Full Version: Job growth soars
A report released today shows that 57,000 new jobs were created in September, "suggesting a turnaround" in the job market according to the Associated Press.
The growing job market is just the latest sign of a stronger economy. With 3.3% growth in the second quarter of 2003 and a projected 6% growth in the third and fourth quarters, it looks like we are heading for a sustained boom.
President Bush's tax cuts are taking their effect, and his six-point plan will help small business owners provide health insurance to their employees, reduce bureaucracy, and focus on job creation rather than junk lawsuits.
Despite the booby traps left by Bill Clinton (unanswered Al Queda attacks, failing economy), despite Democrats wrecking the one enormously wealthy state they still control, despite their policies that continue to send our jobs overseas, despite their protections for frivolous lawsuits (the ones driving up medical malpractice costs and wrecking the health care system), President Bush has still managed to pull this economy out of the gutter where liberal policy has put it.
So my question is: Can anyone name a single thing any Democrat has done, or even proposed that did or would create jobs instead of trashing them?
The growing job market is just the latest sign of a stronger economy. With 3.3% growth in the second quarter of 2003 and a projected 6% growth in the third and fourth quarters, it looks like we are heading for a sustained boom.
President Bush's tax cuts are taking their effect, and his six-point plan will help small business owners provide health insurance to their employees, reduce bureaucracy, and focus on job creation rather than junk lawsuits.
Despite the booby traps left by Bill Clinton (unanswered Al Queda attacks, failing economy), despite Democrats wrecking the one enormously wealthy state they still control, despite their policies that continue to send our jobs overseas, despite their protections for frivolous lawsuits (the ones driving up medical malpractice costs and wrecking the health care system), President Bush has still managed to pull this economy out of the gutter where liberal policy has put it.
So my question is: Can anyone name a single thing any Democrat has done, or even proposed that did or would create jobs instead of trashing them?
aquapub,
Christoper Dodd, Democrat
Rosa DeLauro, Democrat
Nancy Johnson, Republican
This is in relation to importing foreign high-tech workers through H-1B and L-1 visa programs. A follow up letter dated October 1, 2003:
So what has President Bush done on this issue? Well, nothing. You see, if we are to even retain the good jobs we have, we have to do the grunt work through our representatives. I give Bush zero credit for our success.
Edited to add: Oh, by the way, 165,000 minus 95,000 equals 70,000 jobs that we saved through our grass roots efforts.
QUOTE
There is something that you can do for us and our cause. Please
contact both of your Republican Senators and ask them to cosponsor
Senator Christopher Dodd's bill (S. 1452). Also contact the Congressman
from your district and ask him/her to cosponsor bills introduced by
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (H.R. 2702) and/or Nancy Johnson (H.R. 2849)
contact both of your Republican Senators and ask them to cosponsor
Senator Christopher Dodd's bill (S. 1452). Also contact the Congressman
from your district and ask him/her to cosponsor bills introduced by
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (H.R. 2702) and/or Nancy Johnson (H.R. 2849)
Christoper Dodd, Democrat
Rosa DeLauro, Democrat
Nancy Johnson, Republican
This is in relation to importing foreign high-tech workers through H-1B and L-1 visa programs. A follow up letter dated October 1, 2003:
QUOTE
To our members and legislators,
As many of you may be aware, the H-1B visa cap dropped back down to
65,000 (down from 195,000) as of today. Lobbyists have failed to
influence legislation that would again have raised the cap. However,
they will surely become even more active with their lobbying efforts for
2004. We must continue our efforts to fight any increases in the future
until 'every American' is working and is secure in their job.
We thank our legislators for listening to our concerns and for taking
action by introducing or cosponsoring bills to protect our jobs. We
commend them for seeing beyond the lies and distortions provided by
corporate lobbyists.
If your Congressman or Senator has not yet signed on, contact them now
and ask that they cosponsor one of all of the bills that have been
introduced to save 'our' jobs. If they have already signed on, it is
important that you thank them for their support.
