Article



Seems like the US economy is chugging along nicely to me.



Looks like businesses are contributing as well!

And yet... as we keep asking those who would quote a Fox News article... where are all the new jobs? You know: the ones that are supposed to get created 9 months after the end of a recession that ended over 2 years ago.

All is not wonderful in Whoville.

Jobs are not the only indicator of recovery.

On an anecdotal level, my company just expanded its workforce by 18% (from 11 up to 13 employees... ), and I recently got the raise I have been waiting for...

My dad hasn't received a job increase in the past five years (and I realize this puts it into the Clinton administration, so I won't be blaming Bush). He works for the state of Utah, and nobody on the state payroll has received a pay raise for quite some time.

I don't really know if the economy is recovering. It didn't affect me when it was "bad" and it doesn't affect me when it is "good". I'd say the economy is great for companies right now, but poor for workers. I have never seen a cost-of-living increase since I started working. I have received annual raises without fail. Our company recently switched to a new insurance company--we were told it would be cheaper and more efficient. Every person's insurance premiums increased (mine only went up about $20/month, but I'm a single person without children). It was cheaper and more efficient for the company, though. Many of my co-workers now opt out of health insurance because they can not afford it.

Just as jobs is not a signifier of economy, neither is the stock market. Just thought I'd add that, since so many seem to point to the stock market when debating the economy...

In reply to all who attack Bush for creating a "jobless recovery" by doing what he was supposed to do (which is spend more and lower taxes; hence the budget deficit), I give you this quote from [U]The Economist{/U] magazine:

"In early 2001 the hangover effects from the investment boom of the late 1990s were only starting to be felt. Unemployment, at 4.2%, was unsustainably below the “natural” unemployment rate, consistent with stable inflation, that most economists put at around 5%. In other words, perhaps two-thirds of those 2.3m jobs were unsustainable “bubble” ones. Given the scale of job losses—along with the shocks of a stockmarket bust, corporate-governance scandals and terrorist attacks—it is a wonder that the recession was so mild. By the same token, a mild recession is now being followed by a commensurately mild recovery."

The full article can be found by clicking here: The New Protectionism

The article is about outsourcing to other countries (which the magazine and I both agree with) after Greg Mankiw, the president's chief economic advisor, said outsourcing made sense in the Economic Report of the President.

I would like to state; however, that I look at this situation from a purely academic and objectivist point of view (which is how I feel it should be looked at). I have had a steady job since 2001 and it is in little jeopardy. I feel bad for those who cannot find work, but I study economics, not personal hardships.

Good luck to all in finding and keeping work!

Job Cut announcements drop

Seems that the number of jobs being cut is slowing to a crawl. Very encouraging news

Now if someone would only start hiring!

February Job Growth Surprisingly Weak



We need a prettier recovery.

amf


I believe that may be a exaggeration.

WHAT RECOVERY.

It you want to see how the economy is doing just follow the treasuries.

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?...%7D&siteid=mktw



If I remember Bush was in California yesterday or the day before telling the people that the job market was improving.

It seems like that is a broken record. Maybe he should change that message. Surely by now people don't believe it.

But in Bushs world of the rich, he probably assumes that the american public is gullible enough to believe him. The peasants are uninformed and uneducated in his eyes.

I feel terribly sorry and worried for the millions of unemployed that now seem doomed to exhaust their benefits now. There are already 1 million unemployed who lost their jobs too early to get the extension. 20 million people are on food aid now and with these pathetic jobs figures that's going to increase dramatically in the next 6 months.

Bush promised 2.5 million new jobs when he made his scandalous tax cuts. He'll be lucky to see 250,000 by the time of the election at this rate.

In 3 months the economy has only added 141,000 jobs when economists say it needs to be adding 150,000 a month.

Iraq is a nightmare, Afghanistan is not much better, there's the biggest deficit in history and a recovery that keeps people out of work.

This election is for the Democrats to lose at the moment.

I have two comments:

1) Someone on this sites signature read sonething to this affect: Dont stick a knife in someone's back, pull it halfway out and call that progress.

and also

2) When speaking of economic recovery, look at it as an average of the recovery from all perspectives. If CEO's are doing well, fine, that's the top 1% of the population. If the bottom 60% is still getting shafted, then as a whole we are not recovering. Stock and the Dow are just numbers representing corporate success, jobs are an indicator of livelihoods, survival, a good job is all that the lower class majority can hope for. A Jobless recovery is no recovery at all.

