And so it goes

In the words of the Christian Science Monitor for August 2, "it's time to worry about the economy again." (Although why they said "again" mystifies me.)

Consumers are balking about pulling out their wallets, particularly to buy new cars. Paychecks for low-wage workers are not keeping up with inflation.

And the price of crude oil has spiked up yet again to a new record high of $43.85 a barrel. Call it "Shock at the Pump: The Sequel." ...

The impetus for the new economic worries came last Friday when the Commerce Department reported the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) grew at a 3 percent annual pace, a number that economists considered to be disappointingly soft. The first quarter was revised upward to 4.5 percent, making the drop-off look even sharper. ...

Yet some economists also think the economy has already started to accelerate. By some estimates the second half of the year will see the economy buzzing along at as much as 4.5 percent annualized growth. The optimists believe business spending and a return of the consumer will drive the economy.

The first indication of whether that's true will come on Friday, when the Labor Department issues the July employment report. The consensus is that the economy added about 200,000 jobs last month. If job growth is considerably weaker, many economists will start to ratchet down their estimates for the second half of the year.

Well, guess what.

Washington (AP, August 6) - America's payrolls grew by an anemic 32,000 new jobs in July, suggesting the economy is stuck in summer lethargy three months before voters elect a president. The report rattled Wall Street and sent stocks tumbling.

The latest snapshot on employment growth, in a report Friday by the Labor Department, showed the smallest gain in hiring since December. Job gains reported earlier for May and June also were lowered.

Predictions had been for job growth of between 215,000 and 247,000 in July.

"The economy has come close to a standstill this summer," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com. "I think businesses' collective psyche is still quite fragile," he said, citing high energy prices, the possibility of terrorism and the Iraq war. ...

The 32,000 net jobs added in July followed a gain of just 78,000 jobs in June. May's payrolls also were lowered to show an increase of 208,000. The new figures for May and June translated into a combined 61,000 fewer jobs being created in those two months than previously estimated.

And the struggles, as we all know, are not just recent.

New York (CNN/Money, July 29) - Americans' overall income shrank for two consecutive years after stocks plunged in 2000, the first time that has effectively happened since the current tax system was put in place during World War II, according to a published report Thursday.

The New York Times, reporting data from the Internal Revenue Service, said gross income reported to the agency fell 5.1 percent to $6.0 trillion in 2002, the most recent year for which data is available, down from $6.35 trillion in 2000. Because of population growth, average income fell even more, by 5.7 percent, and adjusted for inflation the decline was 9.2 percent.

The paper said the decline was due to a combination of the big fall in the stock market and the loss of jobs and wages in well-paying industries as the recession started in 2001.

The biggest hit was taken by the richest among us, those with incomes of $10 million or more, whose average income fell 22% over the period.

Admittedly, I do find it hard to work up a lot of sympathy for the travails of someone whose income dropped from $10 million to a mere how-will-we-afford-the-groceries $7.8 million. What I find more worth noting is that

the average income of those filing returns with incomes between $25,000 and $500,000 saw the average income little changed, somewhere between a 0.1 percent decline and a 0.2 percent gain, depending upon the income category, the Times said.

Aside from the fact that that's one heck of a range (the top end being 20 times the low end), it still means that those of us in this very broadly-defined middle got nowhere in those two years. Add in inflation, and we lost ground. And frankly, we can afford to lose ground one hell of a lot less than those making more than $10 million a year.

On the other hand, some of us are still doing quite well. According to the International Herald Tribune for July 29,

[t]he median pay for a chief executive officer in the United States rose 15 percent in 2003 and was up 22 percent among top executives at larger companies, according to a survey released Wednesday. ...

Despite some calls for restraint in pay, it was a better year for the executives than 2002, when the median total compensation rose 9.5 percent. ...

The survey also examined the pay of 1,794 chief executives who held their posts for all of 2003 and found that median compensation was $1.85 million.

With consummate understatement, the report said that "it would appear that any chance of reining in executive compensation has disappeared."

While we get nowhere.