Re: Lower Wages for American Workers
wis...@yahoo.com
>August 31, 2008
>Federation for American Immigration Reform
>
>High-immigration cheerleaders claim that we need immigration for our
>economy. But they ignore the detrimental effect that importing workers
>has on American workers, particularly low-skilled natives. In a supply
>and demand economy like ours, the more there is of something, the less
>value it has.
>By artificially inflating the number of workers in our country,
>immigration lowers the value of workers, and wages are depressed. As
>George Washington University economics professor Robert Dunn notes, "I
>know business people who tell me they're not interested in hiring
>Americans because the people who come from outside are cheaper. But ...
>if there's an unlimited supply of labor facing this country from
>outside, from the South or wherever, at five dollars an hour, I don't
>care how fast this economy grows, the wage rate for such people is going
>to be five dollars an hour!"1
>
>The Skill Levels of Most Immigrants Are Low.
>
>Thanks to immigration laws that favor relatives instead of skilled
>workers, most of the immigrants being admitted are low-skilled. Out of
>all the adult immigrants admitted in 2000, 69 percent had no reported
>profession, occupation, or job at all.2 The average adult immigrant has
>only a ninth-grade education; more than a third of immigrants over 25
>are not high school graduates.3
>
>Claims That We Need Low-Skilled Workers Are False.
>
>Some employers claim that they need to import low-skilled workers to
>compete in the world market, where wages are very low. But those
>employers have simply become dependent on cheap foreign labor to the
>detriment of American workers: "Network recruitment [of immigrants] not
>only excludes American workers from certain jobs; it also builds a
>dependency relationship between U.S. employers and Mexican sources that
>requires a constant infusion of new workers," says economist Philip
>Martin.4 Such a strategy for our economy is doomed to failure anyway:
>"The low-wage strategy may work in the short run, but in the long run
>it's a loser. In the long run, we are not going to win a wage-cutting
>contest with the Third World," notes economist Vernon Briggs.5
>
>Besides, the United States already has plenty of low-skilled native
>workers: "No technologically advanced industrial nation that has 27
>million illiterate adults ... need have any fear about a shortage of
>unskilled workers in its foreseeable future."6
>
>http://www.rightsidenews.com/200808311844/border-and-sovereignty/lower-wages-for-american-workers.html
Raymond O'Hara
<wis...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vcqnb41o3jbbrr80u...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:15:21 -0500, "johnny@." <johnny@.> wrote:
>
>>August 31, 2008
>>Federation for American Immigration Reform
>>
>>High-immigration cheerleaders claim that we need immigration for our
>>economy. But they ignore the detrimental effect that importing workers
>>has on American workers, particularly low-skilled natives. In a supply
>>and demand economy like ours, the more there is of something, the less
>>value it has.
>>By artificially inflating the number of workers in our country,
>>immigration lowers the value of workers, and wages are depressed. As
>>George Washington University economics professor Robert Dunn notes, "I
>>know business people who tell me they're not interested in hiring
>>Americans because the people who come from outside are cheaper. But ...
>>if there's an unlimited supply of labor facing this country from
>>outside, from the South or wherever, at five dollars an hour, I don't
>>care how fast this economy grows, the wage rate for such people is going
>>to be five dollars an hour!"1
we can cut wages or see all the jobs shipped over seas.
those are the choices the republicans have given us.
so keep voting republican .
krw
oh...@hotmail.com says...
I didn't know that BJ Clinton was a Republican. When did that
happen?
--
Keith
Gunner Asch
And the Dems would do what?
Snicker...
"Confiscating wealth from those who have earned it, inherited it,
or got lucky is never going to help 'the poor.' Poverty isn't
caused by some people having more money than others, just as obesity
isn't caused by McDonald's serving super-sized orders of French fries
Poverty, like obesity, is caused by the life choices that dictate
results." - John Tucci,
Frank
>
>>August 31, 2008
>>Federation for American Immigration Reform
>>
>>High-immigration cheerleaders claim that we need immigration for our
>>economy. But they ignore the detrimental effect that importing workers
>>has on American workers, particularly low-skilled natives. In a supply
>>and demand economy like ours, the more there is of something, the less
>>value it has.
Except for over priced lawyers, which we have an over abundance with. What
does one expect from a country that doesn't manufacture much of anything
except for entertainment, corporate takeovers and lawsuits?
>>By artificially inflating the number of workers in our country,
>>immigration lowers the value of workers, and wages are depressed. As
>>George Washington University economics professor Robert Dunn notes, "I
>>know business people who tell me they're not interested in hiring
>>Americans because the people who come from outside are cheaper. But ...
>>if there's an unlimited supply of labor facing this country from
>>outside, from the South or wherever, at five dollars an hour, I don't
>>care how fast this economy grows, the wage rate for such people is going
>>to be five dollars an hour!"1
>>
>>The Skill Levels of Most Immigrants Are Low.
>>
Don't know about that. Look at any university, engineering companies,
research labs and hospitals and you will have a different point of view.
>>Thanks to immigration laws that favor relatives instead of skilled
>>workers, most of the immigrants being admitted are low-skilled. Out of
>>all the adult immigrants admitted in 2000, 69 percent had no reported
>>profession, occupation, or job at all.2 The average adult immigrant has
>>only a ninth-grade education; more than a third of immigrants over 25
>>are not high school graduates.3
>>
Sounds like our natives as well - we have the lowest test score for any
developed nation. Shameful!
>>Claims That We Need Low-Skilled Workers Are False.
>>
>>Some employers claim that they need to import low-skilled workers to
>>compete in the world market, where wages are very low. But those
>>employers have simply become dependent on cheap foreign labor to the
>>detriment of American workers: "Network recruitment [of immigrants] not
>>only excludes American workers from certain jobs; it also builds a
>>dependency relationship between U.S. employers and Mexican sources that
>>requires a constant infusion of new workers," says economist Philip
>>Martin.4 Such a strategy for our economy is doomed to failure anyway:
>>"The low-wage strategy may work in the short run, but in the long run
>>it's a loser. In the long run, we are not going to win a wage-cutting
>>contest with the Third World," notes economist Vernon Briggs.5
>>
>>Besides, the United States already has plenty of low-skilled native
>>workers: "No technologically advanced industrial nation that has 27
>>million illiterate adults ... need have any fear about a shortage of
>>unskilled workers in its foreseeable future."6
>>
>>http://www.rightsidenews.com/200808311844/border-and-sovereignty/lower-wages-for-american-workers.html
>
Mexicans or any other illegal immigrants are not a problem as much as our
laws and our politicians that allow it, and even encourage it. If you
extrapolate into the future, at some point, America won't be a good place to
live in and even illegal, unskilled immigrants wanted to get out. Forget
about lower wages for American workers, forget about inflation in general
and energy prices in particular, forget about illegal immigrants, forget
about problems with fair trade, what we need to do now is fix is our laws,
political system, and culture - everything else will follow. Couple of towns
from mine has as many as one homicide per day and we have four towns like
this surrounding us. Multiply this across America, and we have a major
problem above anything else. Its a matter of time someone will get his head
blown off just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Doesn't matter if
you live in a high class, safe gated community, you need to get out sometime
and you will be a victim, hopefully not fatal. Nothing matters when you're
dead. It wasn't always like this. If we had the culture back in the 1940s -
hard working, law abiding, honest, pride in the workplace and at home,
teaching out children right from wrong, staying away from crime and welfare,
and the American can do attitude, this mess would have turned around years
ago, including immigration.
Jeff
better job then Democrats.
That is certainly what George W Bush thought. And then he proceeded to:
Create less than 1/4 the number of jobs then under Clinton.
Take a record surplus and turn it into a record deficit.
Let North Korea create a number of plutonium bombs. Note that Bush
thought that Clinton's approach to preventing N Korea from getting a
*uranium* bomb was flawed. North Korea is nowhere near acquiring such a
weapon (uranium) and was not developing a plutonium weapon before.
Brag about the Ownership Society, which is looking more like the
Foreclosure Society.
Take a federal agency (FEMA) which was widely respected and ranked
number two out of all government agencies and turn it into the laughing
stock it is now.
Throw away oversight. Let 100 year old companies like Bear Sterns
collapse, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac totter and create a banking crisis
not seen since Reagan ignored oversight over the S & L's.
Take away sunshine from Energy Trading. Let speculators trade futures
in the dark under regulations that were changed at the bequest of Enron.
Oil is selling for 3 times as much as it was when George W Bush said
he would jawbone those Arabs into lowering prices.
Take the country into an unneeded war on made up evidence, and not
complete the needed war.
Spout so many empty threats that Pooty Poot (W's nickname for Putin)
did exactly what he was warned against just hours earlier.
And yet you think that's a fine record of accomplishments. And a blow
job is such a terrible thing.
Since you haven't been running on logic up to this point, I'm not
expecting a change now.
