[Lerkfish]

Job Growth Under Bush Set to Be_Worst in_70 Years
Bush on track to be first president since Herbert Hoover to end his term with fewer jobs than when he started.
(Average Monthly Growth in_Employment During Presidency)

[Lerkfish]

and here's a link: http://www.ibew.org/JustTheFact0309.pdf

that displays the apparent correlation between budget deficits and unemployment

[SimeyTheLimey]

The AFLCIO and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers? You really know how to pick your sources.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The AFLCIO and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers? You really know how to pick your sources.

Of course. But Lerk has no shame.

Whatever tells him what he wants to hear. That is all that matters.

[IonCable]

But check this.

FactCheck Jobs

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The AFLCIO and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers? You really know how to pick your sources.

err...look closer...they're sourcing the Bureau of Labor statistics.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by IonCable:
But check this.

FactCheck Jobs

well, if we are going to have a jaundiced eye towards sources, Annenberg deserves a looksee

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by IonCable:
But check this.

FactCheck Jobs

But but but!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Of course. But Lerk has no shame.

Whatever tells him what he wants to hear. That is all that matters.

It's more a matter of not understanding that posting implausibly partisan sources won't be taken seriously. Posting union propaganda (and that is what it is) is as convincing as posting links directly from either campaigns. In order to be convincing there has to be some evidence of thought and analysis. Just parroting a campaign directly won't win anyone over. We already know where to find the campaign sites, and if that is all we want to read, we'll go to that source.

[IonCable]

My point is that it is statistics.

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

Either side can use statisitics to twist it's view point.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
err...look closer...they're sourcing the Bureau of Labor statistics.

Then quote the BLS directly, without the intervening partisan numbers massage.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Job Growth Under Bush Set to Be_Worst in_70 Years

Ahem...

The US economy generated 144,000 jobs in August, the Labor Department said, in a sign that the labor market was improving slightly after two sluggish months.

The unemployment rate fell by a tenth of a percentage point to 5.4 percent, the lowest rate since October 2001.

The report was roughly in line with Wall Street forecasts of 150,000 new jobs.

In addition, job growth in June and July was revised higher by a cumulative 59,000. The agency initially reported payrolls up by a paltry 32,000 in July and 78,000 in June. Those reports were revised up to show 73,000 in July and 96,000 in June.

Since August 2003, the economy has created 1.7 million jobs after losing about 2.7 million during the recession and sluggish recovery.

[OldManMac]

Look who's getting the new jobs.

July 23, 2004, Friday
EDITORIAL DESK
Who's Getting the New Jobs?
By BOB HERBERT
A startling new study shows that all of the growth in the employed population in
the United States over the past few years can be attributed to recently arrived
immigrants.
The study found that from the beginning of 2001 through the first four months of
2004, the number of new immigrants who found work in the U.S. was 2.06 million,
while the number of native-born and longer-term immigrant workers declined by
more than 1.3 million.
The study, from the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in
Boston, is further confirmation that despite the recovery from the recession of
2001, American families are still struggling with serious issues of joblessness and
underemployment.
The study does not mean that native-born workers and long-term immigrants are
not finding jobs. The American workplace is a vast, dynamic, highly competitive
arena, with endless ebbs and flows of employment. But as the study tallied the
gains and losses since the end of 2000, it found that new immigrants acquired as
many jobs as the other two groups lost, and then some.
Andrew Sum, the director of the center and lead author of the study, said he hoped
his findings would spark a long-needed analysis of employment and immigration
policies in the U.S. But he warned against using the statistics for immigrantbashing.
''We need a serious, honest debate about where we are today with regard to labor
markets,'' said Professor Sum, whose work has frequently cited the important
contributions immigrants have made. The starkness of the study's findings, he said,
is an indication that right now ''there is something wrong.''
The study found that the new immigrants entering the labor force were mostly male
and ''quite young,'' with more than one-fourth under the age of 25, and 70 percent
under 35.
''Hispanics formed the dominant group of new immigrants,'' the study said, ''with
migrants from Mexico and Central America playing key roles. Slightly under 56
percent of the new immigrant workers were Hispanic, nearly another one-fifth were
Asian, 18 percent were white, not-Hispanic, and 5 percent were black.''
Those most affected by the influx of new immigrant workers are young, less welleducated
American workers and so-called established immigrants, those who have
been in the U.S. for a number of years.
Simply stated, there are not enough jobs being created to accommodate the wide
variety of demographic groups in need of work. With that being the case, and with
some employers actively recruiting new immigrants, the inevitable result has been
the displacement of previously employed workers, especially in the less skilled and
lower-income categories.
College-educated middle-class workers appear to be holding their own in the
current employment environment, although significant numbers are
underemployed. The situation is much bleaker for high school graduates and
dropouts, especially for men, both black and white, and teenagers.
The new immigrants are not spread evenly across the U.S. The study identified 16
states that each had 50,000 or more new immigrants in the civilian labor force,
ranging from slightly fewer than 55,000 in Colorado and Pennsylvania to 276,000
in Texas, and a high of 555,000 in California.
Professor Sum said he used data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics household
survey, as opposed to its payroll survey (which is preferred by many economists),
because it includes a number of categories of employment -- contract workers,
farm labor and others -- that attract substantial immigrant labor but are not
monitored by the payroll survey.
But even in the traditional area of manufacturing, for example, the employment of
new immigrants has been significant. Referring to the period from 2000 to the fall
of 2003, the study said, ''Nearly 320,000 new immigrants obtained employment in
the nation's manufacturing industries at a time when total wage and salary
employment in these industries declined by more than 2.7 million positions.''
If we are going to continue to encourage immigration, it's essential that we move
once again toward full employment. Let the discussions begin now on how to get
there. In the absence of full employment, an ugly face-off between American
workers and newly arriving immigrants will be inevitable. That is not something we
want or need to see.