Sincerely,
John A. Bauman
President
T.O.R.A.W.
www.toraw.org
As many of you may be aware, the H-1B visa cap dropped back down to
65,000 (down from 195,000) as of today. Lobbyists have failed to
influence legislation that would again have raised the cap. However,
they will surely become even more active with their lobbying efforts for
2004. We must continue our efforts to fight any increases in the future
until 'every American' is working and is secure in their job.
We thank our legislators for listening to our concerns and for taking
action by introducing or cosponsoring bills to protect our jobs. We
commend them for seeing beyond the lies and distortions provided by
corporate lobbyists.
If your Congressman or Senator has not yet signed on, contact them now
and ask that they cosponsor one of all of the bills that have been
introduced to save 'our' jobs. If they have already signed on, it is
important that you thank them for their support.
Sincerely,
John A. Bauman
President
T.O.R.A.W.
www.toraw.org
So what has President Bush done on this issue? Well, nothing. You see, if we are to even retain the good jobs we have, we have to do the grunt work through our representatives. I give Bush zero credit for our success.
Edited to add: Oh, by the way, 165,000 minus 95,000 equals 70,000 jobs that we saved through our grass roots efforts.
You've got your rhetoric down Aquapub, but you're coming up a little short of reasons to get excited about this "soaring" job growth.
57,000 new jobs may impress you, but what about this:
More than 2.5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since the current administration took office -- 56,000 disappeared in June alone.
In the richest country in the world, more than 34.6 million people (including 12.1 million children) live below what the government says is the "poverty line."
43.6 million people do not have health insurance. More than 15 percent of our families, friends and neighbors have no protection for themselves when they fall ill. Why? More employers are dumping health coverage for their workers.
Which leads us to the official unemployment rate of 6.1 percent. That number does not tell us how many millions of people are employed in part-time jobs but who would gladly accept full-time work. While not counted in the official unemployment number, these are some of the very people who fall below the poverty line because their wages are so low. Nor does the official unemployment rate tell the story of the millions of workers who work 40 hours a week for minimum wage or low wages who manage to squeak above the official government poverty line, but do not have anything approaching a secure economic life.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9030
Creating 57,000 new jobs is a drop in a bucket when over 2 million jobs have disappeared since Dubya took office. Bush is a job destroyer, not a job creator.
Additionally, The Economic Policy Institute is considerably more skeptical that this "job surge" is anything more than a tenative dipping of the toe by businesses into the unsettled waters of economic recovery.
Business services posted a 66,000 job gain, its best month since before the recession began, but half of these jobs came from hires in temporary help. This is the fifth month of consecutive gains in temp work, suggesting that businesses continue to test the waters without committing to permanent hires. Retailers added jobs for the second month in a row (11,000 jobs over the past two months), possibly reflecting greater buying related to tax cuts that some consumers began receiving this summer as well as accelerated mortgage refinancing by homeowners. However, employment in this sector remains down by 182,000 since November 2001, the official start of the current recovery.
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatu...cators_jobspict
Despite your overtly partisan swipes at Clinton, I'd be far happier if Bush could knock unemployment down by several percentage points and get every American that wants to find work back to a robust job scene. But people doing temp work or working at jobs that pay far less than they earned previously might not share your glee about these September numbers.
Finally, the 57,000 jobs you boast of Aquapub actually represents a shortfall of 287,000 jobs Bush's Council of Economic Advisers had projected would be created by the tax cuts.
http://jobwatch.org/creating/index.html
As Shania Twain would say, "That don't impress me much."
57,000 new jobs may impress you, but what about this:
More than 2.5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since the current administration took office -- 56,000 disappeared in June alone.
In the richest country in the world, more than 34.6 million people (including 12.1 million children) live below what the government says is the "poverty line."
43.6 million people do not have health insurance. More than 15 percent of our families, friends and neighbors have no protection for themselves when they fall ill. Why? More employers are dumping health coverage for their workers.
