Unemployment hits 6.4% (& The Economy)
Thought we might discuss this.
While not good, I should point out that average unemployment as far back as I can find records is around 8.5%. The major news media has, of course, made this into Bush's doom. The most quoted stats relate to how many jobs have been lost during his term compared to how many other Presidents have "created". They then go on to talk about how many jobs per month would have to be created in order for Bush to avoid being the first President since Hoover to "lose" jobs during his term.
Here's the thing: I don't think this really matters right now. Don't get me wrong, if the election was THIS year it would matter...but we all know it isn't. There are still 16 months between now and then. Think for a moment what the economy was like 16 months before Election 2000. It was booming. Then, it stopped on a dime. The point is, a lot can happen between now and then. If unemployment dips below 6% and the market is around 10,000, I don't think people are going to care about the jobs statistic (unless they are unemployed themselves). Bush can still run on the GDP figure (perhaps), the War on Terror, Medicare, etc. I think it will be pretty tough to run on this one statistic.
I know some here will call me statements wishful thinking. In all honestly, I am just tryng to be realistic. This number, while not encouraging (though it's a lagging indicator) really doesn't mean a lot politically right now. Could we keep the comments in this thread focused on that point? Thanks.
While not good, I should point out that average unemployment as far back as I can find records is around 8.5%. The major news media has, of course, made this into Bush's doom. The most quoted stats relate to how many jobs have been lost during his term compared to how many other Presidents have "created". They then go on to talk about how many jobs per month would have to be created in order for Bush to avoid being the first President since Hoover to "lose" jobs during his term.
Here's the thing: I don't think this really matters right now. Don't get me wrong, if the election was THIS year it would matter...but we all know it isn't. There are still 16 months between now and then. Think for a moment what the economy was like 16 months before Election 2000. It was booming. Then, it stopped on a dime. The point is, a lot can happen between now and then. If unemployment dips below 6% and the market is around 10,000, I don't think people are going to care about the jobs statistic (unless they are unemployed themselves). Bush can still run on the GDP figure (perhaps), the War on Terror, Medicare, etc. I think it will be pretty tough to run on this one statistic.
I know some here will call me statements wishful thinking. In all honestly, I am just tryng to be realistic. This number, while not encouraging (though it's a lagging indicator) really doesn't mean a lot politically right now. Could we keep the comments in this thread focused on that point? Thanks.
Comments
I remember when we were at what I consider MORE than full employment. We were down at 5.5% (if I recall correctly) and there were people employed who had no business having a job. By that I mean they hired them and they did about the work of 1/3 of a person, but the needed SOMEONE, ANYONE to help fill a need. The wages+ welfare reform meant that lots of folks were attempting work who really didn't know how to work. Now since the economy isn't flying so high, these folks have gone back to collecting welfare. I guess out of sight is out of mind with them because they are not better off, but no one really cares.
Likewise while unemployment has risen it hasn't risen uniformly. In another post of this nature I posted an article from Fortune that showed how in some parts of the country, it is as low as 3.5%.
unemployment
Nick
If the domestic ecoomy does't pick up by Jan/Feb, Bush is in trouble for re-election, but the real trouble will start if thngs aren't better a year from now.
This link shows the type of Job lose that is not only going to hurt america most (since these are great high paying jobs) but in the case of microsoft, is shameful action that IMO should not be taken by a company with more money in the bank then perhaps any company in America.
exporting jobs
People will have to be at the top of their field in one respoect or another, and those in mid-level positions will be the most affected.
[spelling]
e their jobs. A few really big firms already do this as general policy, and the trend is trickling down.
People will have to be at the top of their field in one respoect or another, and those in mid-level positions will be the
Thank you. this is so TRUE. Its like a quiet 500 pound elephant that is slowing gaining speed. and Repubs AND Demos are way behind the curve and not even this up for dicussion.
My friend is a programmer at a mobile software company and luckily he's so "good" at not only programming but managing that he is in that sweet spot where his job is well paid and pretty safe. problem is he used to lead a team in the valley, now he leads a team mostly out of the czeck(sp) rebuplic.
its going to get very bad folks. jobs that require brains are those that pay the most and drive the economy's direction. its going to happen to more segments than just tech too.
Happy Birthday America.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Thought we might discuss this.
While not good, I should point out that average unemployment as far back as I can find records is around 8.5%. The major news media has, of course, made this into Bush's doom. The most quoted stats relate to how many jobs have been lost during his term compared to how many other Presidents have "created". They then go on to talk about how many jobs per month would have to be created in order for Bush to avoid being the first President since Hoover to "lose" jobs during his term.
