unlawflcombatnt
New member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2005
- Messages
- 35
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Southern California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
RightatNYU said:Uh....employment just dropped to 4.7%, we created 2 million jobs in 2005 alone, and GDP for the year stood at 3.6%.
The economy is sinking?
"According to the report, U.S. employers added a net 193,000 jobs in January, short of the roughly 250,000 jobs many economists had been predicting. But that shortfall was muted because the government also revised upward the job-creation data it previously issued for November and December, adding an aggregate 81,000 to the number of jobs created in those months.
The revised data mean the economy has been creating about 229,000 jobs monthly over the past three months, an extremely robust performance.
The latest report also showed that workers' average hourly earnings rose a slightly stronger-than-expected 0.4 percent last month."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...,1,4940418.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
Middleground said:Here's an interesting article in the latest Maclean's magazine.
Is America going broke?
Record deficits, colossal debt and no clear plan for digging itself out. If the U.S. sinks, it will take Canada down with it.
STEVE MAICH
David Walker can see the future, and it scares the hell out of him.
That wouldn't be terribly unusual if he were one of the thousands of lobbyists, legislators and activists crawling all over Washington on any given day, pontificating about the urgency of their pet issues. There is a thriving industry here built on pushing policy prescriptions for every ailment, real or imagined. But Walker isn't a lobbyist or an activist, he's an accountant. His title is comptroller general of the United States, which makes him the head auditor for the most important and powerful government in the world. And he's desperately trying to get a message out to anyone who'll listen: the United States of America's public finances are a shambles. They're getting rapidly worse. And if something major isn't done soon to solve the country's intractable budget problems, the world will face an economic shakeup unlike anything ever seen before.
Seated in his wood-panelled office in downtown Washington, Walker measures his words, trying to walk the fine line between raising an alarm and fostering panic. He cringes when he hears prominent economists warning about a financial "Armageddon," but he makes no bones about the fact the situation is dire. "I don't like using words that are overly inflammatory," he says, leaning forward in his chair. "At the same time, I think it is critically important that the American people, as well as their elected representatives, get a better understanding of just how serious our situation is."
<snip>
http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/world/article.jsp?content=20050307_101541_101541
Middleground said:
danarhea said:You might want to take a look at how many of those jobs are meaningful jobs. Minimum wage jobs as greeters at Wal-Mart and burger flippers at McDomald's are definitely on the increase. That must be good, since the Bush administration now classifies burger flipping as manufacturing.
RightatNYU said:Got a source for that? I'd love to see anything backing that up, cause last I checked, the US was shipping its menial labor jobs overseas and having them replaced by technology jobs which pay more hourly.
danarhea said:You might want to take a look at how many of those jobs are meaningful jobs. Minimum wage jobs as greeters at Wal-Mart and burger flippers at McDomald's are definitely on the increase.
That must be good, since the Bush administration now classifies burger flipping as manufacturing.
danarhea said:Actually, that quip was tongue-in-cheek, but was based on Bush's report of 2004, in which he made arguments for counting burger flipping, and other fast food operations, as manufacturing jobs. The suggestion was dropped after Congress and the media went ballistic over it.
However, the basis on which Bush is claiming job creation is the same. Millions of manufacturing jobs have been lost, replaced by low-wage service sector jobs. The low wage jobs are the basis for the Bushevik spin about how the economy is getting so much stronger.
Response based on this article.
danarhea said:Actually, that quip was tongue-in-cheek, but was based on Bush's report of 2004, in which he made arguments for counting burger flipping, and other fast food operations, as manufacturing jobs. The suggestion was dropped after Congress and the media went ballistic over it.
That's a complete fabrication. From the article YOU cited:
"The report does not recommend that burger-flippers be counted alongside factory workers. "
The entire gest of the article and the report was that the definition of manufacturing can be fuzzy at best. And that those definitions can effect the tax status of some employer expenses.
"Mixing water and concentrate to produce soft drinks is classified as manufacturing," the president's report reads. "However, if that activity is performed at a snack bar, it is considered a service."
No where does the Bush adminsistration say that the person in the snack should be counted as manufacturing or do they suggest changing that.
However, the basis on which Bush is claiming job creation is the same. Millions of manufacturing jobs have been lost, replaced by low-wage service sector jobs. The low wage jobs are the basis for the Bushevik spin about how the economy is getting so much stronger.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/20/politics/main601336.shtmlOr construction jobs or high paying technology jobs, but if you are bound and determined to be in a manufacturing job then move South where we are begging for people to come work high paying good benifit manufacturing jobs.
Sales at wholesalers also increased 1% in the month, led by durable goods and petroleum.
Despite the biggest increase in inventories in a year, the inventory-to-sales ratio remained at a very tight 1.15 in December, up from a record low 1.14 in October. The typical wholesaler had 35 days of sales on hand.
Tight inventories should lead to higher production later as wholesalers try to keep up with rising demand by increasing orders to producers, economists say.
[...]
Sales are up 8.3% in the past 12 months. Inventories increased 6.7% year-over-year.
The figures are seasonally adjusted but are not adjusted for price changes.