Which leads us to the official unemployment rate of 6.1 percent. That number does not tell us how many millions of people are employed in part-time jobs but who would gladly accept full-time work. While not counted in the official unemployment number, these are some of the very people who fall below the poverty line because their wages are so low. Nor does the official unemployment rate tell the story of the millions of workers who work 40 hours a week for minimum wage or low wages who manage to squeak above the official government poverty line, but do not have anything approaching a secure economic life.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9030
Creating 57,000 new jobs is a drop in a bucket when over 2 million jobs have disappeared since Dubya took office. Bush is a job destroyer, not a job creator.
Additionally, The Economic Policy Institute is considerably more skeptical that this "job surge" is anything more than a tenative dipping of the toe by businesses into the unsettled waters of economic recovery.
Business services posted a 66,000 job gain, its best month since before the recession began, but half of these jobs came from hires in temporary help. This is the fifth month of consecutive gains in temp work, suggesting that businesses continue to test the waters without committing to permanent hires. Retailers added jobs for the second month in a row (11,000 jobs over the past two months), possibly reflecting greater buying related to tax cuts that some consumers began receiving this summer as well as accelerated mortgage refinancing by homeowners. However, employment in this sector remains down by 182,000 since November 2001, the official start of the current recovery.
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatu...cators_jobspict
Despite your overtly partisan swipes at Clinton, I'd be far happier if Bush could knock unemployment down by several percentage points and get every American that wants to find work back to a robust job scene. But people doing temp work or working at jobs that pay far less than they earned previously might not share your glee about these September numbers.
Finally, the 57,000 jobs you boast of Aquapub actually represents a shortfall of 287,000 jobs Bush's Council of Economic Advisers had projected would be created by the tax cuts.
http://jobwatch.org/creating/index.html
As Shania Twain would say, "That don't impress me much."
QUOTE
So my question is: Can anyone name a single thing any Democrat has done, or even proposed that did or would create jobs instead of trashing them?
In 1992, during the ‘jobless recovery’ of the 90 recession, the economy added 1,079,000 jobs. In 1993 the economy added 2,790,000 jobs. In September of 93 alone, about the same point in the recovery as now, the economy added 240,000. And during 1994, the first full year of Clinton ‘highest tax increase ever’, the economy added 3,860,000 jobs.
This isn’t a question of what the democrats propose but why the conservatives believe the only way to create jobs is by borrowing money to give targeted tax cuts for the rich? It isn’t, in fact a revenue neutral policy such as Clinton’s or what we followed during the 70's produced a higher nominal job growth: During the 70's the net jobs created per year were 1,949,300, during the 80's 1,800,900, and during the 90's (excluding 2000) 2,171,000. So the period of the lowest job creation correlates with the period of the highest debt and largest tax cuts...and this correlation holds true today.
Fiscal responsibility is a plan and sadly it is one conservatives do not seem to comprehend.
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/...e/ces0000000001
QUOTE(aquapub @ Oct 5 2003, 06:33 AM)
A report released today shows that 57,000 new jobs were created in September, "suggesting a turnaround" in the job market according to the Associated Press.
The growing job market is just the latest sign of a stronger economy. With 3.3% growth in the second quarter of 2003 and a projected 6% growth in the third and fourth quarters, it looks like we are heading for a sustained boom.
President Bush's tax cuts are taking their effect, and his six-point plan will help small business owners provide health insurance to their employees, reduce bureaucracy, and focus on job creation rather than junk lawsuits.
Despite the booby traps left by Bill Clinton (unanswered Al Queda attacks, failing economy), despite Democrats wrecking the one enormously wealthy state they still control, despite their policies that continue to send our jobs overseas, despite their protections for frivolous lawsuits (the ones driving up medical malpractice costs and wrecking the health care system), President Bush has still managed to pull this economy out of the gutter where liberal policy has put it.
So my question is: Can anyone name a single thing any Democrat has done, or even proposed that did or would create jobs instead of trashing them?
The growing job market is just the latest sign of a stronger economy. With 3.3% growth in the second quarter of 2003 and a projected 6% growth in the third and fourth quarters, it looks like we are heading for a sustained boom.
President Bush's tax cuts are taking their effect, and his six-point plan will help small business owners provide health insurance to their employees, reduce bureaucracy, and focus on job creation rather than junk lawsuits.