[djohnson]

Well everyone forgot to mention this:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...1506&ncid=2043

The Labor Department (news - web sites) said the US economy generated 144,000 jobs in August and the unemployment rate fell by a tenth of a percentage point to 5.4 percent, the lowest rate since October 2001.

Lets see... -27,000 + 144,000 = 117,000 new jobs. Looks like he is actually right in the middle of the pack! Quit spreading these lies Lerk...

BTW, the original link doesnt work for me...

EDIT: Sorry, spacefreak, you win.

[Zimphire]

This thread can be summed up by one image.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Well everyone forgot to mention this:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...1506&ncid=2043



Lets see... -27,000 + 144,000 = 117,000 new jobs. Looks like he is actually right in the middle of the pack! Quit spreading these lies Lerk...

BTW, the original link doesnt work for me...

EDIT: Sorry, spacefreak, you win.

Um, I do believe that you misread the graph. Those numbers are in millions, not thousands.

BG
Edit: I'm wrong, too. Hundreds of thousands.

[ringo]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Lets see... -27,000 + 144,000 = 117,000 new jobs. Looks like he is actually right in the middle of the pack! Quit spreading these lies

The graph is a monthly average, even with this month's gains, Bush is still showing a loss over the course of his term. You can't add one month to an average to get a new average.

...edit, n/m, I think you see it now.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Ahem... Since August 2003, the economy has created 1.7 million jobs after losing about 2.7 million during the recession and sluggish recovery.

If you lost 2.7 million jobs, and gained 1.7 million jobs, that's a net loss of 1 million jobs. It's not rocket science.

[Spoogepieces]

[greenamp]

The funniest thing about this whole economy debate, is the fact the the president really has very little impact whatsoever on how the economy fairs. What are we communists?

For those of you who say the president does have a meaningful impact, please prove me wrong by telling me exactly how, in detail, a president can drastically influence the economy either good or bad.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by greenamp:
The funniest thing about this whole economy debate, is the fact the the president really has very little impact whatsoever on how the economy fairs. What are we communists?

For those of you who say the president does have a meaningful impact, please prove me wrong by telling me exactly how, in detail, a president can drastically influence the economy either good or bad.

I agree with you in the sense that, outside of the 100 or so adminstration positions, the President can't really create a single job.

However, a President can influence the economic environment so that economic/job growth can be more easily achieved or promoted. In Bush's case, tax cuts and regulatory reform were the main facets that he influenced to create such an environment.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
If you lost 2.7 million jobs, and gained 1.7 million jobs, that's a net loss of 1 million jobs. It's not rocket science.

LIES! LIBERAL MATHEMATICS! LIES!

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by MindFad:
LIES! LIBERAL MATHEMATICS! LIES!

Double Dribble. I remember that game. Those Konami games were a blast.

[Spoogepieces]

Super Basketball, man.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
If you lost 2.7 million jobs, and gained 1.7 million jobs, that's a net loss of 1 million jobs. It's not rocket science.

It's not rocket science either to know that most of the job creation came from the explosion of the dot.com era and once the bubble burst guess where those jobs went?

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by MindFad:
LIES! LIBERAL MATHEMATICS! LIES!

So did you did ever play Ghouls n' Ghosts? I foud it superior to the original with the added benefit of 14 bit graphics.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by greenamp:
The funniest thing about this whole economy debate, is the fact the the president really has very little impact whatsoever on how the economy fairs. What are we communists?

For those of you who say the president does have a meaningful impact, please prove me wrong by telling me exactly how, in detail, a president can drastically influence the economy either good or bad.

War has a rather large impact on any economy.

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by MindFad:
LIES! LIBERAL MATHEMATICS! LIES!

Super Mario Bros. 2 was an interesting change of pace from SMB 1, don't you agree?

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
War has a rather large impact on any economy.

So does a terrorist attack in the heart of your most important financial district.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
So does a terrorist attack in the heart of your most important financial district.

The question wasn't "how, in detail, can a terrorist drastically influence the economy either good or bad". For the record, I didn't say the effect of war on an economy is a bad effect.

[Spoogepieces]

Likewise terrorist attacks have a way of causing employment for more people in certain fields too.

But, let's face it. If the technology sector collapses due to oversaturation how is that the President's fault (not to mention all the run-up about Y2K causing a massive amount of spending that wasn't really required on computers, etc.)?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Likewise terrorist attacks have a way of causing employment for more people in certain fields too.