Jeff
Rod Speed
> <wis...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> johnny@. <johnny@.> wrote
>>> August 31, 2008
>>> Federation for American Immigration Reform
>>> High-immigration cheerleaders claim that we need immigration for our economy. But they ignore the detrimental effect
>>> that importing workers has on American workers, particularly low-skilled natives. In a supply and demand economy
>>> like ours, the more there is of something, the less value it has.
> Except for over priced lawyers, which we have an over abundance with.
> What does one expect from a country that doesn't manufacture much of
> anything except for entertainment, corporate takeovers and lawsuits?
Thats a lie, most obviously with aircraft, cars, computer software, civil engineering, etc etc etc.
>>> By artificially inflating the number of workers in our country,
>>> immigration lowers the value of workers, and wages are depressed. As
>>> George Washington University economics professor Robert Dunn notes,
>>> "I know business people who tell me they're not interested in hiring
>>> Americans because the people who come from outside are cheaper. But
>>> ... if there's an unlimited supply of labor facing this country from
>>> outside, from the South or wherever, at five dollars an hour, I
>>> don't care how fast this economy grows, the wage rate for such
>>> people is going to be five dollars an hour!"1
>>> The Skill Levels of Most Immigrants Are Low.
> Don't know about that. Look at any university, engineering companies,
> research labs and hospitals and you will have a different point of view.
Its less clear what percentage of immigrants those are tho. It may well still qualify for his 'most'.
>>> Thanks to immigration laws that favor relatives instead of skilled
>>> workers, most of the immigrants being admitted are low-skilled. Out of all the adult immigrants admitted in 2000, 69
>>> percent had no reported profession, occupation, or job at all.2 The average adult immigrant has only a ninth-grade
>>> education; more than a third of immigrants over 25 are not high school graduates.3
> Sounds like our natives as well - we have the lowest test score for any developed nation.
Thats largely the result of the very unusual demographics for a modern first world country.
Quite a few of them are the kids of recent immigrants too.
> Shameful!
Nope, a fact of life given that the US still has one of the highest percentage of immigrants.
>>> Claims That We Need Low-Skilled Workers Are False.
>>> Some employers claim that they need to import low-skilled workers to
>>> compete in the world market, where wages are very low. But those
>>> employers have simply become dependent on cheap foreign labor to the
>>> detriment of American workers: "Network recruitment [of immigrants]
>>> not only excludes American workers from certain jobs; it also
>>> builds a dependency relationship between U.S. employers and Mexican
>>> sources that requires a constant infusion of new workers," says
>>> economist Philip Martin.4 Such a strategy for our economy is doomed
>>> to failure anyway: "The low-wage strategy may work in the short
>>> run, but in the long run it's a loser. In the long run, we are not
>>> going to win a wage-cutting contest with the Third World," notes
>>> economist Vernon Briggs.5
>>> Besides, the United States already has plenty of low-skilled native
>>> workers: "No technologically advanced industrial nation that has 27
>>> million illiterate adults ... need have any fear about a shortage of
>>> unskilled workers in its foreseeable future."6
> Mexicans or any other illegal immigrants are not a problem as much as our laws and our politicians that allow it, and
> even encourage it.
They dont really encourage it, its more that they dont bother with the more gung ho approaches to
stopping illegals, particularly not being very energetic with random searches within the country etc.
> If you extrapolate into the future, at some point, America won't be a good place to live in and even illegal,
> unskilled immigrants wanted to get out.
Thats a fantasy. There are STILL hordes more who want to move
there than want to leave and that wont be changing any time soon.
> Forget about lower wages for American workers, forget about inflation in general and energy prices in particular,
> forget about illegal immigrants, forget about problems with fair trade, what
> we need to do now is fix is our laws, political system, and culture
The hordes that still want to move to america if they were allowed to clearly dont agree.
> everything else will follow.
Nope.
> Couple of towns from mine has as many as one homicide per day and we have four towns like this surrounding us.
> Multiply this across America, and we have a major problem above anything else.
America has always been like that and has survived that fine.
Sure, its very undesirable, but it hasnt stopped america
working in the past and wont in the future either.
> Its a matter of time someone will get his head blown
> off just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Thats just plain wrong. Homicide is very restricted risk wise, its dishonest
to imply that everyone is at risk of having their head blown off.
> Doesn't matter if you live in a high class, safe gated community, you need to get out sometime and you will be a
> victim, hopefully not fatal.
Thats just plain wrong too. If you keep away from the worst areas, your
risk of becoming a 'victim' is no greater than in say england or france.
> Nothing matters when you're dead.
Yes, but the risk of death is actually lower in the US than in some
other modern first world countrys if you're say an engineer etc.
The US statistics are completely dominated by what the dregs of society get up to murder wise.
In some citys the vast bulk of the homicides occur in only a few city blocks.
Even just driving thru those doesnt significantly affect your risk of ending up dead.
> It wasn't always like this. If we had the culture back in the 1940s - hard working, law abiding, honest, pride in the
> workplace and at home, teaching out children right from wrong, staying away from crime and welfare, and the American
> can do attitude,
And lynchings and extreme race discrimination.
> this mess would have turned around years ago, including immigration.
Pure fantasy.
r...@back.road
economics planning,autocratic rule by big business and the banking
empire via universal unilateral contracts and elimination of
Citizens/Consumers rights and protections. In other words a globalist
pre plagues England.
krw
jeff@spam_me_not.com says...
Bald faced lie.
> Take a record surplus and turn it into a record deficit.
Another lie.
> Let North Korea create a number of plutonium bombs. Note that Bush
> thought that Clinton's approach to preventing N Korea from getting a
> *uranium* bomb was flawed. North Korea is nowhere near acquiring such a
> weapon (uranium) and was not developing a plutonium weapon before.
Who *paid* them to continue their development program. Under who's
Presidency did it end?
> Brag about the Ownership Society, which is looking more like the
> Foreclosure Society.
More people own houses now than at any time in history.
> Take a federal agency (FEMA) which was widely respected and ranked
> number two out of all government agencies and turn it into the laughing
> stock it is now.
That was a Congressional mandate after 9/11.
> Throw away oversight. Let 100 year old companies like Bear Sterns
> collapse, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac totter and create a banking crisis
> not seen since Reagan ignored oversight over the S & L's.
> Take away sunshine from Energy Trading. Let speculators trade futures
> in the dark under regulations that were changed at the bequest of Enron.
> Oil is selling for 3 times as much as it was when George W Bush said
> he would jawbone those Arabs into lowering prices.
>
> Take the country into an unneeded war on made up evidence, and not
> complete the needed war.
>
> Spout so many empty threats that Pooty Poot (W's nickname for Putin)
> did exactly what he was warned against just hours earlier.
>
> And yet you think that's a fine record of accomplishments. And a blow
> job is such a terrible thing.
>
> Since you haven't been running on logic up to this point, I'm not
> expecting a change now.
>
Your blind hatred is getting boring, but in cause you hadn't
noticed, BJ Clinton isn't running either.
--
Keith
Jeff
Oh yak yak yak. You wingnuts believe anything you hear on talk radio.
But you've got not a shred of anything that resembles a fact.
Barely any jobs at all were created in the first Bush term, he just
pulled it out in the last couple of months or he would have been the
first president to have a net loss of jobs since... well, you should know.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080708085650AAj2Wi5
President Clinton averaged 2.6 million new jobs created every year.
Bush's yearly average has been 375,000...
>
>> Take a record surplus and turn it into a record deficit.
>
> Another lie.
More yak yak yak.
This year alone it is 482 billion dollars. And that doesn't even include
much of the war funding which has been off budget. The total deficit
is 50% + what it was when W entered office. 5.7 trillion (W's
inauguration) to todays 9.6 trillion.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/29/america/budget.php
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
>
>> Let North Korea create a number of plutonium bombs. Note that Bush
>> thought that Clinton's approach to preventing N Korea from getting a
>> *uranium* bomb was flawed. North Korea is nowhere near acquiring such a
>> weapon (uranium) and was not developing a plutonium weapon before.
>
> Who *paid* them to continue their development program.
Sorry pea brain. Korea was "paid" to stop their Uranium program with
energy subsidies. They did.
Bush canceled that deal and they cranked up the previous non-existent
plutonium program. And how many bombs did they set off to prove that?
Under who's
> Presidency did it end?
Look ma. Bombs galore. And in case you haven't noticed N Korea is
cranking up their program again.
>
>> Brag about the Ownership Society, which is looking more like the
>> Foreclosure Society.
>
> More people own houses now than at any time in history.
And they own a lot less of them than in practically any time in history.
Did you fail to notice that little detail? Practically everyone who has
bought a house in the last couple years is upside down.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&refer=home&sid=a4kZQNXUFpW4
March 25 (Bloomberg) -- Home prices in 20 U.S. metropolitan areas fell
in January by the most on record, a sign the housing recession is
deepening, a private survey showed today.
The S&P/Case-Shiller home-price index dropped 10.7 percent from January
2007, after a 9 percent year-on-year decrease through December 2007. The
gauge has fallen for 13 consecutive months.
Lets also look at home ownership rates:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The housing and mortgage meltdown caused the
biggest one-year drop in the rate of homeownership on record, according
to government figures released Tuesday.