Despite the booby traps left by Bill Clinton (unanswered Al Queda attacks, failing economy), despite Democrats wrecking the one enormously wealthy state they still control, despite their policies that continue to send our jobs overseas, despite their protections for frivolous lawsuits (the ones driving up medical malpractice costs and wrecking the health care system), President Bush has still managed to pull this economy out of the gutter where liberal policy has put it.
So my question is: Can anyone name a single thing any Democrat has done, or even proposed that did or would create jobs instead of trashing them?
Aquapub,
You call a 57,000 job increase soaring? Even Bush's economic analysts were saying that jobs should have been increasing at a rate of 344,000 a month. How is only 16% of what was expected, "soaring"?
It seems you also left out a good part of the story, in your zeal to support this administration. The news isn't nearly as good as you make it out, even in your own story, linked here:
QUOTE
Analysts warned against too much optimism from the first jobs increase since January. "We should keep in mind that one month, a trend does not make," Naroff said.
Job growth needs to be consistently above 100,000 a month for confidence in a rebound, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com.
"The job market is stabilizing," Zandi said of Friday's report. "But it also shows the market is far from healthy. It's simply flat. It's not eroding. It's a step in the right direction, but it's not enough."
Unemployed workers seeking jobs for 27 weeks or more jumped to 2.1 million last month from 1.9 million in August. Also, people working part time because they can't find full-time work increased to nearly 5 million, up from 4.4 million in August.
Job growth needs to be consistently above 100,000 a month for confidence in a rebound, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com.
"The job market is stabilizing," Zandi said of Friday's report. "But it also shows the market is far from healthy. It's simply flat. It's not eroding. It's a step in the right direction, but it's not enough."
Unemployed workers seeking jobs for 27 weeks or more jumped to 2.1 million last month from 1.9 million in August. Also, people working part time because they can't find full-time work increased to nearly 5 million, up from 4.4 million in August.
As for your assertion of Clinton's Failed Economy? Look at the Clinton record. The best economy ever. Real wages up, unemployment down. Housing up, poverty down. Stock market up, crime rates down. Clinton came into office with a huge deficit and turned it into a 240 million dollar surplus in eight years. Now GW turns it into a $350 million (and growing) deficit again. Clinton's policies helped to create 22 million net jobs in eight years. During six years under two different Bushes the economy failed to create even one net private sector job. Not even one! And you say Clinton had a failed economic policy? If that was a failed economy, what do you call where we are at now? A glowing success?
And let's look at your assertion that Democratic policies concerning tort reform are responsible for the high malpractice insurance rates. That's simply not the case at all. It's more like the insurance companies lousy investments that went south in this recession. Even in states where tort reform has been mandated (like California and Texas) insurance rates have not gone down. In fact, the companies themselves deny ever saying that the rates would go down. Don't believe me? Look here:
QUOTE
There is no connection between lawsuits and medical malpractice insurance rates. For the past decade, insurance payouts in medical malpractice cases have stayed virtually flat. The average claim in 1990 was $39,093. In 2000, it rose to $42,607. This $3,000 increase over ten years hardly qualifies as an explosion in medical malpractice awards, although it does serve as a deterrent to bad doctors.
and here:
QUOTE
Representative of the Ohio Health Insurance Company testifying before the Wyoming Legislature: Tort reform will not lower rates. (Casper Star Tribune, May 4, 2003)
Medical Assurance Co. of Mississippi: “Tort reform does not provide a magical ‘silver-bullet’ that will affect medical malpractice insurance rates.” (Medical Assurance Co. of Mississippi, September 2002)
Patricia Costante, chairman and CEO of the MIIX Group of Insurance Companies:
When asked by New Jersey Assemblyman Paul D’Amato whether, if caps are enacted in New Jersey, her insurance company will not raise premiums and will, in fact, reduce them, she said, “No, we’re not telling you that.” (Meeting of the New Jersey Assembly Joint Committee of Banking & Insurance and Health & Human Services on Medical Malpractice, June 3, 2002)
American Insurance Association: "The insurance industry never promised that tort reform would achieve specific premium savings.” (American Insurance Association Press Release, March 13, 2002)
Sherman Joyce, President, American Tort Reform Association: “We wouldn’t tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates.” (Liability Week, July 19, 1999)
Victor Schwartz, General Counsel, American Tort Reform Association: “Many tort reform advocates do not contend that restricting litigation will lower insurance rates, and ‘I’ve never said that in 30 years.’” (Business Insurance, July 19, 1999)
Dick Marquardt, Washington Insurance Commissioner: It was “impossible to attribute stable insurance rates to tort-law changes or the damages cap,” since rates also improved in states that did not pass tort reform.
