our peers, the actual rate is reportedly in the 8-9% range.

The "6.6 million jobs" added is equally deceptive. First, it ignores the number of jobs lost during Bush's first term. (The selection of Aug 2003 as the starting point is no coincidence, it is another example of cherry-picking statistics to deceive.) Second, it ignores the normal growth in the labor force. Roughly 150,000 additional jobs are needed each month just to break even with growth. That means we needed about 5.7 million new jobs since Aug 2003 just to keep up with growth. The net gain is a paltry million or so jobs -- much better than nothing, but nowhere near enough to fill the 6+ million job hole left in Bush's first term.

Finally, it ignores the fact that most of these new jobs are not as good as the jobs they replace. The salary and benefits are inferior. In many cases, part-time jobs have replaced full-time jobs. When I last researched this, there was roughly a 50% increase in part-time employment, accounting for the vast majority of new jobs created at the time. This is all documented in an old thread here.

(One other note, the Bush administration BLS instituted a new methodolgy for counting employment, magically adding almost one million phantom jobs to its count. I don't remember, however, whether this went in in January, 2003, or January, 2004, so I don't know if it's part of the "6.6 million" claim or not. In any case, I documented this in the same thread mentioned above.)

4. "war that should have never been started" that is personal opinion. A lot of people feel it was the right thing to do, but I am not going to argue that point since it is a waste on time and won't change any minds.

5. "our public education system is the worst it's been" How do you figure that? And the problem with our education system has been going on for years and years. At least Bush is trying something with "no child left behind" I don't recall much effort by the person in office before him. I don't think we can fix our education system until we take the power away from the teachers unions and put it back in the hands of the parents. That is why so many of us on the right support vouchers.

It's been well-documented that NCLB was under-funded, forces artifical focus on testing instead of learning, and is widely regarded by education professionals as a failure. The claim that we'll improve education by taking it away from the trained professionals is absurd. One need only look at the parents who have imposed such gems as Intelligent Design [sic] to see this.

6. Social Security- Both sides are failing us in this regard. I am in favor of the private/public system that has been proposed. As the system stands today there is no way to fix it without changing the basic function of the system. Or allowing TONS of immigration so that we add workers faster than they retire.

Unfortunately, BushCo's plan did absolutely nothing to address Social Security solvency. Indeed, it made it worse, which was apparently part of the plan. The BushCo plan was a gift to Wall Street, nothing more.

7. Health Care- again a problem that has been going on for FAR longer than Bush has been in power. We saw the Democrat solution via Hillary Care, a government take over of healthcare, I don't think so. Neither side is doing much at all about healthcare, beyond rolling it out at election time to scare voters in to voting for them.

On the last three. If the Democrats are so much better than the Republicans then how come there has not been ONE major proposal by a Democrat to fix any of these problems? And during Clinton's eight years we did not see one workable proposal either. On all three of these issues BOTH sides are failing to act.

I love the way you contradict yourself here. First you acknowledge Clinton's proposal. Then in the next paragraph, you claim the Dems had none. What you really mean, of course, is that the Dems have no plans you personally like, therefore you deny their existence. It's the same crock you pull over and over, "The Dems have no plan for [insert talking point here]." ROFL!

Personally I trust the Republicans to come up with a solution for the last three more than the Democrats since any Republican solution will be less likely to involved some huge increase in the size and power of the government.

Wow. Speaking of being disconnected from reality. Ever hear of Homeland Security? "PATRIOT"? How about Bush's trillion dollar big pharma corporate wlefare program? Get real.

 

[kingtas]

The OP has it right.

I thought liberals were into treating people with courtesy and respect. In this forum, liberals label opposition to their views as being stupid, morons, idiots, etc.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
[ ... ]
1. "economy is in the dumper" We just had 4 record stock market closing in a row, the market does not hit records when the economy is "in the dumper" plus we had a HUGE increase in government revenue last year, another sign that the economy is healthy. Also economic growth since the 2003 tax cuts has been at 3.5% which is higher than the average for the 1980's AND 1990's.

More misdirection. Your claims have been soundly exposed in the threads you keep avoiding.

2. "foreclosures are at an all-time high" where are you getting your facts? I have not seen one article talking about any kind of "all-time high" Foreclosures are up for sure, but there are a variety of reasons for that. Mainly the fact that a lot of people bought to much house with all the interest rates gimmicks the banks pushed and now they can't pay them and since the housing market is slowing down they can't sell or refinance their way out of trouble. (I know it is callus, but rising foreclosures will force the lending industry to look at its practices and modify its behavior in the future to prevent this type of thing from happening again. In essence the market will correct its self. Which of course does nothing to help the poor people losing their homes.)