The decline, while expected, is yet another indication of the housing
market's sudden and dramatic turn.
The Census Bureau report showed that home owners accounted for 67.8% of
occupied homes in the fourth quarter, down 1.1 points from a year
earlier. It's the largest year-over-year drop recorded in the report.
"It's an incredible story," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center
for Economic and Policy Research. "We're back to where we were in 2002,
which is before the subprime nuttiness and run-up in prices. And it's
not clear how much farther we're going to fall."
>
>> Take a federal agency (FEMA) which was widely respected and ranked
>> number two out of all government agencies and turn it into the laughing
>> stock it is now.
>
> That was a Congressional mandate after 9/11.
And proposed by exactly who? And run by someone who worked on whose
campaign?
>
>> Throw away oversight. Let 100 year old companies like Bear Sterns
>> collapse, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac totter and create a banking crisis
>> not seen since Reagan ignored oversight over the S & L's.
>
>> Take away sunshine from Energy Trading. Let speculators trade futures
>> in the dark under regulations that were changed at the bequest of Enron.
>> Oil is selling for 3 times as much as it was when George W Bush said
>> he would jawbone those Arabs into lowering prices.
>>
>> Take the country into an unneeded war on made up evidence, and not
>> complete the needed war.
>>
>> Spout so many empty threats that Pooty Poot (W's nickname for Putin)
>> did exactly what he was warned against just hours earlier.
>>
>> And yet you think that's a fine record of accomplishments. And a blow
>> job is such a terrible thing.
>>
>> Since you haven't been running on logic up to this point, I'm not
>> expecting a change now.
>>
> Your blind hatred is getting boring, but in cause you hadn't
> noticed, BJ Clinton isn't running either.
There you go again. Another yellow dog republican that won't take an
inkling of responsibility. Oh, but Bill got a blow job...
Jeff
>
>
Jeff
> just as ill informed
Wishful thinking on your part Bucko...
From your own Fox news:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242424,00.html
Under Bush, the economy produced 3.7 million new jobs from January 2001
through December of last year based on nonfarm payroll figures collected
by the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics.
...
When Clinton was in the White House, the economy generated 17.6 million
jobs during the corresponding period —
Current figures don't look so good.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/
on August 1, 2008, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs
figures for July. Nonfarm payroll employment decreased by 51,000 jobs
in July...
In fact, jobs have been lost every month this year.
You can look up the real facts yourself, instead of relying on what
some wingnut on talk radio says:
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
Jeff
> __________________________________________
> Never argue with an idiot.
> They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Gunner Asch
>>>High-immigration cheerleaders claim that we need immigration for our
>>>economy. But they ignore the detrimental effect that importing workers
>>>has on American workers, particularly low-skilled natives. In a supply
>>>and demand economy like ours, the more there is of something, the less
>>>value it has.
>
>Except for over priced lawyers, which we have an over abundance with. What
>does one expect from a country that doesn't manufacture much of anything
>except for entertainment, corporate takeovers and lawsuits?
Odd...I hope you are not talking about the USA, as its the most
productive country on the planet, manufacturing wise.
clams_casino
>>>
>>>
>> You guys are so smug. You think, Republicans have just got to do a
>>better job then Democrats.
>>
>> That is certainly what George W Bush thought. And then he proceeded to:
>>
>> Create less than 1/4 the number of jobs then under Clinton.
>>
>>
>
>this is just flat out false and I am sure the balance of your post is
>just as ill informed
>__________________________________________
>
>
Under Clinton, the economy added 22.7 million jobs – 237,000 per month.
Over the whole of the Bush administration through 2007, the economy
added only 5.8 million jobs – 72,000 per month.
Furthermore, the jobs created under Bush have been primarily low paying,
Walmart type retail jobs.
Joe 'bama
>> That is certainly what George W Bush thought. And then he proceeded to:
>>
>> Create less than 1/4 the number of jobs then under Clinton.
>
> this is just flat out false and I am sure the balance of your post is
> just as ill informed
You are correct. This is flat out false. In fact, according to Bureau of
Labor Statistics,
(For the period from January 2001 - July 2005)
On average, The Bush's economy has created 393,000 new jobs per year.
On average, Clinton created 2.75 million per year.
That's NOT ź less jobs under Bush; That's almost 7 TIMES the number of jobs
created under Clinton than Bush!
Jeff
That's a little deceptive in the shorter time period. But July 2005
is the peak of job creation under Bush. The trend since then has been
straight down, with losses from Feb this year till now... that seems
likely to continue.
About the only job sector that has done well under W has been
Government jobs.
Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
clams_casino
and Walmart.
clams_casino
>On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:13:44 -0400, clams_casino
><PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>and Walmart.
>>
>>
>I love how a business that is wildly successful like wally world is so
>hated by the looney left.
>
You obviously missed the whole point. Under Clinton, wages grew
substantially. Employment grew substantially. Under GW, the marginal
increase was primarily low wage retail jobs - thus the stagnant /
declining standard of living .
I wouldn't be surprised if Walmart added many more jobs under Clinton.
The difference was they weren't the primary source of growth in the
Clinton years.
Marsha
> I love how a business that is wildly successful like wally world is so
> the unskilled types work? the jobs people who work at wally world are
> qualified for don't exist anymore, regardless of the cause low skill,
> low wage jobs other than burger flipping or wally world don't exist.
> how about the low cost products wally world sells? many things they
> sell just wouldn't be available in many places if wally world didn't
> exist or another form of wally world would be doing the same business
> as wally world.
> this anti wally world hysteria is just another air headed hatred of a
> successful enterprise
> __________________________________________
> Never argue with an idiot.
> They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
I believe most of venom directed at wally world is from pro-union zealots.
Marsha/Ohio
Gunner Asch
wrote:
How many of Clintons jobs were "would you like fries with that?" and
government jobs?
Care to give us a break down?
Gunner
clams_casino
>>
>>
>
>How many of Clintons jobs were "would you like fries with that?" and
>government jobs?
>
>Care to give us a break down?
>
>Gunner
>
>
Considering wages increased substantially during the Clinton vs. GW
years, even someone with minimum math skills could conclude there were
more higher paying jobs than lower paying jobs in the Clinton years.
Jeff
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:13:44 -0400, clams_casino
> <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>> and Walmart.
> hated by the looney left. If there was no wally world where would all
> the unskilled types work?
The trouble with the wingnut right is that they have not a clue about
who opposes them. You make up these strawmen that you can attack and
they bear no relation to reality.
This has been a continuous problem for those on your side. For
although politics may be made up of such fantasies, reality keeps
slapping you in the face when these assumptions you make simply don't
hold up. Just saying something is so, does not make it so.
And just in case you haven't noticed, real wages of all Americans has
been falling.
www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf
Real average weekly earnings fell by 0.8 percent from June to July after
seasonal adjustment, according to preliminary data released today by the
Bureau
of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. A 0.3 percent
increase in
average hourly earnings was more than offset by a 0.3 percent decrease in
average weekly hours and a 0.9 percent increase in the Consumer Price
Index for
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W)
Jeff
clams_casino
The part I don't understand is that the Republicans are strongly pro
small business, yet pro Walmart, where Walmart has done more to kill off
small business than any other factor.
Jeff
Indeed. Sort sightedness is in wide supply. By and large current
Republican policies skew more and more toward the Uber Wealthy. This
thread is an example in point of just how many unfounded beliefs they
have that are based solely on faith. The faithful want to be led not
enlightened.
I've heard it said that there are only two kinds of Republicans:
Millionaires and Fools.
On a side note. I find that some of the most rabid Walmart defenders are
also virulently opposed to Hispanic immigration. There is perhaps no
greater Hispanic Immigrant magnet than Walmart.
Jeff
Bob Brock
<gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:43:48 -0400, "Joe 'bama" <Sc...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> That is certainly what George W Bush thought. And then he proceeded to:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Create less than 1/4 the number of jobs then under Clinton.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> this is just flat out false and I am sure the balance of your post is
>>
>>> just as ill informed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>You are correct. This is flat out false. In fact, according to Bureau of
>>Labor Statistics,
>>
>>(For the period from January 2001 - July 2005)
>>
>>
>>
>>On average, The Bush's economy has created 393,000 new jobs per year.
>>
>>
>>
>>On average, Clinton created 2.75 million per year.
>>
>>
>>
>>That's NOT ź less jobs under Bush; That's almost 7 TIMES the number of jobs
>>created under Clinton than Bush!
>>
>
>How many of Clintons jobs were "would you like fries with that?" and
>government jobs?
>
>Care to give us a break down?
>
>Gunner
Even a fast food job beats no job at all. Well that is unless you are
happy on welfare and not paying your hospital bills.
clams_casino
>
>
>Even a fast food job beats no job at all. Well that is unless you are
>happy on welfare and not paying your hospital bills.
>
>
and working two jobs is better than one.
Jeff
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:30:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
> <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:43:48 -0400, "Joe 'bama" <Sc...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> That is certainly what George W Bush thought. And then he proceeded to:
>>>>> Create less than 1/4 the number of jobs then under Clinton.