Just an update to our sagging economy(end sarcasm) lol

http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/07/news/econo...bless/index.htm

Not bad. And the manufacturing sector actually GAINED jobs! Not to mention that productivity was higher yesterday Major rise in productivity



Also, the April ISM rose



The US Economy is now completly healed.

Wow. That'sgoing to need SOME sort of substantiation there GoAmerica. Healed from what point? Can you verify that the jobs created were as lucrative as those that have been lost? A definitive statement like the one you just made needs more than just a quote from a newspaper to be taken seriously.

For the economy to be "healed" in my own personal definition- then the economy needs to be equal or slightly better than the Clinton economy- and it is pure silliness to suggest that it has sustained Clintons growth for any time during this presidency. Now, for my personal benefit- it is not all bad for me- here in Alaska- the economy is usually 180' out from the rest of the US do to high oil prices helping us but hurting the rest of the US- though another problem, our second largest industry, fishing, is usually hurt by a sluggish economy- due to AK salmon and such being a "luxury" item. How has this helped me IMO? I am a landlord to a fairly large number of units- many of them one and two bedroom "less expensive" units- so my vacancy rate is nil!

Once again- I think this is purely a perception issue- and the real debate on this will be really on the national level- if you kiss the ground GW walks on- well- we have a recovery- if you do not- depending on how much you do not believe Bush- the economy is sluggish at best.

I don't think that the economy is completely healed because I believe you have to include the Government's Balance Sheet in the equation. The government not only should have a balanced budget, but it should start showing signs of debt reduction. Is that happening?

But, in some ways, I think this economy is healthier than Clinton's because Clinton's surplus was the result of the .com boom and Y2K spending (among other things). These were artificial situations that were not longterm in nature. The government enriched itself with the capital gains receipts from all the activity and Bush's government has had to refund many taxes as the losses were deducted by those holding the bag.

So, the wages of the new jobs versus the wages of the old jobs is a good barometer, but if the old jobs were paying wages based upon invested capital that was in search of an IPO, then the old wages were illusory.

Mark

Article



As you can see, the manufacturing sector, which has lost jobs for 42 months straight, has added jobs. This is a first because it seems manufacturing is always a decliner even while the other sectors are hiring

This I totally disagree with- the .com boom made a good economy great- but was not even near the driving factor- Clinton's Tax increase in 1993 that was dedicated (mostly) to deficit reduction lowered interest rates for a very long time that allowed LOTS of investment- Clinton was just plain smarter about the economy that Bush could ever hope to be, plus Clinton did get lucky with the .com boom. The .com boom only helped regional parts of the economy, not all of it- for instance, the .com boom had no effect whatsoever on Alaska- but low interest rates had an enormous impact.

Clinton was far more fiscally conservative than nearly any president in recent history, due to his deficit reduction views- and this includes both Reagan, Bush 41 and 43- and the main reason he was re-elected, despite the scandals.

Had Clinton remained in power, we probably would have seen some pretty big cuts to goverment, in areas that could really use cutting. Giving credit where credit is due- Gore and Clinton reduced an enormous amount of paperwork alone with thier "re-inventing" goverment- and were actually going after actual wastefull sacred-cow subsidies- such as timber, ranching and mining. GW hasn't even attempted to get rid of those give-aways!

Look at the 288,000 jobs added last month and you'll think "that's good". But oil increased to over $40 a barrel and shares fell on the prospect of higher interest rates.

The economy is and always has been a seesaw.

This rather pathetic scramble by any encumbant president to claim credit or deflect blame for the economy is so old even Billybob Mcdonald can see through it.

(hopefully)

Schooly

Allow me to show you how you contradicted yourself. You posted the above...

But then just one page ago you said:


So you can place blame for bad numbers, but you won't give credit for positive numbers.


It's becoming so transparent. Good economic news for the U.S. is bad news for the democrats.

I don't see this as a contradiction at all- it is simply a case of the economy sluggishly improving DESPITE GW not because of- it is pretty clear to all but the most ardent GW supporters that he has pretty much ignored or mishandled the economic problems this country has had- if we had a real leader we probably would be having a Clinton like economy once again- but this deficit spending is out of control- and his subsidizing of big business's that can not compete without goverment help (timber, mining, ranching, steel) is just plain stupid. I understand, but may be mistaken, that he let the money for hope 6 housing run out, and if that is true, that has got to be the stupidest economic decision to date.