It probably would have been more accurate to say "foreclosures are at an all-time high since the Great Depression." Of course most people wouldn't try to spin the economy as being fantastic ... compared to the 1930's.

3. "job numbers are pathetic" unemployment is at 4.6% which matches a 5 year low. (In Florida the rate is less than 4%) And the rate is lower than the average of 1990's and lower than the first FIVE years Clinton was President. (Wasn't Clinton reelected because the economy was doing so well? And yet unemployment was 5.4% during his reelection campaign.) We've also added 6.6 million jobs since August 2003. AND best news of all wage growth this year is at 4.1% which is similar to the 1990's peak AND Real after-tax income is up 9% since 2001.

Also rebutted in one of the threads you're avoiding, the unemployment rate is artificially low since there are so many people who've abandoned hope of finding jobs. Were we to measure it the same way as our peers, the actual rate is reportedly in the 8-9% range.

The "6.6 million jobs" added is equally deceptive. First, it ignores the number of jobs lost during Bush's first term. (The selection of Aug 2003 as the starting point is no coincidence, it is another example of cherry-picking statistics to deceive.) Second, it ignores the normal growth in the labor force. Roughly 150,000 additional jobs are needed each month just to break even with growth. That means we needed about 5.7 million new jobs since Aug 2003 just to keep up with growth. The net gain is a paltry million or so jobs -- much better than nothing, but nowhere near enough to fill the 6+ million job hole left in Bush's first term.

Finally, it ignores the fact that most of these new jobs are not as good as the jobs they replace. The salary and benefits are inferior. In many cases, part-time jobs have replaced full-time jobs. When I last researched this, there was roughly a 50% increase in part-time employment, accounting for the vast majority of new jobs created at the time. This is all documented in an old thread here.

(One other note, the Bush administration BLS instituted a new methodolgy for counting employment, magically adding almost one million phantom jobs to its count. I don't remember, however, whether this went in in January, 2003, or January, 2004, so I don't know if it's part of the "6.6 million" claim or not. In any case, I documented this in the same thread mentioned above.)

4. "war that should have never been started" that is personal opinion. A lot of people feel it was the right thing to do, but I am not going to argue that point since it is a waste on time and won't change any minds.

5. "our public education system is the worst it's been" How do you figure that? And the problem with our education system has been going on for years and years. At least Bush is trying something with "no child left behind" I don't recall much effort by the person in office before him. I don't think we can fix our education system until we take the power away from the teachers unions and put it back in the hands of the parents. That is why so many of us on the right support vouchers.

It's been well-documented that NCLB was under-funded, forces artifical focus on testing instead of learning, and is widely regarded by education professionals as a failure. The claim that we'll improve education by taking it away from the trained professionals is absurd. One need only look at the parents who have imposed such gems as Intelligent Design [sic] to see this.

6. Social Security- Both sides are failing us in this regard. I am in favor of the private/public system that has been proposed. As the system stands today there is no way to fix it without changing the basic function of the system. Or allowing TONS of immigration so that we add workers faster than they retire.

Unfortunately, BushCo's plan did absolutely nothing to address Social Security solvency. Indeed, it made it worse, which was apparently part of the plan. The BushCo plan was a gift to Wall Street, nothing more.

7. Health Care- again a problem that has been going on for FAR longer than Bush has been in power. We saw the Democrat solution via Hillary Care, a government take over of healthcare, I don't think so. Neither side is doing much at all about healthcare, beyond rolling it out at election time to scare voters in to voting for them.

On the last three. If the Democrats are so much better than the Republicans then how come there has not been ONE major proposal by a Democrat to fix any of these problems? And during Clinton's eight years we did not see one workable proposal either. On all three of these issues BOTH sides are failing to act.

I love the way you contradict yourself here. First you acknowledge Clinton's proposal. Then in the next paragraph, you claim the Dems had none. What you really mean, of course, is that the Dems have no plans you personally like, therefore you deny their existence. It's the same crock you pull over and over, "The Dems have no plan for [insert talking point here]." ROFL!

Personally I trust the Republicans to come up with a solution for the last three more than the Democrats since any Republican solution will be less likely to involved some huge increase in the size and power of the government.

Wow. Speaking of being disconnected from reality. Ever hear of Homeland Security? "PATRIOT"? How about Bush's trillion dollar big pharma corporate wlefare program? Get real.