>>>> this is just flat out false and I am sure the balance of your post is
>>>> just as ill informed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You are correct. This is flat out false. In fact, according to Bureau of
>>> Labor Statistics,
>>>
>>> (For the period from January 2001 - July 2005)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On average, The Bush's economy has created 393,000 new jobs per year.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On average, Clinton created 2.75 million per year.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's NOT ź less jobs under Bush; That's almost 7 TIMES the number of jobs
>>> created under Clinton than Bush!
>>>
>> How many of Clintons jobs were "would you like fries with that?" and
>> government jobs?
>>
>> Care to give us a break down?
I don't have a breakdown under Clinton, certainly a lot of high tech
jobs were added amongst others. Certainly wages rose. I do know that
under W, the public sector job growth has been greater than the private
sector.
>>
>> Gunner
>
> Even a fast food job beats no job at all. Well that is unless you are
> happy on welfare and not paying your hospital bills.
Traditional welfare makes up about 1% of the Fed budget. Few people
make a "living" off welfare. Even AFDC single moms tend to be off in a
couple years. Arguably "corporate" welfare is a far higher percentage of
the budget.
This right wing red meat issue has little impact on the economy.
As you've stated, even a fast food job beats welfare.
Jeff
Frank
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:bjfpb41cctdds12im...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 12:19:19 -0700, " Frank" <x> wrote:
>
>>>>High-immigration cheerleaders claim that we need immigration for our
>>>>economy. But they ignore the detrimental effect that importing workers
>>>>has on American workers, particularly low-skilled natives. In a supply
>>>>and demand economy like ours, the more there is of something, the less
>>>>value it has.
>>
>>Except for over priced lawyers, which we have an over abundance with. What
>>does one expect from a country that doesn't manufacture much of anything
>>except for entertainment, corporate takeovers and lawsuits?
>
>
> Odd...I hope you are not talking about the USA, as its the most
> productive country on the planet, manufacturing wise.
>
Sure, most efficient in terms of manufacturing, but we don't manufacture
much of anything anymore (except for food) relative to 20 or 50 years ago.
Look at GM and Ford, its in the gutter going broke. GM used to be number 1,
now no one is buying it except the Chinese. Just go back to the 50s, we had
a huge manufacturing base; TVs, radios, bikes, test equipment, all kind of
consumer and industrial products. No more, manufacturing shifted to Asia,
Europe and even South America. Just cannot compete against low foreign wages
based on American technology..Just look at the stuff around your house or
office. How many are still made in America? Up till the 1960s almost all,
sad isn't it? Fortunately we are still the land of opportunity.
>
> "Confiscating wealth from those who have earned it, inherited it,
> or got lucky is never going to help 'the poor.' Poverty isn't
> caused by some people having more money than others, just as obesity
> isn't caused by McDonald's serving super-sized orders of French fries
> Poverty, like obesity, is caused by the life choices that dictate
> results." - John Tucci,
>
Sure agree with that. Grew up in the inner city with some tough blue collar
and ghetto kids. School wasn't the best but could still get a good
education. So many of my schoolmates just don't give a shit, prefer raising
hell to reading books. Street wise tough kids with straight F's and doing
time in juvenile jail were look up on like rock stars while kids with
straight A's had the shit kicked out of them. Where are some those juve kids
now? On welfare, death row, or six feet under?
Jeff
Boom and bust cycles always occur as markets tend to overshoot. The net
benefit of the Internet boom has been positive. Many of those jobs
remain and there remains long term and lasting benefits. It would be
difficult to argue the long term benefits of the loose money goosed
housing market.
> your arguments are simplistic and ill informed ideological rants,
I've backed up every single thing I've ever said. You not only don't
like the conclusions but you have no facts to support your assumptions.
It is your arguments that lack reason and temperment.
For example, this rant of yours:
you
> should check out places like the kos where kooks like you can swap
> idiotic rants like this and not have to deal with facts
Here's some stats for you to choke on:
http://clintonbushcharts.org/main/vis-imp-wg.html#our_charts
Take a gander at the Stock Market Indexes. Look through the
commodoties, check out the national debt and who holds it and you can
finish up with the discretionary spending increases.
The figures do not portray a compelling case for Bushonomics.
Jeff
Gunner Asch
You mean like the Border Patrol, TSA, HS and other war related
agencies?
>>>
>>> Gunner
>>
>> Even a fast food job beats no job at all. Well that is unless you are
>> happy on welfare and not paying your hospital bills.
Lots and lots of those folks out there. Look at any inner city, and a
lot of rural areas. Black AND White AND Brown.
>
> Traditional welfare makes up about 1% of the Fed budget. Few people
>make a "living" off welfare. Even AFDC single moms tend to be off in a
>couple years. Arguably "corporate" welfare is a far higher percentage of
>the budget.
True enough. and corporate welfare has been the nastly little secret
of every administration since FDR
>
> This right wing red meat issue has little impact on the economy.
Huh?
>
> As you've stated, even a fast food job beats welfare.
>
> Jeff
One should remember that after the Clinton Recession, The Dot Com
implosion, and the implosion of manufacturing..there were literally
millions of layoffs. Did Clinton actually create jobs, or did those
that got the ax, find work with other companies?
I strongly suggest you check the unemployment figures for 1995-2001
for a timeline and a graph of the numbers laid off, and then
reemployed.
Visa Vis manufacturing...we had a technology shift as a result of the
manufacturing balloon going POP in the late 90s.
Companies that survived, bought trillions of dollars worth of new high
tech machinery, that produced more goods with less than 1/3 the
workers, than before they changed. That 2/3 of the previous workers
either found jobs with new companies, or got out of manufacturing
totally. Those technical jobs, like that of the buggy whip makers, are
never coming back. The new machines displaced them.
And consider the HUGE hit the country took on 9-11-2001. We practially
went into a depresssion after the WTC came down.
We were in the ending stages of the Clinton Recession, but indicators
were showing that we were about to come out of it when the WTC attacks
occured.
You may find this of interest..rather fascinating
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31617.pdf
and this
http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=594
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/startups/news/2008/03/dotcom_repeat
Gunner Asch
>On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:32:55 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>>Bob Brock wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:30:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
>>> <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:43:48 -0400, "Joe 'bama" <Sc...@verizon.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is certainly what George W Bush thought. And then he proceeded to:
>>>>>>> Create less than 1/4 the number of jobs then under Clinton.
>>>>>> this is just flat out false and I am sure the balance of your post is
>>>>>> just as ill informed
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are correct. This is flat out false. In fact, according to Bureau of
>>>>> Labor Statistics,
>>>>>
>>>>> (For the period from January 2001 - July 2005)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On average, The Bush's economy has created 393,000 new jobs per year.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On average, Clinton created 2.75 million per year.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's NOT ¼ less jobs under Bush; That's almost 7 TIMES the number of jobs
>>>>> created under Clinton than Bush!
>>>>>
>>>> How many of Clintons jobs were "would you like fries with that?" and
>>>> government jobs?
>>>>
>>>> Care to give us a break down?
>>
>>I don't have a breakdown under Clinton, certainly a lot of high tech
>>jobs were added amongst others. Certainly wages rose. I do know that
>>under W, the public sector job growth has been greater than the private
>>sector.
>and a lot of high tech jobs vanished, ever heard of the tech bust?
>your arguments are simplistic and ill informed ideological rants, you
>should check out places like the kos where kooks like you can swap
>idiotic rants like this and not have to deal with facts
http://www.washtech.org/reports/AmericasHighTechBust/AmericasHighTechBust.pdf
Sunday, August 21, 2005
5 years after the bust, a sober, new reality
By Shirleen Holt and Kristi Heim
Seattle Times business reporters
Dot-com 2.0: Jobster, an online recruiting startup founded by Jason
Goldberg, reflects the post-recession realities. Goldberg, 33, says
this isn't a company built "for the pot of gold at the end of the
rainbow."
The sleeper: Digital.forest survived the tech bust by growing slow and
spending frugally. Now it occupies the "carcass" of a failed
competitor in the Intergate.West technology campus in Tukwila.
Technical operations chief Chuck Goolsbee bought sophisticated
data-storage equipment for cents on the dollar.
When the money flowed: Digital.forest gets to enjoy the “feng-shui”
garden and stream commissioned by the building’s failed anchor tenant.
But the real perks are the bands of fiber-optic cable running beneath
the parking lot, giving digital “all the bandwidth we could ever
want,” Goolsbee says.
The sleeper: Digital.forest survived the tech bust by growing slow and
spending frugally. Now it occupies the "carcass" of a failed
competitor in the Intergate.West technology campus in Tukwila.
Technical operations chief Chuck Goolsbee bought sophisticated
data-storage equipment for cents on the dollar.
A life outside of work: John McAdam is the CEO of F5 Networks, a
Seattle computer networking company that lets employees take time off
to climb Mount Everest, sail boats, race cars, run marathons or get
involved in the community.