Edited to add:- I notice the polling seems to be going right along with the nation's as a unit is going- about split down the middle with a sizable "I don't know"

Can we give credit for made-up numbers?

From that bastion of left-wing liberalistic doom and gloom thought... the NY POST:



Lies, damned lies, and statistics?

Edited to add: if we're only growing at 4%, then that means the entire economic growth is actually being funded by deficit spending, which totals about 5% of our $10 trillion economy. That is to say that the 4% growth of the spending going on in the economy is currently being driven entirely by the government borrowing from our future to spend on guns and butter today. Can Bush take "credit" for pushing us in this direction?

Gee, you think the Labor Dept. would be doing things to make Bush look good? I know it stopped reporting massive layoffs early on in this administration.

Ignore reality and cook the numbers. Does this sound similar to business these days, and wasn't one of Bush's original selling points that he had business experience?

Well, we're getting the business all right.

Locally, I see no difference in job openings. SOS, different day. Some openings happen as more people leave the country to take their foreign tours. There's some buildup of government contractors, but you need secret clearance.

Huh. At least with WPA and CCC you could just work for the government laying sidewalks and improving parks. Didn't need a membership card.

Anyway, the economy looks like it always has: Lots of guessing, nobody really knows. Bottom line: Are you employed or not?

amf

I have seen similar statistics to what you posted. I have been leery of the stats that the Bush adminstration has posted including not counting all the job cuts.

Yes, it sounds like Bushs CORPORATION is cooking the books. He probably learned that from KENNY BOY.

I haven't seen any increase in hiring in my neck of the woods,either.

While I'm not an economist, and won't digest the CES birth/death model, I do know that there are many independent contractors and new companies that aren't counted in the jobs numbers. If I was fired tommorow, I would become a consultant in 2 seconds and probably make more money (I know - and spend more on my health insurance, etc.)

This reminds me of tax raises on the 'rich' which include Subchapter S corporations because they are taxed as individuals. Our bureaucrats need a better way to count self-employed and businesses.

At least in my field (marketing), I'm having a heck of a time hiring good people, and having to pay a premium to get them!

<<Clinton's Tax increase in 1993 that was dedicated (mostly) to deficit reduction lowered interest rates for a very long time that allowed LOTS of investment...>

I believe that in the past couple of years, interest rates have been as low as they have ever been (and lower than they were when Clinton was in office). So, if you cite lower interest rates as the secret to the Clinton economy, then how do you reconcile that with today?

Mark

That question is so simple I have to ask why you asked it in the first place?

With the economy tanking, increasing interest rates by Greenspan would have thrown us into a major depression- but interest rates will have to start rising soon due to the monster deficit spending- It will have to be done, it is a matter of time and timing. With this monster deficit I won't be suprised at near 20% rates again in the next few years. And of course, that will be Clinton's fault- right?

A little news to sink your teeth into.

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?...1BF7573DC202%7D



In a nutshell,interest rates will slow down what little economy we had.

There will not be any more refinancing mortgages(to get extra money to spend)

There is no new tax cut for the rich.

The home sales market will decline

The cost of necessities is increasing(I have noticed it in the groceries and restaurants).

But never fear the CEOs got a average of 27% raise in 2003. That will keep the economy going.

Hmmmm...interesting thought. I would add a couple of points.

1) Take away interest on the debt, and there is no deficit, which muddies the water when making a comparison such as this one. However, that aside...

2) Can Bush take credit for this--absolutely! Governmental spending has always been one of the ways many economies spurred themselves out of economic doldrums (consider the many public works projects that led us out of the depression). So, institituting such policies would be well within the scope of governmental policy, and the initiators of such should get the credit or blame for its success or failure. I would add, though, that most of what created the increased spending in this case had little to do with economic programs, so that wasn't really the goal (although I don't doubt for a minute it was certainly a consideration--if not, it should have been).