Here's the thing: I don't think this really matters right now. Don't get me wrong, if the election was THIS year it would matter...but we all know it isn't. There are still 16 months between now and then. Think for a moment what the economy was like 16 months before Election 2000. It was booming. Then, it stopped on a dime. The point is, a lot can happen between now and then. If unemployment dips below 6% and the market is around 10,000, I don't think people are going to care about the jobs statistic (unless they are unemployed themselves). Bush can still run on the GDP figure (perhaps), the War on Terror, Medicare, etc. I think it will be pretty tough to run on this one statistic.
I know some here will call me statements wishful thinking. In all honestly, I am just tryng to be realistic. This number, while not encouraging (though it's a lagging indicator) really doesn't mean a lot politically right now. Could we keep the comments in this thread focused on that point? Thanks.
It's not just that but interest rates just slipped to a 45 year low from 40. A lot of the telling signs don't point to us moving toward recovery. I think it means a great deal politically. If this keeps up ( and it looks right now like it will ) people are going to be very tired of the economy in the dumps. It dosn't have to change right before election to be damaging to Bush. It just has to be this way oh say until next February. If it starts to recover by then it won't be fast enough to make people feel comfortable about staying the course.
" I don't think people are going to care about the jobs statistic (unless they are unemployed themselves). "
This part holds no truth whatsoever. Even if you're employed it still effects the people around you and your place of employment. During this time places usually cut back on their workforce making 0ne worker do the job of 2 or 3. There is a general feeling of unease in the work place. There's little contentment and people fear for their jobs. Also employers know that there aren't a lot of jobs out there so they feel more comfortable in pushing their staff harder. They know they will be more likely to put up with it because there are no jobs out there. This leads to more bad feelings and sometimes back biteing among the workers.
I've seen this many times in my life. What we're are going through right now reminds me of parts of the 70's and late 80's. These kinds of conditions happen everytime we have an economic turn down. This one seems to be long lasting. If it's still this way by election time people aren't going to care about the war on terror or anything else. They'll be pointing at their wallets.
I don't know why you can't see this. Just out of touch I guess.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
We just fired a huge number of people in my line of work, and we were one of the last holdouts on the big cutbacks. Unless things pick up in about 3 months, we'll have more.
If the domestic ecoomy does't pick up by Jan/Feb, Bush is in trouble for re-election, but the real trouble will start if thngs aren't better a year from now.
I agree. If things are better by the convention, Bush is is in good shape. If unemployment is over 6.5% and the market is farting around at 8,500 or so...then there may be a challenge.
All this rhetoric about the Bush recession and the failure of the tax cuts is really moot discussion. First, the election is just too far away for it to be meaningful. Yet, the democrats are jumping on the bandwagon...which could be a risky proposition. If they are seen as attacking Bush for the sake of attacking him, they're screwed. It seems to me that what is happening now is an attempt to unify the base. Bush just happens to be the man in the hot seat now. In other words, it's possible they are only attacking him for the sake of the primaries.
The message itself is pretty consistent: The Bush Tax Cuts have failed to cure the Bush recession. I think it goes without saying that this statement is purely poitical. The tax cuts haven't even taken effect yet according to Economic Lag Theory. Their effect remains to be seen. Politically, there are only two things the Dems have: The economy and the lack of WMD (the latter of which is about to disappear for them as I hear it). As I've been saying, if the economy is even considered "pretty good"---Bush will win easily.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
In all seriousness for a moment.
This link shows the type of Job lose that is not only going to hurt america most (since these are great high paying jobs) but in the case of microsoft, is shameful action that IMO should not be taken by a company with more money in the bank then perhaps any company in America.
exporting jobs
And now we understand why even though I am a Republican, I am a fair trader instead of a free trader. Since the Democrats don't really oppose free trade either, it wouldn't help for me to switch parties over that issue.
Pat Buchanan may be declared a facist for putting America first and acknowledging that the economy and society as a whole cannot just be fixed by "policy" but in some issues he is very, very right. America does have a lead in many areas, but the world can easily catch up. The average person doesn't have the means nor would I say the desire to earn several college degrees worth of information just to stay ahead of the rest of the world and earn a decent wage.
America has the greatest economy in the world. Americans have to pay to stay within it. The rest of the world should pay to enter it as well. Then we could dramatically lower income tax rates. This line of thinking, introduced by Perot and Buchanan is what could lose Bush the economy because it splits the Republican party right in two.