AT FIRST GLANCE, 18-month-old Jobster seems to have re-created the
1999 dot-com office cliché. The online recruiting startup occupies a
loft in Pioneer Square with exposed brick, a wide-open floor plan, a
ping-pong table and a dog running loose.
But the similarities between this young company and the dot-coms that
fell before it end there.
The difference, as founder Jason Goldberg puts it, is: "Web 1.0:
arrogance. Web 2.0: humility."
Five years after the technology bubble burst and two years into its
recovery, the hubris that shaped the 1990s tech startup is noticeably
absent.
So are the five-figure signing bonuses, piles of stock options, lavish
launch parties, $800 Herman Miller office chairs and the flawed
assumption that a New Economy driven by technology was somehow immune
from the old rules of business.
As the tech economy revs up again, a post-recession character emerges:
Drunken optimism is out; sober reality is in.
Job hopping is out; loyalty is in.
Living to work is out; working to live is in.
Greed is out; gratitude is in.
In short, the old-economy workplace is new again.
It's reflected in everything from more cautious hiring to smaller pay
raises and fewer stock grants. It shows up in slower business growth,
saner work schedules, and an almost violent rejection of the jackpot
mentality that dominated tech companies when the economy was in full
boil.
This is apparent even at Jobster's hip offices. While the company's 50
employees stand to benefit nicely from their stock options if the
venture-backed company takes off, money had better not be their top
priority.
Even as the competition for good workers heats up, Goldberg, a
33-year-old, adrenaline-pumped superachiever and former aide to
President Clinton, rejects bribing anyone with a signing bonus, those
up-front payments used by some desperate employers to lure tech
workers back in the 1990s.
"I'm not in the business of buying people," he says, taking a bite of
a taco salad as Scooter, his cocker spaniel, sneaks away with his
napkin. "If dollars are the reason they're coming to Jobster, they're
coming to the wrong place."
Other employers agree. Even though many companies fostered greed
during the boom by promising big salaries and important job titles,
they also resented jobseekers' growing sense of entitlement.
Tamara Rashid, a former recruiter for the computer retailer Zones,
recalled in a 2002 Seattle Times interview: "You'd see them pull up in
their Ferrari and their $5,000 suits, and an air about them that says,
'I'm looking for something that can maintain that car payment.' "
Nor have managers forgotten the bad hires of the past, people who
didn't fit the job or the company's culture. They got hired anyway
because the era's manic sense of urgency — get big fast! — often meant
filling five, 10 or 15 positions in a single week.
Today employers are determined not to repeat past mistakes.
Concur Technologies, a Redmond software company, needs to add up to
100 people this year. But it would rather leave a position open than
fill it with someone not aligned with the company's values, says HR
vice president Susan Webber.
Chief among its values is to create leaders who combine "professional
will and personal humility."
Self-promoters don't fit that model, nor do candidates who hopped from
job to job. "Money jumps," as recruiters call them, are evidence that
the person would bolt the company the minute a more lucrative offer
came up.
"We want to hire people for the long run," Webber says. "Five years
ago that wasn't necessarily the case in the market."
Rapid fall, slow climb back
Sports-car-driving egotists were hardly the majority of employees in
the 1990s, and the rest of the talent pool may still be paying for
their arrogance. But for many tech workers, the job opportunities were
so abundant, and the pay so good, it seemed foolish not to take
advantage of the offers.
Bill Boyde, a veteran software programmer, doubled his income in 1999
when he left a job at Boeing to become an independent contractor.
When the tech bubble burst, contract work dried up and Boyde was among
thousands of programmers without a job. He got one contract gig, but
it was nearly two years before he landed a full-time job, this time at
Nintendo.
But the job hardly involved technology. He earned $9 an hour moving
pallets, stocking shelves and preparing orders for shipping at the
company's distribution warehouse in North Bend.
"The computer system was maintained by their computer people," he
says. His job "was like a grocery clerk without the groceries."
Boyde, 40, has paid for own health insurance since he left Boeing. He
buys the bare minimum to cover emergency care, and he avoided visits
to the doctor for four years. He paid his dentist and optometrist cash
out of pocket.
But his career prospects have gradually improved. In May, he landed a
contract position through a temp agency. He's testing new programming
tools for Microsoft.
"Assuming I do well at this contract," he says, "I think things will
work out."
The recession took its toll on salaries. For the last four years,
annual wage growth among tech workers stayed well below 2 percent
until it inched up to 2.64 percent this past spring, according to
Applied HR Strategies, a Kirkland firm that tracks compensation trends
for about 70 of the state's largest technology companies.
Five years ago, those same salaries were increasing by more than 10
percent a year.
The sluggish pay growth indicates that starting salaries have dropped
for some jobs, says Doug Sayed, owner of HR Strategies.
"The surveys don't measure people who get laid off and have to take a
pay cut to get employed."
Only the pay for the industry's elite — those with lots of experience
and in-demand skills — has continued to rise significantly. A
principal software engineer, for instance, earns about $118,000 a year
compared with $94,000 three years go.
Merit raises are smaller or given less often than in past years,
according to various surveys, the result of explosive health-insurance
costs and a tender economy that still favors employers.
The stock-option gold rush is over, thanks to new accounting rules
requiring companies to list employee options as expenses.
Microsoft, which minted millionaires by the thousands in the 1990s,
stopped granting employee stock options altogether, replacing them
with outright stock grants given more sparingly.
"The vast majority of tech firms still provide options, but the
numbers they're giving have dropped roughly 30 percent," Sayed says.
"I know of at least four public technology companies that have stopped
giving options to new hires. That would have been unheard of a few
years ago."
Overwork revolt
If the economy is recovering, so are the people who fueled it.
On average, tech workers are putting in fewer hours than they were
five years ago — about six hours less per week for software workers,
according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Labor economists don't know if this is because technology has improved
productivity or if attitudes have simply changed.
To be sure, some techies still work insane hours, but there is a
growing backlash against the overwork ethic of the late 1990s. Back
then 10-hour workdays were the minimum. In one storied company-wide
e-mail, a dot-com executive scolded his staff for leaving the office
before 6 p.m.
People were willing to log 50- to 80-hour weeks, however, in exchange
for future stock riches and the chance to build a product, or
sometimes an entire company, from the ground up.
But the bust left legions of workers burned out, bitter and fighting
back.
After three tech workers were laid off from Redmond's Advanced Digital
Information in 2003, they decided they should have been paid for the
extra hours they'd put in during the busy years. They sued their
former employer for violating overtime laws, and won a settlement for
an undisclosed sum.
A larger wage case that could permanently alter the industry's
workaholism involves Electronic Arts in Silicon Valley. Game
developers want to end or at least get paid for "crunches," a final
push before a game is released, which sometimes requires them to work
around the clock.
California software engineer Evan Robinson explained how worker output
declines after 40 hours a week, and that working 20 hours straight "is
the equivalent of being legally drunk." Crunch mode, he concluded, is
"not just abusive, it's stupid."
Robinson posted his analysis last year in his blog, Engines of
Mischief. It drew dozens of responses, including one from a developer
who said he now insists on 40-hour work weeks in his employment
contracts.
Other tech workers took more extreme measures: They left the industry
altogether. By 2002, a quarter of the state's 126,207 tech workers had
scattered to other industries, according to a state report. Some were
pushed out by the sector's decline; but others went willingly.
Susan Boling, 29, once had dreams of rising to a top job in a
technology company. But working 60-hour weeks as a tester for
Microsoft soured that ambition. She quit in 2002 and became an artist
and yoga instructor.
"I don't shake, I don't faint, I don't ever cry anymore," she says.
"Career is important, but life outside of that is much more
important."
Shifting priorities
Back in the late '90s, Lisa Morris-Wolff used to keep a notepad on her
nightstand so she could jot down reminders about work, evidence of a
job so consuming it intruded on her sleep.
She spent 12 or more hours a day as a business-development executive
for Aptimus, an online direct-marketing company in Seattle. When she
wasn't working, she was hanging out with co-workers and talking about
work.
But like a lot of people in the industry, Morris-Wolff got older, got
married, bought a home, had a daughter.
And even though she joined another Internet company, the profitable
and stable 9-year-old onlineshoes.com, her job is no longer her only
focus.
Now when she wakes up, her first thought is, "I wonder if Kate's
awake."
Such shifting priorities are reflected in surveys, which increasingly
show that employees want more time off and more time with their
families.
Last fall, a poll on salary.com found that 39 percent of workers would
choose time off over a $5,000 raise — up 20 percent from a similar
poll three years earlier.
Of all the changes occurring in the tech workplace, this one may be
the most profound. Workers learned through gritty experience that no
amount of money can compensate for not having a personal life.
The catharsis for the Electronic Arts revolt, in fact, came from a Web
posting by a disgruntled spouse.
"When you keep our husbands and wives and children in the office for
90 hours a week sending them home exhausted and numb and frustrated
with their lives," she wrote, "it's not just them you're hurting, but
everyone around them."
For companies worried about retaining their workers once the economy
improves, "work-life balance" has replaced "work hard, get rich" as
the new mantra.