The bigger-than-expected increase in nonauto inventories implies an upward revision to the initial 1.1% estimate for fourth-quarter gross domestic product growth, said Michelle Girard, an economist for RBS Greenwich Capital. She now expects GDP to be revised to 1.5%. [emphasis added]
Stinger said:It prooves Danarhea point that much of the so called growth in the manufacturing sect is attributed in the classification of even burger flipping as being manufacturing.danarhea said:Actually, that quip was tongue-in-cheek, but was based on Bush's report of 2004, in which he made arguments for counting burger flipping, and other fast food operations, as manufacturing jobs. The suggestion was dropped after Congress and the media went ballistic over it.
That's a complete fabrication. From the article YOU cited:
"The report does not recommend that burger-flippers be counted alongside factory workers. "
The entire gest of the article and the report was that the definition of manufacturing can be fuzzy at best. And that those definitions can effect the tax status of some employer expenses.
"Mixing water and concentrate to produce soft drinks is classified as manufacturing," the president's report reads. "However, if that activity is performed at a snack bar, it is considered a service."
No where does the Bush adminsistration say that the person in the snack should be counted as manufacturing or do they suggest changing that.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/20/politics/main601336.shtmlOr construction jobs or high paying technology jobs, but if you are bound and determined to be in a manufacturing job then move South where we are begging for people to come work high paying good benifit manufacturing jobs.
jfuh said:the economy going into the ghetto?
jfuh said:Stinger said:It prooves Danarhea point that much of the so called growth in the manufacturing sect is attributed in the classification of even burger flipping as being manufacturing.
It does nothing of the sort, quite the opposite. It clearly says those types of jobs are NOT counted as manufacturing jobs. The economy remains strong and active with umemployement continuing to fall and over 3% growth in wage and salary's last year
That's exactly it. I think it. I don't have any facts to completely back me up except for the sudden decline in jobs since 1999. Of course that has much to do with the fact that the IT bubble burst. However other industries should've remained intact. Again though just my opinion.oldreliable67 said:And you think that because of what???
jfuh said:That's exactly it. I think it. I don't have any facts to completely back me up except for the sudden decline in jobs since 1999.
The fact that so many high tech jobs have gone overseas more and more middle class wages have dissappeared. Just an observation.
I'm no economist. I have no idea how to interpret such information other than simply since Bush came to power it seems the economy has become oh hum dum.
Clinton of course. Following the Asian economic slow down during the late 90's (though still supported....ironically, by China), US IT bubble began to burst around December of 1999 but then really pitted out just as the November presidential election results came in. I guesstimate, and I'm sure some economist will point me wrong, that most investors saw the writing on the wall and the market place chilled.ludahai said:Who was president in 1999 and 2000?
Not really positive IMO, considering that even though there has been job growth, it is also reportedly factual that most of that growth hardly even comes close to replacing the amount of jobs lost in terms of the same income and benefits.ludahai said:Clinton was president for the year you cited. You seem to be ignoring the positive economic data over the past three years!
Is it any wonder than that a November poll by the American Research Group, a non-partisan polling organization that has conducted monthly economic surveys since 1985, showed 43 percent of Americans thought the economy was in a recession?
In fact, the lack of headlines prompted a search of the Lexis Nexis database to compare magazine articles written about the topic of economic recovery for President Clinton in 1993 and 1994 and for President Bush in 2004 and 2005; years when the economy began to show significant improvements for both presidents.
The search turned up 320 articles for President Clinton and 260 for President Bush. The searches produced articles published by well-known news magazines, financial publications as well as trade publications.
A review of the magazines revealed that far more articles were written about President Clinton in the weekly news magazines whereas the bulk of the articles written about President Bush were found in financial and trade magazines and in right-of-center publications like The National Review and The Weekly Standard.
Most glaring was the disparity in coverage by both US News and World Report and Time Magazine.
Not only did US News and World Report and Time Magazine publish significantly more articles about Clinton, but the tone of the articles was very different, as well.
As an example, Time Magazine published the following articles about economic recovery under President Clinton: "Overturning The Reagan Era," "Picking Up Speed," "Breaking Through," and "Who Needs a Boom?"
At a time when unemployment was at 6.5 percent, and GDP was forecasted to be 3 percent in 1994, Time Magazine wrote, "which would be no boom, but maybe something much better: a pace that could be sustained for a long time, keeping income and employment growing without igniting a new surge in inflation…. The circle (of spending, production and hiring) may not spin fast enough to produce a boom -- but who wants one anyway? Moderate, steady growth is better."
Now compare it to the one Time Magazine article ("How Real is the Squeeze?") written about economic recovery under President Bush. Keep in mind that at the time the article was written GDP grew 3.9 percent in the first quarter of 2004 (which was subsequently revised upward to 4.3 percent) and unemployment was at 5.6 percent.
"Jonathan Thornton finally found a job this spring after six months of unemployment. "My wife and I almost parted ways after 13 years because of the financial strain," he says. When he started work in April as a crane operator at a screw manufacturer in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, Thornton treated his wife Rita to a few little luxuries -- a day at the salon, an evening out with the girls. "My outlook has definitely brightened," he says. But Thornton's optimism goes only so far. His paycheck has grown, but the family is still just getting by…. There's supposed to be an economic recovery under way. But the numbers paint a confusing picture."
So where's the comment that "moderate, steady growth is better," particularly when the GDP growth and unemployment rate were better in 2004 than in 1993?
One would expect that a recovery from a recession would garner as much attention as any previous recovery and at least as much attention as the descent into one.
But it may be that the good news is finally reaching the public. The American Research Group found that in December only 28 percent of Americans believed the economy was in a recession, and 59 percent thought their financial situation was either "good," "very good," or "excellent."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?