Likewise I tend to follow the Republican line on foreign affairs, (which outside of politics tends to be the Democratic line as well, which is policeman for the world) however my own line of thinking is pretty isolationist at times.
One thing I do wonder about is how this might start to affect people's attitudes regarding immigration. Usually a large rise in unemployment can lead to a rise in sentiment about closing the borders to immigration. (Which is still at record levels btw)
I have no doubt that the people who are here legally and even 80% them here illegally are good people. Likely better than the native born Americans that they would take the jobs from and do them for less. However since we have to support the lazy suckers that they take jobs from, we need to do something. What should the something be? I'm not sure. Maybe we should take the lazy Americans and deport them to Mexico for an attitude adjustment regarding the value of work.
Nick
One thing I do wonder about is how this might start to affect people's attitudes regarding immigration. Usually a large rise in unemployment can lead to a rise in sentiment about closing the borders to immigration. (Which is still at record levels btw)
Read the link above. If you seriously think the dankest of farm and service jobs being being grabbed up my immigrants (jobs which are only being filled by immigrants since too many americans consider those jobs "beneath them") is more disastrous to the long termn future of this county then the GREED that microsoft and their ilk. Then we are going to have to agree to disagree.
80% them here illegally are good people.
So 20% of illegals are BAD PEOPLE? Quit spewing ignorant comments like that. you are only perpetuating ignorance and hate.
However since we have to support the lazy suckers th
And yet no one says shit when we support thru corprate welfare, GREEDY companies? that ship american jobs overseas? Or companies like RJR that KILL 300,000 americans a Year?
Yep. The real problem is with "those" people taking jobs. I've got news for you. The people paying those shit wages (that are too "beneath" most americans) are the ones HIRING and PAYING these low wages. If Company owners didn't hire illegals then there would be no reason to cross a border.
Nope. its the fault of "those" people after all they are the ones shipping all those high paying jobs to India right?
Originally posted by SDW2001
Thought we might discuss this.
I bet Bush loses all 50 states.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Read the link above. If you seriously think the dankest of farm and service jobs being being grabbed up my immigrants (jobs which are only being filled by immigrants since too many americans consider those jobs "beneath them") is more disastrous to the long termn future of this county then the GREED that microsoft and their ilk. Then we are going to have to agree to disagree.
So 20% of illegals are BAD PEOPLE? Quit spewing ignorant comments like that. you are only perpetuating ignorance and hate.
And yet no one says shit when we support thru corprate welfare, GREEDY companies? that ship american jobs overseas? Or companies like RJR that KILL 300,000 americans a Year?
Yep. The real problem is with "those" people taking jobs. I've got news for you. The people paying those shit wages (that are too "beneath" most americans) are the ones HIRING and PAYING these low wages. If Company owners didn't hire illegals then there would be no reason to cross a border.
Nope. its the fault of "those" people after all they are the ones shipping all those high paying jobs to India right?
Listen facist, perhaps you can get past your own racist views to have a little intellectual discussion. Take that accusing finger of yours, and stick it where the sun don't shine.
I suppose if I were a racist like yourself, I would assume that all immigrants are ignorant and uneducated and thus only capable of menial work. They aren't exporting jobs to India because all these folks are uneducated and unable to speak English. Likewise don't assume by illegal immigration I only assume Mexicans. Clear on that yet?
20% of illegals are bad people. I have no problem declaring that 20% of all people could be pretty much wiped off the face of the earth with no real loss. Even then I declared that the clear majority of illegal immigrants are better than the people they likely take the jobs from.
Yeah that sounds racist, doesn't it?
Pull your head out and discuss instead of accuse.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
The answer is to tax business. If Microsoft exports jobs, and those salaries don't contribute to the tax base, Microsoft (or any company) shouldn't be able to benefit and take advantage of these markets without increased contributions to the tax base.
Call your tax a tariff and you and I would be (gasp) in agreement.
Nick
Originally posted by BRussell
I bet Bush loses all 50 states.
I'll take that bet.
Nick
Thanks for clearing things up. Now i can remove you from the Blind Buchannan camp and into the more rational immigration discussion camp.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Hey bub. that's the vibe I got from your first post. Cleaning up what was left out from your first post in your second post takes me away from what i originally thought you were saying (the tired and well worn basic immegration arguments.)
Thanks for clearing things up. Now i can remove you from the Blind Buchannan camp and into the more rational immigration discussion camp.
Yeah, well you strike me as someone who might put lots of people in camps.
Nick