If you could kindly show where I claimeed it was? I believe we are talking about net increase or decrease in jobs here. 3,000,000 jobs have not been lost. There are more persons employed now than in 2001. End of story.
And on the manufacturing link, I won't accept it. Link directly to the BLS itself, not a hand off from it. And manufacturing is in particularly good shape as a sector right now, so your data is useless anyway.
We are talking about the total number of jobs. That's all, and what you've been fed about 3,000,000 lost jobs is a total and undisputed lie.
Almost 1 million lost in one year. just in manufacturing.
Chu jobs are not always "lost." There are also improvements in productivity which ends up requirin fewer jobs. We have a lot fewer people working in farming today than we did in the past. All those "lost" jobs just became a different type of work. We aren't starving due to the loss, the whole nation is obese. The nature of jobs changing isn't necessarily loss.
Chu jobs are not always "lost." There are also improvements in productivity which ends up requirin fewer jobs. We have a lot fewer people working in farming today than we did in the past. All those "lost" jobs just became a different type of work. We aren't starving due to the loss, the whole nation is obese. The nature of jobs changing isn't necessarily loss.
Nick
Nick,
Our nation has lost farming jobs. The good news is that most of those people were able to move to a city and find new work. That means that although we lost farm jobs, we didn't have a net loss of jobs in the entire job market.
Now though, with Bush, we have a net loss of jobs. That's bad. Manufacturing jobs have in fact been lost, and worse than that, they haven't been replaced.
Our nation has lost farming jobs. The good news is that most of those people were able to move to a city and find new work. That means that although we lost farm jobs, we didn't have a net loss of jobs in the entire job market.
Now though, with Bush, we have a net loss of jobs. That's bad. Manufacturing jobs have in fact been lost, and worse than that, they haven't been replaced.
That's bad.
I can understand your point bunge. I could understand blaiming this on Bush as well if say the jobs were moving offshore as well. However I have seen articles, in fact there was one here posted by I think it was Chu, that shows a worldwide lower trend for manufacturing jobs. How can Bush be responsible for the loss of manufacturing jobs if China is losing jobs in this area as well. (Again it doesn't have to be a net loss, it can be loss relative to population/growth/etc.)
The article he posted mentioned that Mexico was losing jobs to China and China was losing them to productivity gains. How is Bush responsible for a general trend like that?
The farm job loss was a change because of the times. I think this true with manufacturing as well.
The farm job loss was a change because of the times. I think this true with manufacturing as well.
You're probably right, but I don't think that's the main concern of most people. The problem is that unlike with the farm jobs, the manufacturing jobs haven't been replaced by another industry. So we now have a net loss of jobs. That's unhealthy.
Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame.
You're probably right, but I don't think that's the main concern of most people. The problem is that unlike with the farm jobs, the manufacturing jobs haven't been replaced by another industry. So we now have a net loss of jobs. That's unhealthy.
And everyone make sure you read that dirt!
I read your dirt. It claims it was a source in the administration, not the president himself. I'm not saying that wouldn't make it wrong, however I will say it isn't likely to hurt Bush himself since it is likely he could claim receiving the same faulty information with which to draw his conclusions as well. In the end it won't harm him.
As for the manufacturing jobs, they likely have been replaced with information type jobs and the industries associated with them. The transition isn't always a smooth and orderly one, and it wasn't from agriculture to industrial as well. The point is has Bush seen the writing on the wall with regard to it and done all he could. He cannot literally force companies to employ people any more than a farmer can force a seed to sprout. However the farmer can prep and plant. This is what people will look for with regard to Bush, did he prep and plant. If anything is sprouting, even if it isn't fully harvest time yet, Bush will get the credit.
As for the manufacturing jobs, they likely have been replaced with information type jobs and the industries associated with them. The transition isn't always a smooth and orderly one, and it wasn't from agriculture to industrial as well.
The losses in manufacturing and the shift towards a post-industrialized economy did not start with Bush.
Why is this always the XO's fault? Isn't there another branch of the government that shares any responsibility? Bush (VERY generally speaking) inyherited a moring-after Coke party of an economy---let alone the hits the airline industry/insurance industry/budget itself took after 9/11.
When was the last time---right or left---any of you guys wrote your Senator/Representative?
SDW, you try very hard to stretch the fabric of reality but it doesn't help.
Look at the fvcking numbers and tell me I'm wrong. There are about 2 million MORE jobs than when Bush took office. The whole claim is BULLSHIT. But by all means, jsut keep repeating it.
Comments
2002's manufacturing jobs numbers.
Almost 1 million lost in one year. just in manufacturing.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Bush Unbeatable?
If I had his wife I'd beat myself.
Originally posted by giant
If I had his wife I'd beat myself.
first I'd beat her, then him, then myself
Edit: I meant "fine" as in good, not "sexy".
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Dude you're high.
Is the population of the U.S. a static number?
If you could kindly show where I claimeed it was? I believe we are talking about net increase or decrease in jobs here. 3,000,000 jobs have not been lost. There are more persons employed now than in 2001. End of story.