At F5 Networks, a Seattle computer networking company, employees can
take time off to climb Mount Everest, sail boats, race cars, run
marathons or get involved in the community.
"Balancing work and personal life is one of the top goals," says Bryan
Skene, a senior product development manager. "Having a good life means
working hard but also playing hard."
Such corporate spin may sound hollow coming from anyone else. But
Skene, a seven-year veteran, knows what he's talking about.
In 1998, he once worked an 18-hour shift, then headed straight to the
hospital to help his wife deliver their second son.
That was before the bottom fell out of the tech economy and before
F5's growth slowed to a manageable pace.
Today, when employees end up having to work nights or weekends to get
a project done, Skene says, "it's a sign that their manager has done a
poor job of organization."
Frugality regains its charm
If there's a model for the post-bust technology company it might be
digital.forest: patient, measured and lean. Some might even say cheap.
The 11-year-old company hosts Web sites and handles traffic for
companies such as Car Toys. In a good year, its 23 employees might get
a $100 bonus. They've never had an onsite gym, pool table or in-house
massages, but they did get to play Asteroids, a video game the company
bought used on eBay.
When the company napping couch wore out, CEO Kris Bourne decided to
upgrade — to a better couch.
And the table in its reception area? A metal box from Sun
Microsystems.
"Server furniture," says Chuck Goolsbee, who heads the company's
technical operations. "And it even matches."
There were days during the startup frenzy that digital.forest worried
it might be too small, too slow, that it might just get elbowed out of
business. Unlike the venture-backed firms, digital.forest financed its
growth mostly through revenues, and later a handful of private
investors.
Its penny-pinching has brought the ultimate reward, of course: Five
years after the bust, the company is still in business, while many of
its competitors — would-be titans of telecom, networking and data
storage — are gone.
In January, digital.forest moved into a state-of-the-art technology
campus in Tukwila designed for those rivals, some of whom crashed so
suddenly they left behind coffee cups, office papers and blueprints
for growth that never happened.
"We're living in their carcass right now," Goolsbee says, "little
mammals amongst the dinosaur bones."
Goolsbee walks through digital.forest's cavernous server warehouse,
pointing out the relics scavenged from extinct competitors: rows of
skeletal server racks, switches, $250,000 routers bought for under
$20,000 each.
The concave stone slab that was supposed to hold the sign for anchor
tenant Zama Networks still stands in the lobby, just to the left of a
dramatic cast-glass wall. Outside sits a generator the size of a
truck, a mother lode of emergency power. Above, a brook burbles in a
feng-shui garden tucked between two parking lots.
Zama went bankrupt in 2001. Another tenant, a California-based
Internet service provider, backed out of its lease. So tiny
digital.forest gets the benefit of that ISP's data warehouse. It also
gets use of the garden, the giant generator and the river of
fiber-optic cable running through the pavement below.
"We had what they didn't," Goolsbee says of the companies that
disappeared. "We had customers and we had revenue."
Gunner Asch
>
>"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:bjfpb41cctdds12im...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 12:19:19 -0700, " Frank" <x> wrote:
>>
>>>>>High-immigration cheerleaders claim that we need immigration for our
>>>>>economy. But they ignore the detrimental effect that importing workers
>>>>>has on American workers, particularly low-skilled natives. In a supply
>>>>>and demand economy like ours, the more there is of something, the less
>>>>>value it has.
>>>
>>>Except for over priced lawyers, which we have an over abundance with. What
>>>does one expect from a country that doesn't manufacture much of anything
>>>except for entertainment, corporate takeovers and lawsuits?
>>
>>
>> Odd...I hope you are not talking about the USA, as its the most
>> productive country on the planet, manufacturing wise.
>>
>
>Sure, most efficient in terms of manufacturing, but we don't manufacture
>much of anything anymore (except for food) relative to 20 or 50 years ago.
I didnt say anything about efficency. I said Productive. We still
produce more hard goods than any other nation on the planet. And
yes..we do it efficently.
Btw..I work in Manufacturing..as a business owner.
>Look at GM and Ford, its in the gutter going broke. GM used to be number 1,
>now no one is buying it except the Chinese. Just go back to the 50s, we had
>a huge manufacturing base; TVs, radios, bikes, test equipment, all kind of
>consumer and industrial products. No more, manufacturing shifted to Asia,
Some did, yes indeed. Low dollar items went to the lowest bidder.
The Big 3 automakers have screwed themselves, unions and entitlements
drove most of the screwing..and turning out products that were utter
crap drove the stake through their hearts.
>Europe and even South America. Just cannot compete against low foreign wages
>based on American technology..Just look at the stuff around your house or
>office. How many are still made in America? Up till the 1960s almost all,
>sad isn't it? Fortunately we are still the land of opportunity.
U.S. Still a Manufacturing Super Power
Shrinking Workforce Amid Soaring Productivity Reveals a Deep
Contradiction
By Charles R. Morris 5/19/08 11:00 PM
Bloggers from the left and the right are attacking both of the likely
presidential candidates, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz,) and Barack Obama
(D-Ill.), for their complacency in the face of American
"deindustrialization."
The anger is fueled, in part, by the absurd expansion of "Wall Street"
over the past decade – the investment banks and hedge funds that have
pulled down mega-profits by pumping up the credit bubble, now gooily
imploding all around us. According to the government’s Bureau of
Economic, the financial sector accounted for more than 40 percent of
all corporate profits in 2007. A disproportionate share of those
profits accrued to the upper one-hundredth of 1 percent of the
nation’s taxpayers, accentuating a degree of financial inequality not
seen since the Gilded Age.
There is plenty there to stir righteous fury. But first some facts, so
we can throw the hand grenades in the right direction.
To start with, the United States is the world leader in manufacturing
output by a huge margin. The American share of world manufacturing
peaked immediately after World War II, when it was the only game in
town. But it has never fallen lower than 30 percent, and has grown
significantly since 1980, with some very small share slippage in the
2000s.
When a country’s manufacturing productivity grows rapidly its
manufacturing employment invariably shrinks.
The so-called "emerging" countries — like China, Brazil and India —
have enormously expanded their shares of output over the past decade,
but the big share losers have been the European Union, Russia and
Japan. China is now the world’s third largest manufacturer, while
Japan is still No. 2. U.S. manufacturing output is about five times
that of China.
How can that be? Look at the trade numbers! Look at jobs!
Start with trade. Manufacturing output is usually measured by a method
called "value-add;" and it’s especially important in understanding the
China phenomenon. Assume A is a car manufacturer who sells nearly
finished cars to B, who paints them and ships them to dealers. While
B’s gross revenue is the dealer price of the car, his value-add is
only what he’s earned for the painting and shipping, since all the
rest is remitted back to A.
Much of China’s exports are like B’s – goods for which Chinese workers
provide the last processing and finishing steps, while other countries
supply most of the value-add.
China assembles and ships iPods, for example, but almost all of an
iPod’s value-add, and profits, go to Apple for the software, and to
other international companies for chip sets, disk drives and
additional high-tech components. But trade data is drawn from prices
at customs. So China gets credit for $150 in exports for each iPod it
ships, even though 99 percent of the revenue goes to other countries.
What about workers? By one recent estimate, China has 80 million
manufacturing production workers, or nearly six times as many as in
America. But that is a measure of Chinese backwardness.
When a country’s manufacturing productivity grows rapidly its
manufacturing employment invariably shrinks. U.S. manufacturing
employment peaked at about 19.4 million workers in 1979; but was down
to 13.9 million workers at the end of 2007, the lowest level in more
than 50 years, even as its output was steadily expanding.
The same trends are already evident in China, which has been shedding
manufacturing jobs even faster than the United States has, as it
struggles to move up the technology curve. Low-wage hand assembly
isn’t the road to world dominance.
Shrinking work forces and soaring production are hardly new phenomena.
America is also the the world leader in agricultural production, but
fewer than half of 1 percent of its workers are employed in
agriculture.
So why all the focus on manufacturing jobs?
The main reason jobs, and especially manufacturing jobs, are such an
issue in the United States, is that the productivity drive has meant
downsizing millions of workers, and treating most of them badly. That
exposes a deep contradiction at the heart of the American system.
Of all the advanced countries, U.S. companies are by far the most
flexible in responding to change. Employers have immense freedom to
dismiss workers, or to restaff with different skills, to keep pace
with competitive challenges. But perversely, of all the advanced
countries, it has chosen to be the roughest on dismissed workers, and
to provide the least reliable social safety net. Investors, private
equity companies, CEOs, can therefore happily reap the profit and
incomes from improved productivity, while leaving their former workers
to reap mostly fear and insecurity.
Health care is the most striking example, since for working-age
Americans, health insurance is available almost exclusively through
employment. The rapid "human-resources adjustments" of
market-responsive companies therefore entail near-absolute cutoffs of
health insurance. Unemployment benefits and retraining opportunities
are, similarly, miserly in the extreme.
But the inequities are now too palpable to ignore. If America is to
retain its admirable economic flexibility, the social contract
requires major revisions and soon.