You are wasting your time. If NSA spying/no SS reform, no immigration reform, oil tax breaks, terrible handling of katrina(post 9/11 strategy at work), tons of scandals, libby's lieing, etc. isn't enough to convince people that the people in charge don't know what they are doing, you will never be able ot get through to people like him. He is still trying to justify the invasion of Iraq!

 

[Pens1566]

:thumbsup:
Nice post Bowfinger. I'd put more effort into my version of it, but why waste time on someone that's not going to read it, or will ignore it if they do. :disgust:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
1. Stock market records only mean something to the well-off. How about the fact that real wages have gone DOWN in this "great economy"???

Nobody except the rich have 401Ks, pension plans, IRAs, or other accounts in the stock market?

3. Did you know that unemployment % doesn't take into account those that have given up looking for work, or those that have had to take lesser paying jobs to replace wherever they used to work at??? Until it takes those into account, it's a bs statistic.

Yes, and your point? If you arent looking for work why should you be considered in the unemployment rate? That rate is a barometer for business to see how hard or soft the labor markets are. I think you are worried about the participation rate, which hasnt really moved much in decades. But I expect it to fall with the baby boomers coming of age. But that unemployment rate is ridiculous, basically full employment.

And people arent taking lower paying jobs, if they were, why does the avg hourly rate keep increasing?

5. You've obviously never spoken with someone who's an educator. No child left behind is the absolute worst thing to happen to our public education system. Ask any teacher/admin, and they'll back it up. It's underfunded, and punitive.

You're a freaking brick wall. Except the wall actually learns.

I can understand why a teacher wouldnt want somebody on their ass looking to get the job done. The current situation in our educational system is a joke. The teacher unions and their dues grease the wheels of democracy for their benefit at the expense of the people paying their wages.

I heard the median wage for a teacher in Minnesota is 50k, that is much higher than the avg joe on the street. Yet all we hear is how the districts are underfunded, teachers cant afford life ect ect.

One giant govt scam if you ask me.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: kingtas
The OP has it right.

I thought liberals were into treating people with courtesy and respect. In this forum, liberals label opposition to their views as being stupid, morons, idiots, etc.

I'd rather be called stupid, moron or idiot for an opposing viewpoint than traitor, un-patriotic, etc..

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Craig234

The beef I have against liberals on national security cannot be repaired; the manta of never killing our killers does not appeal to me and never will.

You're posting a lie about liberals.

Cause pacifism is so obviously not where this forum stands.

Would you consider our invasion of Afghanistan "pacifism"? I haven't seen anybody on P&N that opposes it.

True, there was support on that one issue. Since then you've all been convinced the buck stops there and all other action must be defeated as a top priority.

 

[Genx87]

Also rebutted in one of the threads you're avoiding, the unemployment rate is artificially low since there are so many people who've abandoned hope of finding jobs. Were we to measure it the same way as our peers, the actual rate is reportedly in the 8-9% range.

Who are our peers?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: kingtas
The OP has it right.

I thought liberals were into treating people with courtesy and respect. In this forum, liberals label opposition to their views as being stupid, morons, idiots, etc.

"Conservatives" should have used the Golden Rule.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Also rebutted in one of the threads you're avoiding, the unemployment rate is artificially low since there are so many people who've abandoned hope of finding jobs. Were we to measure it the same way as our peers, the actual rate is reportedly in the 8-9% range.

Who are our peers?

Other industrialized Western democracies.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Pens1566
1. Stock market records only mean something to the well-off. How about the fact that real wages have gone DOWN in this "great economy"???

Nobody except the rich have 401Ks, pension plans, IRAs, or other accounts in the stock market?

3. Did you know that unemployment % doesn't take into account those that have given up looking for work, or those that have had to take lesser paying jobs to replace wherever they used to work at??? Until it takes those into account, it's a bs statistic.

Yes, and your point? If you arent looking for work why should you be considered in the unemployment rate? That rate is a barometer for business to see how hard or soft the labor markets are. I think you are worried about the participation rate, which hasnt really moved much in decades. But I expect it to fall with the baby boomers coming of age. But that unemployment rate is ridiculous, basically full employment.

And people arent taking lower paying jobs, if they were, why does the avg hourly rate keep increasing?

5. You've obviously never spoken with someone who's an educator. No child left behind is the absolute worst thing to happen to our public education system. Ask any teacher/admin, and they'll back it up. It's underfunded, and punitive.

You're a freaking brick wall. Except the wall actually learns.

