Peter_Puget Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 If the recovery is and remains "jobless," it is possible President George W. Bush might not be re-elected, as happened to his father in 1992. It's worth noting that after that election, the revised 1992 employment numbers were better than had been thought. Payroll employment was initially reported to have risen only 423,000 during 1992, - but that number was later revised to 1,157,000. That made for an average of 96,417 per month during 1992 - in contrast to the average 35,250 per month thought to be the case while the campaign was being waged. It would be an irony for George W. Bush to succeed in avoiding all of his father's mistakes, but nevertheless failing to be re-elected because the Department of Labor statisticians had not failed to avoid the mistakes of their predecessors from 1992. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 I'd say that lately they have been overestimating job creation by about a factor of ten over the last couple of periods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgersling Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Based on what exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 based on cbs still out of work, maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 CBS has been working since last September. What I know came from listening to the news on the radio. KOMO and NPR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 NPR....you ...you....you..liberal!! I listened to Rush the other day. I had to turn it off after a few minutes, I was laughing/screaming so loud... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgersling Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 I remember reading somewhere that most libs are shrill, undersexed squares. Whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 I remember reading somewhere that most libs are shrill, undersexed squares. Whatever. No, no, you didn't read it. You heard it on Rush Limbaugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jja Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 I listened to Rush the other day. I had to turn it off after a few minutes, I was laughing/screaming so loud... Gee, that happens to me when I listen to NPR! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted March 10, 2004 Author Share Posted March 10, 2004 “With America’s high standard of living, we cannot successfully compete against foreign producers because of lower foreign wages and a lower cost of production.” Perhaps this pessimism sounds familiar. It could very well have come from one of today’s opponents of trade, arguing against a modern-day free trade agreement. But in fact these words were written by President Herbert Hoover in 1929, as he successfully urged Congress to pass the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that raised trade barriers, destroyed jobs, and deepened the Great Depression. - The Bush Position [A]n immediate 120 day review of all existing trade agreements to ensure that our trade partners are living up to their labor and environment obligations and that trade agreements are enforceable and are balanced for America’s workers. - John Kerry Anyone else see a gathering threat? PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 One could argue that the reason jobs are being exported at such an alarming rate is the rise in political stability and democracy throughout the world. Low wages have always been prevalent overseas, but instability and risk have inhibited US companies from taking advantage of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 I think it's quite possible that the trend is a much larger force than something that can be changed by just a President. When will emmigration become an issue for the US? People leaving the country to go where the jobs are? The economic tides that generated the huge influxes of immigrants to this country in past centuries could reverse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 India used to complain about a "brain drain" because its universities cranked out more highly trained people than they could employ. We may be faced with the same before long. We're looking at continued immigration of unskilled workers and adding on emmigration of skilled workers. Its a race to bottom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Oh, I don't know that we're experiencing a loss of skilled workers yet, just that it might be an interesting (in the chinese proverb sense of the word) possible outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 I think you overestimate the value of the U.S. skilled worker in a global context. Where would they go? What special set of skills can US workers provide that another country can't get from their own citizens? India's "brain drain" wasn't a lament that they produced more highly skilled people than they could employ. It was/is that the highest skilled, most able, top shelf talent was leaving to pursue more lucrative opportunities elsewhere. Why settle for $10K a year in India when you could make five times as much AND live in a less crowded country with better health care, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted March 10, 2004 Author Share Posted March 10, 2004 CBS - I believe that net foreign job loss was at its greates point in the early mid 80's not right now! I believe that to a certain extent there is much media hysteria over the whole issue. Heck it wasn't too long ago that 5.5% unemployment rate was considered the lowest sustainable rate. We are at 5.6%. The possibilty of other location being more attractive to workers is a real possibility and one that should be avoided at all costs. Even within the US significant differences in unemployment arise that are not surprisingly related to unfavorable business enviroments at the state level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Bush Continues To Mislead on Job Creation Last month, President Bush released a personally signed report promising that his economic plan would create 2.6 million new jobs by 2004. 1 When data suggested that this would not be possible, he "distanced himself" from the report and "declined to endorse the jobs estimate" publicly during an Oval Office appearance.2 Now, with a new jobs report showing that his economic program continues to fall short, the president has resorted to outright dishonesty.3 Specifically, the president deployed Labor Secretary Elaine Chao to Capitol Hill last week to claim that he never actually signed the report. She told lawmakers the president "doesn't sign this report."4 Sources: "2.6 million jobs on way, Bush says", Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 02/11/04 "The Challenger Gets Mentioned Early", Washington Post, 03/09/04. "Bush declines to endorse prediction of 2.6 million jobs", Baltimore Sun, 02/19/04. "Americans Drop Out of Labor Force, Posing Risks for Bush, Fed", Bloomberg, 03/08/04. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.