Charles R. Morris, a lawyer and former banker, is the author of "The
Trillion Dollar Meltdown: Easy Money, High Rollers and the Great
Credit Crash." His other books include "The Tycoons: How Andrew
Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Jay Gould and J.P. Morgan Invented the
American Supereconomy" and "Money, Greed, and Risk: Why Financial
Crises and Crashes Happen.”
Gunner Asch
Do those charts reflect the War on Terrorism, 911 and the Clinton
Recession?
>
>
>> __________________________________________
>> Never argue with an idiot.
>> They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the
means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not
making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of
it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different
countries, that the more public provisions were made for the
poor the less they provided for themselves, and of course became
poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the
more they did for themselves, and became richer." -- Benjamin
Franklin, /The Encouragement of Idleness/, 1766
Gunner Asch
> you
>> should check out places like the kos where kooks like you can swap
>> idiotic rants like this and not have to deal with facts
>
> Here's some stats for you to choke on:
>
>http://clintonbushcharts.org/main/vis-imp-wg.html#our_charts
>
> Take a gander at the Stock Market Indexes. Look through the
>commodoties, check out the national debt and who holds it and you can
>finish up with the discretionary spending increases.
>
> The figures do not portray a compelling case for Bushonomics.
Based on the time lines shown..it does indeed reflect that Clinton
rode into office in the Reagan economy uplift, then left it on a down
note with the Clinton Recssion, and the Dot.Com Implosion
Bush came into office on the down turn of the Clinton recession,
followed by 911 and the financial (housing) bust) and the War on
Terror.
Seems that given the handicaps he inherited....he as done pretty well
for a war president.
Gunner
Rod Speed
Indeed.
> It would be difficult to argue the long term benefits of the loose money goosed housing market.
Nope, completely trivial. All that available housing which should be good for renters if no one else.
>> your arguments are simplistic and ill informed ideological rants,
> I've backed up every single thing I've ever said.
No you havent, and didnt with the one just above either.
> You not only don't like the conclusions but you have no facts to support your assumptions.
Just as true of you.
> It is your arguments that lack reason and temperment.
Just as true of you.
> For example, this rant of yours:
>> you should check out places like the kos where kooks like you can swap idiotic rants like this and not have to deal
>> with facts
> Here's some stats for you to choke on:
> http://clintonbushcharts.org/main/vis-imp-wg.html#our_charts
> Take a gander at the Stock Market Indexes. Look through the
> commodoties, check out the national debt and who holds it and you can finish up with the discretionary spending
> increases.
Doesnt prove a damned thing about your stupid claim that thats got anything to do with who was Prez at the time.
> The figures do not portray a compelling case for Bushonomics.
Not a shred of evidence that its got a damned thing to do with who happened to be Prez at the time.
clams_casino
>On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:12:42 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> you
>>
>>
>>>should check out places like the kos where kooks like you can swap
>>>idiotic rants like this and not have to deal with facts
>>>
>>>
>> Here's some stats for you to choke on:
>>
>>http://clintonbushcharts.org/main/vis-imp-wg.html#our_charts
>>
>> Take a gander at the Stock Market Indexes. Look through the
>>commodoties, check out the national debt and who holds it and you can
>>finish up with the discretionary spending increases.
>>
>> The figures do not portray a compelling case for Bushonomics.
>>
>>
>
>
>Based on the time lines shown..it does indeed reflect that Clinton
>rode into office in the Reagan economy uplift,
>
Are you totally nuts? Or just in that Bush denial?
Did you conveniently forget all about the G H W Bush recession that most
reference as to why he lost to Clinton? The one where unemployment
surged to nearly 8% - the highest since 1984?
> then left it on a down
>note with the Clinton Recssion
>
Huh? the recession started and ended after GW took office when
investors & business flocked to the side lines (CDs, binds, curtailing
business expansion, etc) in fear of GW policies.-
> and the Dot.Com Implosion
>
>Bush came into office on the down turn of the Clinton recession,
>followed by 911 and the financial (housing) bust) and the War on
>Terror.
>
>
The stock market & business rebounded rather quickly after 911.
>Seems that given the handicaps he inherited....he as done pretty well
>for a war president.
>
>Gunner
>
>
>
What are you smoking?
Jeff
> Gunner Asch wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:12:42 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> you
>>>
>>>> should check out places like the kos where kooks like you can swap
>>>> idiotic rants like this and not have to deal with facts
>>>>
>>> Here's some stats for you to choke on:
>>>
>>> http://clintonbushcharts.org/main/vis-imp-wg.html#our_charts
>>>
>>> Take a gander at the Stock Market Indexes. Look through the
>>> commodoties, check out the national debt and who holds it and you can
>>> finish up with the discretionary spending increases.
>>>
>>> The figures do not portray a compelling case for Bushonomics.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Based on the time lines shown..it does indeed reflect that Clinton
>> rode into office in the Reagan economy uplift,
>>
>
> Are you totally nuts? Or just in that Bush denial?
I vote for totally nuts. Or completely delusional.
>
> Did you conveniently forget all about the G H W Bush recession that most
> reference as to why he lost to Clinton? The one where unemployment
> surged to nearly 8% - the highest since 1984?
Every president has his own set of problems to overcome, few have done
as poor a job as George W Bush.
Jeff
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> Bob Brock wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:30:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
> > <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:43:48 -0400, "Joe 'bama" <Sc...@verizon.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> <snip>
>
> >>>>> That is certainly what George W Bush thought. And then he proceeded to:
> >>>>> Create less than 1/4 the number of jobs then under Clinton.
> >>>> this is just flat out false and I am sure the balance of your post is
> >>>> just as ill informed
>
> >>> You are correct. This is flat out false. In fact, according to Bureau of
> >>> Labor Statistics,
>
> >>> (For the period from January 2001 - July 2005)
>
> >>> On average, The Bush's economy has created 393,000 new jobs per year.
>
> >>> On average, Clinton created 2.75 million per year.
>
> >>> created under Clinton than Bush!
>
> >> How many of Clintons jobs were "would you like fries with that?" and
> >> government jobs?
>
> >> Care to give us a break down?
>
> I don't have a breakdown under Clinton, certainly a lot of high tech
> jobs were added amongst others.
How many jobs were created just to look for those lost Los Alamos hard
drives alone??? And the No Bid contract he gave Haliburton must have
generated lots of jobs, too.
> Certainly wages rose. I do know that
> under W, the public sector job growth has been greater than the private
> sector.
Sure. He activated all those guard troops who might otherwise have
still been on unemployment in the private sector.
> >> Gunner
>
> > Even a fast food job beats no job at all. Well that is unless you are
> > happy on welfare and not paying your hospital bills.
>
> Traditional welfare makes up about 1% of the Fed budget. Few people
> make a "living" off welfare.
Then their deficit must be made up for in the underground economy...
That's why they are always looking over their shoulders.
> Even AFDC single moms tend to be off in a
> couple years. Arguably "corporate" welfare is a far higher percentage of
> the budget.
I have no dispute with that assessment.
> This right wing red meat issue has little impact on the economy.
>
> As you've stated, even a fast food job beats welfare.
I don't know about that. Many are "Jobs that Americans don't want"
because for far less effort they can get about the same from the
gov't.
> Jeff
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> Gunner Asch wrote:
> >On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:12:42 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
> >> you
>
> >>>should check out places like the kos where kooks like you can swap
> >>>idiotic rants like this and not have to deal with facts
>
> >> Here's some stats for you to choke on:
>
> >>http://clintonbushcharts.org/main/vis-imp-wg.html#our_charts
>
> >> Take a gander at the Stock Market Indexes. Look through the
> >>commodoties, check out the national debt and who holds it and you can
> >>finish up with the discretionary spending increases.
>
> >> The figures do not portray a compelling case for Bushonomics.
>
> >Based on the time lines shown..it does indeed reflect that Clinton
> >rode into office in the Reagan economy uplift,
>
> Are you totally nuts? Or just in that Bush denial?
No. Thems are the facts.
> Did you conveniently forget all about the G H W Bush recession that most
> reference as to why he lost to Clinton? The one where unemployment
> surged to nearly 8% - the highest since 1984?
I remember the media whipped up frenzy called "The Worst Economy Ever"
and the DNC slogan, "It's The Economy, Stupid."
It didn't compare to Carter's economy, and even Carter's economy
didn't compare to "The Depression." As a matter of fact, if you were
to return to the graphs, Bush's "Worst Economy Ever" was barely
registered as a blip. A non-event.
> > then left it on a down
> >note with the Clinton Recssion
>
> Huh? the recession started and ended after GW took office when
> investors & business flocked to the side lines (CDs, binds, curtailing
> business expansion, etc) in fear of GW policies.-
So the Republicans really don't kiss the ass of business?
> > and the Dot.Com Implosion
>
> >Bush came into office on the down turn of the Clinton recession,
> >followed by 911 and the financial (housing) bust) and the War on
> >Terror.
>
> The stock market & business rebounded rather quickly after 911.
>
> >Seems that given the handicaps he inherited....he as done pretty well
> >for a war president.