Medical Assurance Co. of Mississippi: “Tort reform does not provide a magical ‘silver-bullet’ that will affect medical malpractice insurance rates.” (Medical Assurance Co. of Mississippi, September 2002)
Patricia Costante, chairman and CEO of the MIIX Group of Insurance Companies:
When asked by New Jersey Assemblyman Paul D’Amato whether, if caps are enacted in New Jersey, her insurance company will not raise premiums and will, in fact, reduce them, she said, “No, we’re not telling you that.” (Meeting of the New Jersey Assembly Joint Committee of Banking & Insurance and Health & Human Services on Medical Malpractice, June 3, 2002)
American Insurance Association: "The insurance industry never promised that tort reform would achieve specific premium savings.” (American Insurance Association Press Release, March 13, 2002)
Sherman Joyce, President, American Tort Reform Association: “We wouldn’t tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates.” (Liability Week, July 19, 1999)
Victor Schwartz, General Counsel, American Tort Reform Association: “Many tort reform advocates do not contend that restricting litigation will lower insurance rates, and ‘I’ve never said that in 30 years.’” (Business Insurance, July 19, 1999)
Dick Marquardt, Washington Insurance Commissioner: It was “impossible to attribute stable insurance rates to tort-law changes or the damages cap,” since rates also improved in states that did not pass tort reform.
Finally, let's deal with your actual question: Can anyone name a single thing any Democrat has done, or even proposed that did or would create jobs instead of trashing them?
How about the actual Democratic Jobs and Economic Growth Plan, as seen here:
QUOTE
Tax Cuts for Working Families — The Democratic jobs plan provides an immediate increase in the child tax credit to $800 per child. For low-wage working families, this credit is refundable, and will reach more than 2.6 million children not covered by the current law. Furthermore, the Democratic package makes immediate both the expansion of the 10-percent tax-rate bracket (now slated to occur in 2008), and key provisions to eliminate the marriage penalty. Within months, these provisions will put money in the pockets of average Americans—boosting consumer demand, and the jobs and business investment needed to meet it. These tax cuts will deliver far more immediate impetus to the economy than the Republican proposal of providing long-term tax breaks for recipients of taxable dividends. Cost = $29 billion in 2003-2004, $98 billion over 2003-2013.
Investment Tax Incentives for Businesses — The Democratic plan provides tax incentives to businesses to generate investment and jobs now. The plan allows small businesses to expense up to $75,000 of the cost of new investments through 2004, triple the current limit. For all businesses, the plan restructures last year’s bonus depreciation provisions so that firms can write off a 50 percent bonus for the next 12 months, and only a 30 percent bonus for the balance of 2004. Domestic manufacturers get a tax break in the Rangel remedy to a World Trade Organization case against the United States. All business tax components encourage investment now, when the economy needs a boost. Cost = $29 billion in 2003-2004, $8 billion over 2003-2013.
Targeted Assistance to Those Looking for Jobs — The Democratic jobs plan (based on the Rangel unemployment compensation bill) extends unemployment benefits for 26 weeks, increases the level of benefits, and provides temporary aid to states to broaden coverage to low-wage earners and part-time workers. As documented by Economy.com, this assistance for those looking for work is the most effective stimulus for the economy and consumer demand by putting money in the pockets of those most likely to spend it. Cost = $27 billion in 2003-2004 and over 2003-2013.