Hello?
We are talking about the total number of jobs. That's all, and what you've been fed about 3,000,000 lost jobs is a total and undisputed lie.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
http://www.rescueamericanjobs.org/in...02_mfgjobs.pdf
2002's manufacturing jobs numbers.
Almost 1 million lost in one year. just in manufacturing.
Chu jobs are not always "lost." There are also improvements in productivity which ends up requirin fewer jobs. We have a lot fewer people working in farming today than we did in the past. All those "lost" jobs just became a different type of work. We aren't starving due to the loss, the whole nation is obese. The nature of jobs changing isn't necessarily loss.
Nick
Originally posted by Northgate
People might scoff at this because I'm a liberal, but I think Mrs. Bush is one of the finest first ladies we've had in a very long time.
Edit: I meant "fine" as in good, not "sexy".
We know what you mean you perv.
Nick
Originally posted by SDW2001
There are more persons employed now than in 2001. End of story.
Hello?
He must be high.
SDW, you try very hard to stretch the fabric of reality but it doesn't help.
Originally posted by trumptman
Chu jobs are not always "lost." There are also improvements in productivity which ends up requirin fewer jobs. We have a lot fewer people working in farming today than we did in the past. All those "lost" jobs just became a different type of work. We aren't starving due to the loss, the whole nation is obese. The nature of jobs changing isn't necessarily loss.
Nick
Nick,
Our nation has lost farming jobs. The good news is that most of those people were able to move to a city and find new work. That means that although we lost farm jobs, we didn't have a net loss of jobs in the entire job market.
Now though, with Bush, we have a net loss of jobs. That's bad. Manufacturing jobs have in fact been lost, and worse than that, they haven't been replaced.
That's bad.
Originally posted by bunge
Nick,
Our nation has lost farming jobs. The good news is that most of those people were able to move to a city and find new work. That means that although we lost farm jobs, we didn't have a net loss of jobs in the entire job market.
Now though, with Bush, we have a net loss of jobs. That's bad. Manufacturing jobs have in fact been lost, and worse than that, they haven't been replaced.
That's bad.
I can understand your point bunge. I could understand blaiming this on Bush as well if say the jobs were moving offshore as well. However I have seen articles, in fact there was one here posted by I think it was Chu, that shows a worldwide lower trend for manufacturing jobs. How can Bush be responsible for the loss of manufacturing jobs if China is losing jobs in this area as well. (Again it doesn't have to be a net loss, it can be loss relative to population/growth/etc.)
The article he posted mentioned that Mexico was losing jobs to China and China was losing them to productivity gains. How is Bush responsible for a general trend like that?
The farm job loss was a change because of the times. I think this true with manufacturing as well.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
The farm job loss was a change because of the times. I think this true with manufacturing as well.
You're probably right, but I don't think that's the main concern of most people. The problem is that unlike with the farm jobs, the manufacturing jobs haven't been replaced by another industry. So we now have a net loss of jobs. That's unhealthy.
And everyone make sure you read that dirt!
Originally posted by bunge
As long as dirt keeps showing up, Bush won't be unbeatable.
I guess more dirt is on the way.
9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable
Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame.
I'd say Bush isn't unbeatable.
Originally posted by bunge
You're probably right, but I don't think that's the main concern of most people. The problem is that unlike with the farm jobs, the manufacturing jobs haven't been replaced by another industry. So we now have a net loss of jobs. That's unhealthy.
And everyone make sure you read that dirt!
I read your dirt. It claims it was a source in the administration, not the president himself. I'm not saying that wouldn't make it wrong, however I will say it isn't likely to hurt Bush himself since it is likely he could claim receiving the same faulty information with which to draw his conclusions as well. In the end it won't harm him.
As for the manufacturing jobs, they likely have been replaced with information type jobs and the industries associated with them. The transition isn't always a smooth and orderly one, and it wasn't from agriculture to industrial as well. The point is has Bush seen the writing on the wall with regard to it and done all he could. He cannot literally force companies to employ people any more than a farmer can force a seed to sprout. However the farmer can prep and plant. This is what people will look for with regard to Bush, did he prep and plant. If anything is sprouting, even if it isn't fully harvest time yet, Bush will get the credit.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
As for the manufacturing jobs, they likely have been replaced with information type jobs and the industries associated with them. The transition isn't always a smooth and orderly one, and it wasn't from agriculture to industrial as well.
That's all really nice in the abstract.
Cheers
Scott
Why is this always the XO's fault? Isn't there another branch of the government that shares any responsibility? Bush (VERY generally speaking) inyherited a moring-after Coke party of an economy---let alone the hits the airline industry/insurance industry/budget itself took after 9/11.
When was the last time---right or left---any of you guys wrote your Senator/Representative?
Originally posted by bunge
He must be high.
SDW, you try very hard to stretch the fabric of reality but it doesn't help.
Look at the fvcking numbers and tell me I'm wrong. There are about 2 million MORE jobs than when Bush took office. The whole claim is BULLSHIT. But by all means, jsut keep repeating it.