To your points:

1) Take away the interest on the debt and the debt is still about $200 billion, which is not chicken-feed. However, that's not how you do the math in your household budget either. You have to pay the interest, so you have to raise enough revenue to cover it or really you're just shifting money from one destination to another. In this case, you're shifting deficit spending from, say, health care programs to interest payments and ... (more on that next)

2) The only "economic program" Bush has instituted was to cut taxes and increase military spending on bombs and soldiers. Both do push more money into the economy, but if you took the additional government spending out of the economy, you'd see that the tax change really didn't do much to help. And we DO need to lower the deficit, because that trough isn't as deep as we want to imagine.

Yesterday, on NOW, Professor Elizabeth Warren of Harvard Law School was discussing the middle class' financial situation. One of the interesting facts she brought up was that despite all the rosy employment figures, salaries of men have stayed essentially flat for 20 years (dollars adjusted for inflation). Not an auspicious start to a disturbing set of facts for the beleaguered middle class.

Some other interesting statistics:

Household debt has doubled since 1990.
One out of 7 families in America are "flat broke".
Every 15 seconds, an American is filing bankruptcy.
Anticipated bankruptcies this year: 1.6 million
Families in credit counseling: 9 million
Foreclosures are up 3 times from the last generation

She discusses many of the political and economic factors contributing to the downfall of America's middle class. Another interesting factoid:

The industry contributing the most dollars to Washington is the consumer credit industry.

I highly recommend watching this video. NOW-Elizabeth Warren

This sounds accurate to me, credit cards are probably the single biggest problem for most families (including myself and my wife).

I remember the days in college in the mid 90's when there would be credit card companies lined up everywhere in the student centers. Sign up for a credit card and get a free t-shirt. All of us poor college students were thinking "FREE T-SHIRT, that's awesome!" Once the credit card came in the mail, you started using it for things but the only problem is you had little to no income to pay it off. Once you graduated, you automatically start in the hole due to credit card debt.

That is how it starts, and I think previous to the 90's credit card companies didn't go after students like that. I could be wrong, but folks older than myself didn't seem to have that experience.

Things are still volatile, and it can hardly be maintained that we are in the clear now. Not even the president's predictions are coming true.

I've posted this on another thread, but I just believe it speaks volumes about the president and the policies that he believes are "working"



So, the theory is-give the business owners tax breaks and other "incentives" and we will recover. Sounds good right?


Playing politics with jobs article

The man is clearly out of touch with the workers on the assembly line, let alone what his policies due to those of us who don't own a string of businesses How would you feel if you were one of those workers who bought the president's mantra hook line and sinker??

Not only that, but the statistics portray a different picture.



The presidents job numbers are also deceptive in that after awhile, people "drop-out" of looking for a job and either live at home if their under thirty or rely on their spouse for income.



while some jobs that are created are high paying, a good percentage of them are "burger-flipper" jobs. When teachers with M.A.s are working at Lowe's, something isn't right.



Lastly, when people hear that the government added 100,000 new jobs and think that panacea is around the corner, there needs to be a clearer picture of what really happens.



The economy's rate of growth is often cited by itself erroneously, giving a false picture that all is well. With 1.4 million people being added to the adult working population, 100,000 just isn't cutting it.

(source for quotes: New York Times: "A Growing force of nonworkers" by Edmund L. Andrews,Published July 18th, 2004)

While the numbers for business are looking better, there is this New York Times article that helps explain why so many of us are still doubting the recovery of our economy:

Hourly Pay in U.S. Not Keeping Pace With Price Rises

So far, it has been a top-heavy recovery. Inflation is low; that's good. But there are still the unemployed, and those who are employed are finding that their wages aren't going as far as they used to with rising prices, especially of gasoline and milk. Sometimes I wonder if the Bush administration is even aware of this.

MCI is out of Chap. 11, but the layoffs keep on coming. One of the proposed ways of whacking people last time (about a month ago) was to layoff anyone making over 80k/yr. So downward salary pressure is on for long-term high techs too.

We've got a Canadian telecommuter on our team. His salary is about half of our average, but then he gets the Canadian housing subsidy and healthcare.

Another team is made up of primarily Brazilian telecommuters. I imagine their pay doesn't match the average pay for US contractors. And how much do grass huts cost????

JUST KIDDING

Not only is there no pressure from labor availability to keep wages and salaries from falling, there is pressure from insourcing/outsourcing to foreign nationals to drive wages/salaries down across the board.

The United States -- richest country in the world. Maybe not for the working stiff though, should this trend continue.

The economy seemed to be getting a little better until the last 2 months. Now it seems to be sliding downhill again.