I can understand why a teacher wouldnt want somebody on their ass looking to get the job done. The current situation in our educational system is a joke. The teacher unions and their dues grease the wheels of democracy for their benefit at the expense of the people paying their wages.

I heard the median wage for a teacher in Minnesota is 50k, that is much higher than the avg joe on the street. Yet all we hear is how the districts are underfunded, teachers cant afford life ect ect.

One giant govt scam if you ask me.

Only the wealthy get immediate income from the market. The rest is retirement accounts. How much does the market hitting 12k mean right now to a guy working at a body shop? Walmart?

Last time I checked, if you didn't have a job you were still considered unemployed. Whether you'd given up looking or not. And REAL WAGES are decreasing which means people are taking lower paying jobs.

 

[BlancoNino]

Libs on this forum are angry because that's what their idealogy is based on...things that piss them off.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Libs on this forum are angry because that's what their idealogy is based on...things that piss them off.

Wait, I thought we were all peaceful hippies?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87

Also rebutted in one of the threads you're avoiding, the unemployment rate is artificially low since there are so many people who've abandoned hope of finding jobs. Were we to measure it the same way as our peers, the actual rate is reportedly in the 8-9% range.

Who are our peers?

Other industrialized Western democracies.

Like?

I am curious because I know how the EU calculates their unemployment. Maybe if you have another country what is radically different I can look it up.

I can tell you the EU and US are virtually identical, except the EU counts at age 15 vs the US at age 16. Both have a cutoff date roughly the same on when they are dropped from consideration for looking for employment.

This idea we arent calculating the true unemployment rate is a new theory tossed out by the left to try and minimize any positives people can take from the economy. Of course under Clinton that 4.6% was a true number right? None of this behind the scenes 8-9% that reportedly is true.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
:thumbsup:
Nice post Bowfinger. I'd put more effort into my version of it, but why waste time on someone that's not going to read it, or will ignore it if they do. :disgust:

Thanks. As far as why, I agree he will avoid it, but it may finally drive him out of the thread. It's worked pretty well in the past.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Speak for yourself please.

Just because you and the rest of the Republicans hate America doesn't mean the rest of do too.

I don't hate america. I hate the pussification of it (lack of personal responsibility and the inability to do what is right for the good of others) and will vote accordingly to continue this increase in the quality of life for America.

Are you sure you're voting for the right party there, ace? Taking responsibility for things does not seem to be the Republicans' strong suit. I never thought I'd say this, but it really makes me wish for the days of "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is".

LOL right party? What is the right party? I am just curious.

When the Democrats have this much power, they will likely do the same as well. The Republicans have shown that giving them this much power is leading them down. The whole GOP does not seem as assured as it had in the past and I think the American people see it. By the way, the America people generally vote on party basis and I think that is something that needs to be worked on. We need to think beyond parties and political names such as "liberal" or "conservative. These labels are too narrow and generalized and don't serve a good purpose.

 

[Genx87]

Only the wealthy get immediate income from the market. The rest is retirement accounts. How much does the market hitting 12k mean right now to a guy working at a body shop? Walmart?

You can quantify this how exactly?

Last time I checked, if you didn't have a job you were still considered unemployed. Whether you'd given up looking or not. And REAL WAGES are decreasing which means people are taking lower paying jobs.

Provided you are looking for a job. If you stop looking for a job you are dropped from the rate and rightfully so.

Real wages is a result of inflation not because people are working for less money. If we had a 0% inflation rate "real wages" would have increased nicely.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Libs on this forum are angry because that's what their idealogy is based on...things that piss them off.

Wait, I thought we were all peaceful hippies?

If you're refering to my other thread...

A) I never said peaceful.

B) I never said all.

/argument.

 

[Albatross]

US need a good dose of socialism like here..oh wait....nevermind.:roll:

"Since the 1970s, governments have acted as if they had the right solutions, but the one thing these solutions have in common is that none of them have worked"

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: albatross
US need a good dose of socialism like here..oh wait....nevermind.:roll:

"Since the 1970s, governments have acted as if they had the right solutions, but the one thing these solutions have in common is that none of them have worked"

Here is a clue for the left who are complaining about the middle class and avg people being left behind.

Govt size has grown big time in the past ~10-15 years. By their own admission people are being stomped on and left behind.

Coincidence?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
ayabe You are right about how government is failing us at all levels.