Support for States and Localities to Create Jobs: Infrastructure, Homeland Security, Education and Health Care — Fiscal crises in the states are forcing tax increases and cuts in critical programs, undermining jobs and the economy’s recovery. The Democratic plan provides states with funds to avoid these cuts and to address critical needs in areas including Medicaid ($18 billion in 2003-2004 and over 2003-2013), homeland security, transportation infrastructure, and an additional fund for one-time assistance to help those hurt most by unemployment and a stagnant economy ($26 billion in 2003-2004 and over 2003-2013). Total cost = $44 billion in 2003-2004 and over 2003-2013.
Investment Tax Incentives for Businesses — The Democratic plan provides tax incentives to businesses to generate investment and jobs now. The plan allows small businesses to expense up to $75,000 of the cost of new investments through 2004, triple the current limit. For all businesses, the plan restructures last year’s bonus depreciation provisions so that firms can write off a 50 percent bonus for the next 12 months, and only a 30 percent bonus for the balance of 2004. Domestic manufacturers get a tax break in the Rangel remedy to a World Trade Organization case against the United States. All business tax components encourage investment now, when the economy needs a boost. Cost = $29 billion in 2003-2004, $8 billion over 2003-2013.
Targeted Assistance to Those Looking for Jobs — The Democratic jobs plan (based on the Rangel unemployment compensation bill) extends unemployment benefits for 26 weeks, increases the level of benefits, and provides temporary aid to states to broaden coverage to low-wage earners and part-time workers. As documented by Economy.com, this assistance for those looking for work is the most effective stimulus for the economy and consumer demand by putting money in the pockets of those most likely to spend it. Cost = $27 billion in 2003-2004 and over 2003-2013.
Support for States and Localities to Create Jobs: Infrastructure, Homeland Security, Education and Health Care — Fiscal crises in the states are forcing tax increases and cuts in critical programs, undermining jobs and the economy’s recovery. The Democratic plan provides states with funds to avoid these cuts and to address critical needs in areas including Medicaid ($18 billion in 2003-2004 and over 2003-2013), homeland security, transportation infrastructure, and an additional fund for one-time assistance to help those hurt most by unemployment and a stagnant economy ($26 billion in 2003-2004 and over 2003-2013). Total cost = $44 billion in 2003-2004 and over 2003-2013.
I don't know, sounds more reasonable to me than targeting tax breaks to stock dividends.
Buddy Holly o\would be happy to hear the Crickets playing such beautiful music. It is unfortunate that Aquapub thinks that nobody in the Democratic Party is backing any economic policies. Simply rolling back the tax cuts to pay for all of the new Bush government expenditures would be one thing. Dispelling the myth that only tax cuts can spur the economy would be another. The boom years of the 1990s followed the Clinton tax hike of 1993. We grew our economy and we starting paying down the Reagan/Bush deficit and we even had hopes of funding our politically and economically valuable programs of Social Security and Medicare.
After a nine month decline in jobs in this country, celebrating 57K new jobs seems pretty hollow to me.
After a nine month decline in jobs in this country, celebrating 57K new jobs seems pretty hollow to me.
Interesting opener, aquapub. Too bad it's almost all untrue. As for your direct question (following some really dubious stuff), I do have an answer.
Bill Clinton oversaw, in a little less than 8 years, the creation of 22 million new jobs. More than any other president. More than Reagan and GHW Bush combined.
More than a few Republicans were eating crow for that. Newt Gingrich in 1993 said (after the tax increase) "the tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit.
Phil Gramm: "I want to predict here tonight that if we adopt this bill, the American economy is going to get weaker not stronger, the deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today and not lower."
Oops.
Bill Clinton oversaw, in a little less than 8 years, the creation of 22 million new jobs. More than any other president. More than Reagan and GHW Bush combined.
More than a few Republicans were eating crow for that. Newt Gingrich in 1993 said (after the tax increase) "the tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit.
Phil Gramm: "I want to predict here tonight that if we adopt this bill, the American economy is going to get weaker not stronger, the deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today and not lower."
Oops.
Sounds like Aquapub needs to reply?