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?...%7D&siteid=mktw



Also hiring has slowed for the FOURTH straight month.

I am curious how the adminstration will spin this?

Anyone for another round of tax breaks for the RICH or maybe the FED could lower the overnight rates to 1/2 of 1% instead of raising rates. That way mortgage rates could be lowered and more people refinance at absurdly low rates to prop up the economy for another 3 to 4 months.

Never mind that this will never help the economy in the long run, only the short run.

In today's paper, an article about 300,000 applying for 3000 TEMPORARY jobs as dock workers in LA. In another article, businesses are overwhelmed by the increased costs of supplying health benefits, so they are reluctant to hire until they really, really need someone. I am 58 and don't expect to find a job until I turn 60 and the military reserve retirement I get covers my health benefits. That should make hiring me a bit more attractive to prospective employers. I have a friend who is only 43, probably more technically qualified than I am, and he can't find work in his old job in the chip industry. He trained to be a certified home inspector, and hasn't found work there either.
If GWB gets re-elected, it will not be for what he has done as much as what many of us are afraid of what the democrats will do. I voted for him, but am getting tired of hearing him say that we are "turning the corner". I think he has turned us so many times that we are now going backwards.
I worked on a project with a Reliability and Statistics group once, and the manager was fond of saying about any given project, "Now, before you get big headed about the good results of this study, remember that we made up most of the numbers that we based the study on", or words to that effect.
As for what comes out of Washington, D.C., if their lips are moving, they are most likely lying to us. They are making up the numbers as they go....

Evidently Greenspan and the markets think differently.

Greenspan along with the Bush adminstration believe we are in a good recovery.

The stock market along with other facts don't agree.

These facts are as follows:

1. The 30 year and the 10 year (which is the primary source of determining our home mortgage rates) is lower than the first of the year. This tells me and economist that the economy is slower that it was earlier in the year. The bond interest rate moves in the same direction as the economy. The economy is going up or improving the interest rate goes up. The economy is sinking or going downhill, the interest rate goes down. The interest has thus, gone down from the first of the year, so you do the calculation.

2. The Dow, Nasdaq, and S&P 500 are all down from the beginning of the year. The stock market is not believing there is a good recovery, or at the most a feeble recovery.

3. The jobless claims for the last week were back up to 350,000 which is a break even point in that area.

4. And the jobs created in the past 3 months is under 150,000,which is the break even point for new workers entering the work force.

5. Spending from the consumers is down the past 3 months and and in conjunction the retail sales have also been down.

6. In conclusion where is this recovery.

The facts speak for theirself. No spinning by the adminstration can change this.

A week after coming to the end of my trek from the heartland, I interviewed for a job, and started the next morning, making 20% more than I was making on my last job.

By the 'great' feminist political maxim, "the personal IS poltiical", my personal economy is definitely in recovery.

Poll question: Do you really think we are recovering economically?

No! Not in Fort Worth anyway.

After listening to Bush’s “optimistic” take on the economy and health care last night, an article in this morning’s Fort Worth Star Telegram makes me want to "become" a Kerry “pessimist.”

I wonder how many of the 1000 employees of Osteopathic Medical Center of Texas in Fort Worth watched the debate Friday night? I wonder if anyone can explain the rosy picture of Bush-o-nomics to them when they've just lost their jobs?

All is not well in Cowtown.



<snip>



FWST article may require registration.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/9877949.htm?1c

Yes, but WHY has it closed its doors?

And, just as importantly, how long will they be out of work? I know that the nurses can be working pretty much as quickly as they hiring process can be zipped through almost anywhere in the country. I saw recruiting billboards all over the place for healthcare workers, especially nurses.

A quick search on the DFW jobs link shows 569 healthcare jobs within 30 miles of Dallas, just through that one search engine. (Yes, I did exclude the "work from home" crap).

The upshot? You have failed to provide sufficient context for your anecdote to support your conclusion.

Why the hospital closed its doors is not particularly relevant. The fact is, that this is a drag on both the economy and health care of Fort Worth. Here is some “context” from a business owner and a city councilman:



<snip>



Links may require registration.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/local/9877982.htm?1c





Job loss isn’t just limited to health care professionals. When an institution like this just close its doors, there are also job losses in other areas—for example clerical, security and maintenance.