But, let's face it. If the technology sector collapses due to oversaturation how is that the President's fault (not to mention all the run-up about Y2K causing a massive amount of spending that wasn't really required on computers, etc.)?

There are MANY reasons why a sector of the economy may succeed or collapse ... some can be influenced by the President while other cannot.

But, let's face it, if the economy is good, supporters of the President (Republican or Democrat) will credit the President while critics (Republican or Democrat) will say it has nothing to do with him/her. If the economy is bad supporters of the President (Republican or Democrat) will say it has nothing to do with him/her while critics (Republican or Democrat) will blame the President.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
But, let's face it, if the economy is good, supporters of the President (Republican or Democrat) will credit the President while critics (Republican or Democrat) will say it has nothing to do with him/her. If the economy is bad supporters of the President (Republican or Democrat) will say it has nothing to do with him/her while critics (Republican or Democrat) will blame the President.

Agreed.

I think that politicians certainly do have some impact on the economy, but it's not always direct. The late 90s economy certainly wouldn't have existed without the government's visionary support of commercial expansion of the Internet, for example (no jokes please). And tax changes can have their effects, though those don't seem predictable either.

[deedar]

Jobs, blobs. Who the fvuck cares. The SOB/GOP got us into an unjustified war, killed thousands of people and is adding the accelerated ruin of the environment by ignoring solid science. That's enough for me.



edit: spelling

[Spoogepieces]

[greenamp]

Originally posted by deedar:
Jobs, blobs. Who the fvuck cares. The SOP/GOP got us into an unjustified war, killed thousands of people and is adding the accelerated ruin of the environment by ignoring solid science. That's enough for me.

Congratulations. You have just made your opinions irrelevant.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Double Dribble. I remember that game. Those Konami games were a blast.

Konami is a great developer with great franchises!

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
So did you did ever play Ghouls n' Ghosts? I foud it superior to the original with the added benefit of 14 bit graphics.

I did. It was fun, and I also enjoyed it more.

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Super Mario Bros. 2 was an interesting change of pace from SMB 1, don't you agree?

Indeed it was, and I found it very enjoyable. Those wacky Japanese�they have such great jobs!

Wow, this thread is almost awexome! Just one more exclamation point! Oh, one more! Hell, one last one!

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
It's not rocket science either to know that most of the job creation came from the explosion of the dot.com era and once the bubble burst guess where those jobs went?

India.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by deedar:
Jobs, blobs. Who the fvuck cares. The SOB/GOP got us into an unjustified war, killed thousands of people and is adding the accelerated ruin of the environment by ignoring solid science. That's enough for me.

Yeah but I don't want Kerry to get in there, disband our entire military, Fire everyone and give their jobs to minority workers, while turning this into a waffle state!

Not that I believe any of what I just wrote. But it has just as much relevance to the truth as yours did.

[olePigeon]

Oops, message was modified. My whitty comment no longer applies.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
India.

sadly, yes.

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
sadly, yes.

...and your solution to the .com bust? Companies never made money. Venture capitalists lost tons of money. The only solution for many companies to stay afloat was to outsource.

Graphic Artists, well they're a dime a dozen regardless of Ohio or India.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Graphic Artists, well they're a dime a dozen regardless of Ohio or India.

I'm a dime!??!
Waah.
Hey, maybe I should have thought about that before I learned Photoshop.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
India.

Is it OK in your opinion for a company to find cheaper resources in order to produce and sell a product?

For example, if a ton of aluminum ore costs $400 in the U.S. and it's $1.00 in India why shouldn't a company start buying it from India instead?

Perhaps the job losses are because our wages are simply too high. Why pay someone here to do a job when the same job can be performed elsewhere at a lower cost?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Is it OK in your opinion for a company to find cheaper resources in order to produce and sell a product?

For example, if a ton of aluminum ore costs $400 in the U.S. and it's $1.00 in India why shouldn't a company start buying it from India instead?

Perhaps the job losses are because our wages are simply too high. Why pay someone here to do a job when the same job can be performed elsewhere at a lower cost?

That IS one of the hallmarks of Capitalism. Placing people before $ would be Socialism.

[Spoogepieces]

And that's why capitalism is the greatest economic system ever devised by mankind.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
That IS one of the hallmarks of Capitalism. Placing people before $ would be Socialism.

Admitted it.
Whereas capitalism allows people to start a business, socialism forces people into paying for others and redistributing the wealth, which is unfair, pinko.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
pinko

Are personal attacks really necessary?

[CreepingDeth]

Come on, I'm conservative, you're socialist. You favor socialism, I favor republic. Take your position with pride. Besides, I don't understand how the AFL-CIO gets such an influence. It's a shame for these unions to control so much. Ask any man trying to run a shipping business in the Carlisle, PA area.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Come on, I'm conservative, you're socialist. You favor socialism, I favor republic. Take your position with pride. Besides, I don't understand how the AFL-CIO gets such an influence. It's a shame for these unions to control so much. Ask any man trying to run a shipping business in the Carlisle, PA area.

And thus it was necessary to call me a "pinko"?