However, it might be a little better if you posted a more neutral article to back up your assertion. Instead you post a Rolling Stone piece, a magazine that has turned way left politically (witness the BS Kennedy "Ohio was stolen" piece)

Also if you click the link and check out their 10 worst list, 9 of them are Republicans (William Jefferson being the only Democrat)

It is kind of ironic that in a thread about angry Libs you post an article by a liberal magazine that attacks the other side. In essence you just reinforced the "libs are angry" argument being put forth in this thread.

Is there a better example where ideology is put ahead of the truth? Not one word about the accuracy of the article, which likely was not even read beyond a skim.

It's nice circular logic. The parties are equally corrupt, proven by the fact that any article saying otherwise is 'biased', so all the remaining articles say it's evenly split.

Craig, it is all about context.

This is a thread asking why "Libs are so angry" and his response is to post an article written by an angry Lib.
If his point is to say "see we have a reason to be angry" then he achieved that point.

However he starts his post with "Apparent anger isn't confined to "Libs" and the only people that think so are Rush zombies" If he meant to show that the anger goes beyond the left he would have done a much better job by posting an anti-Bush type article from a non-biased source.

Here, let me help him. From salon.com

Razor-tongued right-wing darling Michelle Malkin stood before a cheering crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference Saturday and denounced George Bush's new immigration policy. Her voice oozing contempt, she described Bush as "Clintonian" for claiming to oppose amnesty in his State of the Union speech. She held up an orange sign with Bush's words, "I oppose amnesty," written on it. Then she ripped it up and roared, "What part of amnesty doesn't he understand?"

See, not to hard to find people from the other side who are unhappy with Bush. If that was his real intent he could have done it with a quick Google search.

And Craig, I don?t have to read the article. Just looking what the parts he quotes I can tell that it is nothing more than a partisan ?hit piece.? Again, if his point was to say ?we have a reason to be angry? then he did a good job. But, if he wanted to show that everyone is angry and not just the libs he could have done a much better job via a piece about conservatives that attacks the things that Bush has done. And believe me there are TONS of those articles out there, I see them on National Review all the time.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87

Also rebutted in one of the threads you're avoiding, the unemployment rate is artificially low since there are so many people who've abandoned hope of finding jobs. Were we to measure it the same way as our peers, the actual rate is reportedly in the 8-9% range.

Who are our peers?

Other industrialized Western democracies.

Like?

I am curious because I know how the EU calculates their unemployment. Maybe if you have another country what is radically different I can look it up.

I can tell you the EU and US are virtually identical, except the EU counts at age 15 vs the US at age 16. Both have a cutoff date roughly the same on when they are dropped from consideration for looking for employment.

This idea we arent calculating the true unemployment rate is a new theory tossed out by the left to try and minimize any positives people can take from the economy. Of course under Clinton that 4.6% was a true number right? None of this behind the scenes 8-9% that reportedly is true.

Sorry, don't recall the details. It was a bit of a tangent to my main point, and I never did drill into it as deeply as the info from BLS (which I therefore still remember more clearly). If you really care, you might search the archives for old threads. Try looking for stuff I posted containing "BLS".

Re. "new theory", I don't believe that's true at all. I remember complaints going back to the recession of the early 80's that the unemployment stats were artificially low. I'm sure Clinton's 4.6% was also low. The difference, however, is that the number of people who have given up is much greater now than it was under Clinton. That's not terribly surprising given how easy it was to get a job during the dot.com era.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Here, let me help him. From salon.com

Razor-tongued right-wing darling Michelle Malkin stood before a cheering crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference Saturday and denounced George Bush's new immigration policy. Her voice oozing contempt, she described Bush as "Clintonian" for claiming to oppose amnesty in his State of the Union speech. She held up an orange sign with Bush's words, "I oppose amnesty," written on it. Then she ripped it up and roared, "What part of amnesty doesn't he understand?"

See, not to hard to find people from the other side who are unhappy with Bush. If that was his real intent he could have done it with a quick Google search.

I totally agree with Michelle. That?s one of many things I vehemently disagree with Bush on.

Yet when it comes to the election, I do not have a candidate that shares my views on that issue.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Only the wealthy get immediate income from the market. The rest is retirement accounts. How much does the market hitting 12k mean right now to a guy working at a body shop? Walmart?

You can quantify this how exactly?

Last time I checked, if you didn't have a job you were still considered unemployed. Whether you'd given up looking or not. And REAL WAGES are decreasing which means people are taking lower paying jobs.

Provided you are looking for a job. If you stop looking for a job you are dropped from the rate and rightfully so.

Real wages is a result of inflation not because people are working for less money. If we had a 0% inflation rate "real wages" would have increased nicely.

Real Wage decline info