Ok. How about putting this in the context of a major institution closing and the impact that will have on service providing businesses in the area? God forbid that I overstate my case, but you exhibit an all too common tendency to minimize what you can’t draw a smiley on. How do we put human misery into context?

Do you really think we are recovering economically?

There was some new information in this morning's The Fort Worth StarTelegram from the Bureau of Labor statistics; U. S. Census Bureau the FWST published economic information on the battleground states of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, Missouri, North Carolina, Florida and New Jersey.

In all eight states, the unemployment numbers are currently higher than when Bill Clinton left office. Six of the eight states have a lower rate than in 2003, partially vindicating Bush's position that the economy is improving. However, the unemployment number is higher in Ohio and Pennsylvania in 2004 than in 2003.

More important perhaps, six of the eight states have lower median household incomes now than when Clinton term ended. The loss ranges from -9.1% in Missouri to -4.7 percent in Pennsylvania. Washington with +4.7% and New Jersey with 4.1% increase are the only states with an increase in median incomes since 2000. This partially confirms Kerry’s position that the new jobs aren’t as good as the old ones.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/9884038.htm

If you are in IT then the economy is not better, but worse. Bottom line, it will be bad until the rupee is worth more versus the dollar. India manipulates their currency so that they can compete with Americans for the IT industry.

http://www.siliconindia.com/magazine/displ...article_id=1669

Right now in India the standard of living for $18,000 is the exact same as the standard of living here at about $80,000 - $100,000 a year. The good news is, whenever we want to drop the hammer on India, all we have to do is have the federal bank buy Indian currency, then their whole economy will be checked.

This is the why, Bikerdad, from BoF's link:

An economic issue, to be sure.

Michigan traditionally votes for a Democratic Presidential candidate because of a strong union presence in the auto industry. However, the increasing incidence of companies leaving and the ensuing creation of brownfields, even with companies that do not have unions with which to contend, is indicative of a real problem with the economy.

Maytag products will be made in another country where it is cheaper to produce them; however, the Maytag company leaders will still expect American blue collar types to purchase their products. If there are only jobs available at McDonald's or Wal-Mart or at convenience stores for these laid-off employees, just how realistic is it that they will still be able to afford Maytag products?

As long as American corporations are allowed and in some cases encouraged to outsource American jobs to other countries, life will be hard for the American worker. The economy may appear to be robust on paper, especially when laid-off workers drop out of the labor statistics when their unemployment benefits end, but is it a real indication of how well the country is doing when the most vulnerable cannot make it and lose their homes?

Michigan has lost an estimated 260,000 jobs in the last 4 years. This is where I'm coming from. And we're not talking about jobs only in production; we are talking about high-tech jobs as well being farmed out to India in particular. If this does not apply to a lot of posters here, congratulations on having a job with a gainful income. However, there is a portion of the population that is suffering in this economy.

I'm a guy who's gainfully employed in the tech field working for a company that sells products to other businesses and not the consumer. There are offices in both Bangalore and Chenai, India. Both those cities are booming, big time. What happens is that a relatively inexperienced engineer joins my company, gets 1-2 years experience and then jumps ship for a salary 2-3x higher. The companies providing higher salaries are typically US-based as well. Keep in mind that these engineers working in India are doing actual engineering and not tech support.

My observation is that there is a "feeding frenzy" going on right now. Salaries are going up in those cities. Once the market is sufficiently seeded with experienced engineers, then I fully expect the frenzy to taper off. Still, companies are moving in and expanding at a surprising pace. What does this mean?

1. Southern India will become the economic center of South Asia if it hasn't already.

2. The economic differential between the south and the north of India will be a "dynamo" of economic growth.

3. To keep up with the growth, more and more infrastructure will be built in India making setting up shop cheaper.

4. Though labor costs will go up in India, infrastructure costs will go down. Labor costs will still be lower than in the US because of point 2.

This means for the forseeable future, US companies' incentive to open offices in India (at the expense of in the US) will increase. For US labor and tech workers, this is bad news in the near future. Looking 50 years out, the standard (thus cost) of living will have increased sufficiently in India that it will have somewhat equalized.

Let me be clear, however, I don't blame India or Indians or US companies for this. We have free market economics at work and if not India, then it would be some other country such as China. What is disturbing is that these changes will have an impact on the intellectual gravitas of the US. These changes will actively disincent students from entering technology fields as there simply won't be the jobs or, more importantly, the mentorship available. Since the history of economic power in the US is due largely to technological innovation, I can't imagine how the outcome will be good for the US.