QUOTE
So my question is: Can anyone name a single thing any Democrat has done, or even proposed that did or would create jobs instead of trashing them?
How about Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal? The jobs he created during the Great Depression kept many, many people from starving to death. There are certainly many more recent examples, but that one first came to mind.
Was that "Job Growth Soars" or "Job Growth Sores"? As winter comes upon us, we'll see.
Cruising Ram,
I have to admit that the news about job growth excited me, even if the number is pitifully low and could be spin to give everyone a feel-good.
The fact of the matter is that whatever tax cuts that have kicked in so far have not yielded job growth. I don't think taxes are the problem at all, and lowering them to zero won't create any jobs.
The point is that job loss and worker replacement with foreign nationals are the problems. Business has no incentive to keep jobs here, and if the jobs do need to stay here, then importing cheap labor is a viable alternative for business. Both these conditions must change before meaningful job growth can occur.
I think we have gone too pro-business in politics. Both the Repubs and Demos want to be pro-business, and that was fine as long as it meant good jobs for citizens of the United States. But now supporting business doesn't mean anything of the sort.
But keeping in line with the subject of debate, what party is more likely to support the American worker, Repub or Demo? In my example above, Demos outnumber Repubs by 2 to 1. It's a small sampling, and therefore unrepresentative. However, Demos have a deeper history of worker support than Repubs, so I tend to give Demos the benefit of doubt.
Nevertheless, this is a national problem that needs a national solution. I don't care what party anyone is with as long as he or she is willing to work on changing these conditions that we simply cannot live under.
If aquapub wants to make this a partisan thing, that's up to him. Maybe the grasping at a straw to support President Bush indicates just how big a problem we have with weak job growth and robust job loss.
Inflating Bush and not giving Demos credit won't solve the problems.
Heh, these are awfully LOUD crickets, eh?
I have to admit that the news about job growth excited me, even if the number is pitifully low and could be spin to give everyone a feel-good.
The fact of the matter is that whatever tax cuts that have kicked in so far have not yielded job growth. I don't think taxes are the problem at all, and lowering them to zero won't create any jobs.
The point is that job loss and worker replacement with foreign nationals are the problems. Business has no incentive to keep jobs here, and if the jobs do need to stay here, then importing cheap labor is a viable alternative for business. Both these conditions must change before meaningful job growth can occur.
I think we have gone too pro-business in politics. Both the Repubs and Demos want to be pro-business, and that was fine as long as it meant good jobs for citizens of the United States. But now supporting business doesn't mean anything of the sort.
But keeping in line with the subject of debate, what party is more likely to support the American worker, Repub or Demo? In my example above, Demos outnumber Repubs by 2 to 1. It's a small sampling, and therefore unrepresentative. However, Demos have a deeper history of worker support than Repubs, so I tend to give Demos the benefit of doubt.
Nevertheless, this is a national problem that needs a national solution. I don't care what party anyone is with as long as he or she is willing to work on changing these conditions that we simply cannot live under.
If aquapub wants to make this a partisan thing, that's up to him. Maybe the grasping at a straw to support President Bush indicates just how big a problem we have with weak job growth and robust job loss.
Inflating Bush and not giving Demos credit won't solve the problems.
Heh, these are awfully LOUD crickets, eh?
One thing that irks me is that we give Presidents too much credit when things are going well financially and too much blame when things are going wrong financially.
Personally, I believe that Presidents have practically zero influence on the economy. If any credit and blame needs to be directed anywhere in the federal government, it 's either Congress or the Federal Reserve (though not technically part of the government). Congress is the one who sets the fiscal policy and the Fed is the one who sets the monetary policy. The President has no direct role in either.
So, I don't give Clinton any credit for just happening to be in office during a bubble inflation. Likewise Bush just happened to be in office during a bubble deflation.
Personally, I believe that Presidents have practically zero influence on the economy. If any credit and blame needs to be directed anywhere in the federal government, it 's either Congress or the Federal Reserve (though not technically part of the government). Congress is the one who sets the fiscal policy and the Fed is the one who sets the monetary policy. The President has no direct role in either.
