A few recent notes from the daily grind

July 14 Too many of us are having to put in overtime to pay the bills. As soon as next month, for millions that may no longer be enough.

New York (CNN/Money) - Revised changes to overtime rules proposed by the Bush administration will still fail to protect overtime pay for 6 million workers, according to a new study. ...

The Bush administration issued proposed changes to overtime rules last year, but then revised them in March after criticism from some labor groups.

The original proposal would have stripped overtime protection for 8 million workers, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), which studies issues affecting middle- and lower-income workers and receives funding from some labor groups.

But the revisions would still strip OT pay for about 6 million workers, EPI said in a study released Tuesday.

"The 6 million number may be a little high, but I think the [EPI] analysis is the most complete," said Thomas Kochan, a management professor at MIT's Sloan School of Business.

The trick remains what it was under the previous attempt: redefine workers' roles (change, that is, the description, not the actual work) so that millions become labeled "professional," "administrative," or "executive" and thus ineligible.

EPI did say that about 400,000 workers would gain overtime protection via a change in the income limits, but that is obviously dwarfed by the number that would lose it. The gain could be even smaller in the real world: In January, the Labor Department got caught telling employers how they could avoid paying overtime to workers newly covered.

(An additional benefit of changing definitions is that it makes it harder for unions to organize by limiting the size and thus power of a bargaining unit, since supervisory personnel aren't eligible. Making the definitions is a powerful tool in the hands of those who kneel before altar of the powerful. Just ask the graduate teaching and research assistants at Brown University in Providence, RI, who got told by the Bush-nominee-dominated National Labor Relations Board on July 16 that they have no right to form a union because, the Board declared, even though they do work and are paid for it, they are actually students.)

July 15 But certainly the expanding economy will provide for jobs, jobs, and more jobs, yes? Industrial output is on a steady upswing, yes?

No. From Reuters:

Output at U.S. factories, mines and utilities fell unexpectedly in June, recording its largest drop in more than a year, the Federal Reserve reported on Thursday.

The Fed said industrial production fell 0.3 percent in June after a downwardly revised 0.9 percent May increase. Wall Street had expected the June reading to be flat. ...

The overall industrial production drop was the largest since April 2003, when it fell 0.6 percent. ...

Companies also operated at a lower rate in June, at 77.2 percent of full capacity, down from a revised 77.6 percent capacity use rate in May.

Analysts had expected a 77.7 percent capacity use rate for June.

July 18 And what's the combined result of changed rules, weakened unions, and a go-nowhere economy? The New York Times told us what we already knew.

The amount of money workers receive in their paychecks is failing to keep up with inflation. ...

On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that hourly earnings of production workers - nonmanagement workers ranging from nurses and teachers to hamburger flippers and assembly-line workers - fell 1.1 percent in June, after accounting for inflation. The June drop, the steepest decline since the depths of recession in mid-1991, came after a 0.8 percent fall in real hourly earnings in May.

Coming on top of a 12-minute drop in the average workweek, the decline in the hourly rate last month cut deeply into workers' pay. In June, production workers took home $525.84 a week, on average. After accounting for inflation, this is about $8 less than they were pocketing last January, and is the lowest level of weekly pay since October 2001.

What's particularly significant about the figures is that they reveal what I have long pointed to: the continued division of our economy into haves and have-nots.

"There's a bit of a dichotomy," said Ethan S. Harris, chief economist at Lehman Brothers. "Joe Six-Pack is under a lot of pressure. He got a lousy raise; he's paying more for gasoline and milk. He's not doing that great. But proprietors' income is up. Profits are up. Home values are up. Middle-income and upper-income people are looking pretty good."

But those Joe (and Jane) Six-packs, blue- and pink-collar workers, constitute 80% of the workforce. So why isn't this being more urgently addressed? Why isn't this thought more of a problem? Why are the only "answers" being proposed yet another round of tax cuts that won't even make up for what these workers have lost? The same article provides the answer, noting that while the lower and lower-middle class make up 80% of the workforce, they do only 30% of the spending - so frankly, corporate America and its paid-for politicians just don't give a damn.

The upper echelons of consumer spending, at places like Saks Fifth Avenue, Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom department stores, are reporting gangbuster business. "I'm surprised by how well we've sold high-priced fashion at this stage," said Pete Nordstrom, president of Nordstrom's full-line stores.

But at the other end, sales at stores open at least a year at big-box discounters like Target and Wal-Mart have disappointed, while sales of used cars are declining year over year, government figures show.

So when you hear the voices of the victors claim that they're looking out for "you," just be sure to remember who it is they're actually talking to.