Thus, I will go out on a huge limb and state that the US has begun its inevitable decline of economic hegemony. The jobs being lost will never come back, and the standard of living in the US must decline accordingly. On the plus side, the standard of living in countries like India will go up. I expect the differential between countires to become less extreme.

This is interesting. You insinuate that Bill Clinton had an effect on the economy and that unemployment is a function of governmental action. This is only marginally true, as any economist will attest to. With that in mind, please explain how Bill Clinton effected the economy via actual actions, and how GW's actions differed.

However, even CBS believes that the economy is rebounding. Read...

http://biz.yahoo.com/cbsm-top/041105/8793f...b7146311_1.html

My belief is specifically that people rarely understand economic ebbs and flows. I also believe that often times Americans can't see past party lines and rhetoric that was presented during this year's campaign. Our economy is largely dependant upon factors such as core competencies of big business in America, consumer purchasing trends, available skilled labor, import/export ratios, foreign economies, etc, etc, etc. The gov't only marginally produces real results. This can happen due to trade tarriff's (such as GW's steel decision), expansionary spending, etc.

For instance, your post mentions 8 battleground states and their changes in median household income, then reference it to Kerry's statement about the types of jobs being created in America. First of all, these are only 8 states out of 50. Secondly, only a couple of these states are high GDP producing states. Basically, this is just a piece of the pie that doesn't portray and true economic picture.

There is a liberal mentality often times on this board that lay-off's are rampant, mortgages are being forclosed more than ever, etc. If labor statistics are wrong, then they always have been. Why are they valid under a Democrat's administration? Why is there a perception that Bill Clinton did such a great job economically? Please list actual accomplishments other than a balanced budget, as we all know balancing a budget is subject to overall economic well being.

To answer the question specifically and objectively, the economy is slowly recovering. The most simple statement that I can make is that our nation's actions have more impact on our economic prowess than any President. Let's use 2 very simple illustrations, and start with the "outsourcing" discussion.
1. If a company such as Heinz (lest we not forget who Mr. Kerry is married to) has nearly 3/4 of it's manufacturing operations overseas, what would cause this? It can come from numerous reasons, but most importantly cost savings. If the American consumer chooses to purchase products from companies known to manufacture overseas, then companies will always do it. They can maintain a profitability model while driving costs down. Until we chose otherwise...
2. Often times our nation's economy is dependant upon exports. If a company that exports 25% of its product overseas and sells 75% domestically, driving a large portion of its income and ability to employ American labor becomes stagnant or an international competitor enters the market, our economy suffers. Use Ford as an example. As Toyota and Honda made comprable or superior products, not only did we suffer here in the states but also Ford sales became sluggish internationally. This caused production dips here in the states, profitability of the company to drop, etc. Why? Because people chose to purchase non-domestic product.... how is this the gov't fault?
Let's take this ONE STEP further. If during the same period, Ford decided that it had to reduce operating costs in order to spend on R & D, unionized domestic plants became a liability. Also, models that are sold world wide could be produced in more auspicious locales. This caused plants to be sent abroad, jobs to be lost, etc. How did the gov't cause this??? They obviously didn't....


The reality is that our economy is dependant upon capitalism, dependant upon big business, and revolves around how well America does on an international scale... and less to do with the "lassiez faire" gov't.
(I know this is a long one.. and will probably be PICKED APART! )

The Economy After 4 years: Clinton vs. Bush



Suffice to say, Clinton's first 4 years outshine Bush's by a mile.

The figures are called out in the extended entry:

Job growth: annual average (payroll survey):
Clinton: +2,835,000
Bush: -455,000

Economic growth (change in inflation-adjusted gross domestic product):
Clinton: +3.7% per year
Bush: +2.5% per year

Inflation (change in consumer price index):
Clinton: +2.8% per year
Bush: +3.4% per year

Median household income, change:
Clinton: +1.7% per year
Bush: -1.6% per year

Number of Americans in poverty (average change per year):
Clinton: -800,000
Bush: +1.5 million

Number of Americans without health insurance (average change per year):
Clinton: +145,000
Bush: +1,885,000

Federal surplus/deficit (annual average):
Clinton: +$5 billion
Bush: -$350 billion

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Census Bureau, White House Office of Management and Budget, National Assn. of Realtors.

http://www.latimes.com/media/graphic/2004-07/13574639.gif

Jobs:
Clinton Economy:
Created 22 million jobs

bush Economy:
3 million + jobs lost

Deficts:

Clinton Left a $233 Billion surplus

bush is by year end to have a $700 deficit= $933 billon hole dug in 5 years

*3 million manufacturing jobs lost under the "bush gang", I say a country that permits its manufacturing and its technical and scientific professions to wither away is a country on a path to the Third World. The mark of a Third World country is a labor force employed in domestic services.