So, I don't give Clinton any credit for just happening to be in office during a bubble inflation. Likewise Bush just happened to be in office during a bubble deflation.
I don't have the sources I'd like to back this up, but I've heard that, due to increases in the size of the workforce, we'd have to add about 100K jobs per month to keep the un/employment rate constant. Therefore, 57K new jobs in a month means we're still falling behind.
I am glad that 57,000 jobs have been created or filled but I can't say I am encouraged. I hope the trend continues.
Does anyone know WHY so many jobs disappeared?
Many of them have moved overseas because it's cheaper. I read a snippet from an article recently that stated "tech companies save up to 70% by contracting with providers overseas because the cost of the work in Asia is only a fraction of what it is domestically."
According to a study by management consulting firm A.T. Kearney, financial services companies are planning to move more than 500,000 jobs overseas in order to reduce operating costs by $30 billion annually.”
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/...-overseas_x.htm
What do we do to discourage these moves? You can't stop these companies from moving their businesses offshore - so you have to come up with some type of incentive to keep these jobs here in the US? Any suggestions?
Does anyone know WHY so many jobs disappeared?
Many of them have moved overseas because it's cheaper. I read a snippet from an article recently that stated "tech companies save up to 70% by contracting with providers overseas because the cost of the work in Asia is only a fraction of what it is domestically."
According to a study by management consulting firm A.T. Kearney, financial services companies are planning to move more than 500,000 jobs overseas in order to reduce operating costs by $30 billion annually.”
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/...-overseas_x.htm
What do we do to discourage these moves? You can't stop these companies from moving their businesses offshore - so you have to come up with some type of incentive to keep these jobs here in the US? Any suggestions?
QUOTE(Beladonna @ Oct 6 2003, 11:23 AM)
Does anyone know WHY so many jobs disappeared?
That's an excellent question, which IMO could be an entire thread unto itself. I think there are two main reasons behind the disappearing jobs. One is moving jobs overseas, which has become an absolute mania among the MBA types who've never actually had to do any of the jobs they believe themselves capable of overseeing. The other is increased worker productivity. Technology has made a lot of jobs obsolete, because they can now be done by fully automated systems, and has made many others more efficient. That translates to fewer people involved in doing those jobs. As it happens, those tend to be the jobs in the middle of the income distribution. There are plenty of menial jobs that have proven hard to automate, and then there are high-paying technical/professional kinds of jobs, and the space in between is getting smaller. The long-term solution is to upgrade skills, but the private sector isn't doing that and there's strong opposition to the government doing it either. As skills lag behind current employment needs, as they will until some selfish attitudes change, the economic picture will only continue to get bleaker.
QUOTE
Many of them have moved overseas because it's cheaper. I read a snippet from an article recently that stated "tech companies save up to 70% by contracting with providers overseas because the cost of the work in Asia is only a fraction of what it is domestically."
...
What do we do to discourage these moves? You can't stop these companies from moving their businesses offshore - so you have to come up with some type of incentive to keep these jobs here in the US? Any suggestions?
...
What do we do to discourage these moves? You can't stop these companies from moving their businesses offshore - so you have to come up with some type of incentive to keep these jobs here in the US? Any suggestions?
Again, an excellent topic probably deserving of a thread unto itself. Again, we come up against the fantasy that government shouldn't be (or ever wasn't) involved in business. There are those who say that the government trying to do anything about these moves is unwarranted interference in the commercial sector, counter to the Constitution, etc. So such moves will continue to happen.
Getting (somewhat) back to the debate topic, this is why any claims of Bush saving the economy are delusional. Bush is firmly in the camp of those who oppose the very sorts of measures that are needed to ensure more than a temporary and jobless (i.e. fake) recovery. Sometimes he hardly seems to care about anything that happens within our borders at all, because it's harder for him to get good press that way. What can he do domestically that's equivalent to the USS Lincoln photo-op? If we're to pull ourselves out of this slump, we need someone exactly opposite to Bush - someone who is willing to treat domestic concerns as equally important to foreign ones, and someone who will push for constructive measures instead of aiding and abetting those who got us into this mess.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.