And, make no mistake, America is being "Third Worlded" by the Cheap Labor Conservatives who...like elites in those countries... will be the masters of the US while the vast majority of the public will be reduced to peons and corporate sharecroppers.... The global "race to the bottom" is moving very quickly and even China is seeing some jobs being moved to yet cheaper labor markets as its workers get somewhat better wages and benefits.

There is always somewhere where wages are lower and where local elites can profit from making goods to ship to wealthy countries... but if that wealth is bled away by outsourcing and labor suppression... eventually there will be a critical shortage of the one thing these globalists can't manufacture--customers who can afford to buy what they are producing.

There is already a global glut of production capacity chasing a shrinking pool of consuming capacity. The outsourcing of Americans jobs has started the USA on a decline from the World's Leading Economic and Military Power to also ran.

I would be highly interested in seeing a source to support your claim, Factologist.*



*Sorry about the one-liner, but until I see a source that is really all I can about come up with.

There is no doubt that the economy has improved enough for the majority of companies to continue making record profits each quarter.

But has the average person(low to middle class) benefitted equally in this economy.

The new jobs added to the economy at first glance seems to be about par for a recovering economy, but the pay scale of most of these new jobs is considerably less than desired.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...y-anxiety_x.htm

With America so heavily dependent on foreign oil and foreign "investment", why should it recover? We make far less products than we used to. Work for far many Americans is either shuffling papers in an office or putting on a good face for the customer. The creditors might go along with this scam indefinitely. There is one thing that is quite finite however.

That happens to be cheap oil. Last week, oil hit $67/barrel. The oil producing countries are pumping and processing oil as fast as they can. If the oil goes up to $80 within a couple years, America will see the prices that it saw during the oil embargoes.

The idea that Clinton created this or Bush gave us this... it is so foreign to economics. Presidents are held responsible for the economy, but have little to do with the short term turns in the business cycle. For all the rhetoric about current economic policy the US economic policy has basically remained unchanged since Reagan. There have been some manipulations to some of the tax brackets, but they are not even close to the pre 1980 level. The biggest changes since Reagan were Clinton’s Free Trade agreements. While the manufacturing jobs losses have been painful, they are a result of NAFTA and GATT. In the long run those agreements will help the US. If you are still unhappy about the manufacturing jobs, thank President Clinton the great Cheap Labor Conservative.

Oh, if you want to have an Economic Beauty Pageant between past presidents, the numbers can paint any picture you want.

Unemployment Rates

January 1, 1993 - July 31, 1996 = 6.03 percent
January 1, 2001 - July 31, 2004 = 5.52 percent
Total Income Growth
January 1, 1993 - June 30, 1996 = 17.05 percent.
January 1, 2001 - June 30, 2004 = 16.57 percent (with the 2001-02 recession)
Inflation
1993-1996 - total inflation = 8.58%
2001-2004 - total inflation = 6.95%
Wage Growth

June 30, 1996, year-over-year wage growth (inflation adjusted):
Business sector: + 0.9 percent
Nonfarm business sector: + 0.9 percent
Manufacturing sector: + 0.9 percent

June 30, 2004, year-over-year wage growth (inflation adjusted):
Business sector: + 1.7 percent
Nonfarm business sector: + 1.9 percent
Manufacturing sector: + 3.0 percent

The US economy has created 3.7 million new jobs since May 2003. Average weekly earnings by factory-line workers and non-managers in the services sectors is up up 12.46% since Bush became President.



Oil would have to reach $90 a barrel and the national average for a gallon of gas would have to be over $3 a gallon to reach that level (average price of gas $2.50). We're getting closer. How much do American's care about gas prices? The number of SUV sales are up. I do not get it.