>
> >Gunner
>
> What are you smoking?
I'm going to guess Camel no-filters.
clams_casino
>
>
>So the Republicans really don't kiss the ass of business?
>
>
They may kiss their ass, but when it comes around to investing, they run.
It's a known fact that the stock market has historically provided twice
the return under democrat vs. republican presidents - something like 8
vs. 4% from what I recall.
They cry all the way to the bank under democrat control.
clams_casino
>
>
>How many jobs were created just to look for those lost Los Alamos hard
>drives alone??? And the No Bid contract he gave Haliburton must have
>generated lots of jobs, too.
>
>
>
That was the whole Bush economic plan.
John R. Carroll
> Gunner Asch wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:12:42 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> you
>>>
>>>
>>>> should check out places like the kos where kooks like you can swap
>>>> idiotic rants like this and not have to deal with facts
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Here's some stats for you to choke on:
>>>
>>> http://clintonbushcharts.org/main/vis-imp-wg.html#our_charts
>>>
>>> Take a gander at the Stock Market Indexes. Look through the
>>> commodoties, check out the national debt and who holds it and you
>>> can finish up with the discretionary spending increases.
>>>
>>> The figures do not portray a compelling case for Bushonomics.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Based on the time lines shown..it does indeed reflect that Clinton
>> rode into office in the Reagan economy uplift,
>>
>
> Are you totally nuts?
Worse yet.
He's just an asshole, and an ignorant liar to boot.
--
John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com
Jeff
> On Sep 2, 1:32 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>> Bob Brock wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:30:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
>>> <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:43:48 -0400, "Joe 'bama" <Sc...@verizon.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> That is certainly what George W Bush thought. And then he proceeded to:
>>>>>>> Create less than 1/4 the number of jobs then under Clinton.
>>>>>> this is just flat out false and I am sure the balance of your post is
>>>>>> just as ill informed
>>>>> You are correct. This is flat out false. In fact, according to Bureau of
>>>>> Labor Statistics,
>>>>> (For the period from January 2001 - July 2005)
>>>>> On average, The Bush's economy has created 393,000 new jobs per year.
>>>>> On average, Clinton created 2.75 million per year.
>>>>> created under Clinton than Bush!
>>>> How many of Clintons jobs were "would you like fries with that?" and
>>>> government jobs?
>>>> Care to give us a break down?
>> I don't have a breakdown under Clinton, certainly a lot of high tech
>> jobs were added amongst others.
>
> How many jobs were created just to look for those lost Los Alamos hard
> drives alone???
Seems to be an occupation with job security:
http://www.pogo.org/p/homeland/ha-070806-lanl.html
A dozen incidents since Wen Ho Lee.
And the No Bid contract he gave Haliburton must have
> generated lots of jobs, too.
>
>> Certainly wages rose. I do know that
>> under W, the public sector job growth has been greater than the private
>> sector.
>
> Sure. He activated all those guard troops who might otherwise have
> still been on unemployment in the private sector.
Or employed.
I'm sure New Orleans officials were delighted to find most of the
National Guard's High Water Equipment (and most of it's communications
gear) was in Iraq at the time of Katrina.
>
>>>> Gunner
>>> Even a fast food job beats no job at all. Well that is unless you are
>>> happy on welfare and not paying your hospital bills.
>> Traditional welfare makes up about 1% of the Fed budget. Few people
>> make a "living" off welfare.
>
> Then their deficit must be made up for in the underground economy...
> That's why they are always looking over their shoulders.
>
>> Even AFDC single moms tend to be off in a
>> couple years. Arguably "corporate" welfare is a far higher percentage of
>> the budget.
>
> I have no dispute with that assessment.
>
>> This right wing red meat issue has little impact on the economy.
>>
>> As you've stated, even a fast food job beats welfare.
>
> I don't know about that. Many are "Jobs that Americans don't want"
> because for far less effort they can get about the same from the
> gov't.
The trend had been away from welfare, which is a good thing. My
understanding is that food stamp payments are soaring though. Not such a
good thing making bad gasoline (ethanol gets much poorer mileage) out of
food (corn).
I'd like to see this agra business welfare terminated. Won't happen
under this dumb lame duck.
Jeff
>
>> Jeff
krw
jeff@spam_me_not.com says...
> krw wrote:
> > In article <M96dnQQG8cjc3yHV...@earthlink.com>,
> > jeff@spam_me_not.com says...
> >> krw wrote:
> >>> In article <AbadnTzTWf1diiHV...@rcn.net>, raymond-
> >>> oh...@hotmail.com says...
> >>>> <wis...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:vcqnb41o3jbbrr80u...@4ax.com...
> >>>>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:15:21 -0500, "johnny@." <johnny@.> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> August 31, 2008
> >>>>>> Federation for American Immigration Reform
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> High-immigration cheerleaders claim that we need immigration for our
> >>>>>> economy. But they ignore the detrimental effect that importing workers
> >>>>>> has on American workers, particularly low-skilled natives. In a supply
> >>>>>> and demand economy like ours, the more there is of something, the less
> >>>>>> value it has.
> >>>>>> immigration lowers the value of workers, and wages are depressed. As
> >>>>>> George Washington University economics professor Robert Dunn notes, "I
> >>>>>> know business people who tell me they're not interested in hiring
> >>>>>> Americans because the people who come from outside are cheaper. But ...
> >>>>>> if there's an unlimited supply of labor facing this country from
> >>>>>> outside, from the South or wherever, at five dollars an hour, I don't
> >>>>>> care how fast this economy grows, the wage rate for such people is going
> >>>>>> to be five dollars an hour!"1
> >>>> we can cut wages or see all the jobs shipped over seas.
> >>>> those are the choices the republicans have given us.
> >>>> so keep voting republican .
> >>> I didn't know that BJ Clinton was a Republican. When did that
> >>> happen?
> >>>
> >> You guys are so smug. You think, Republicans have just got to do a
> >> better job then Democrats.
> >>
> >> That is certainly what George W Bush thought. And then he proceeded to:
> >>
> >> Create less than 1/4 the number of jobs then under Clinton.
> >
>
> Oh yak yak yak. You wingnuts believe anything you hear on talk radio.
> But you've got not a shred of anything that resembles a fact.
We know a left-wing nutjob when we see one.
> Barely any jobs at all were created in the first Bush term, he just
> pulled it out in the last couple of months or he would have been the
> first president to have a net loss of jobs since... well, you should know.
They're all liars too.
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080708085650AAj2Wi5
If the net says it, it must be true.
> President Clinton averaged 2.6 million new jobs created every year.
> Bush's yearly average has been 375,000...
...but liars figure.
<boring leftist lies snipped>
> > Your blind hatred is getting boring, but in cause you hadn't
> > noticed, BJ Clinton isn't running either.
>
> There you go again. Another yellow dog republican that won't take an
> inkling of responsibility. Oh, but Bill got a blow job...
Stupid too. BTW, Bill Jefferson Clinton is not running for office,
in case you hadn't noticed.
--
Keith
Jeff
Having absolutely nothing, krw blusters this:
>
> We know a left-wing nutjob when we see one.
The same kind of attack in lieu of facing facts that Karl Rove has made
famous.
>
>> Barely any jobs at all were created in the first Bush term, he just
>> pulled it out in the last couple of months or he would have been the
>> first president to have a net loss of jobs since... well, you should know.
>
> They're all liars too.
Who's that?
>
>> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080708085650AAj2Wi5
>
> If the net says it, it must be true.
Then read it from the source, the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
But you don't believe in facts, they get in the way of your assumptions.
These are the same facts that you called "a bald faced lie", that 1/4 as
many jobs were created under George W Bush than Clinton. That's the source.
>
>> President Clinton averaged 2.6 million new jobs created every year.
>> Bush's yearly average has been 375,000...
>
> ...but liars figure.
>
> <boring leftist lies snipped>
That's interesting that you snipped Bloomberg and the Treasury
Department links as a leftist lie. You right wingnuts have an
interesting concept of what is a leftist lie.
>
>>> Your blind hatred is getting boring, but in cause you hadn't
>>> noticed, BJ Clinton isn't running either.
>> There you go again. Another yellow dog republican that won't take an
>> inkling of responsibility. Oh, but Bill got a blow job...
>
> Stupid too. BTW, Bill Jefferson Clinton is not running for office,
> in case you hadn't noticed.
You are the one that brought up Clinton and Republicans.
Jeff
>
Jeff
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:44:55 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>> Every president has his own set of problems to overcome, few have done
>> as poor a job as George W Bush.
In defense of George W Bush, jdoe had this to say:
>>
> can you say jimmy carter?
:-)
Gunner Asch
<PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>Based on the time lines shown..it does indeed reflect that Clinton
>>rode into office in the Reagan economy uplift,
>>
>
>Are you totally nuts? Or just in that Bush denial?
>
>Did you conveniently forget all about the G H W Bush recession that most
>reference as to why he lost to Clinton? The one where unemployment
>surged to nearly 8% - the highest since 1984?
Nope..but its not germane to the subject or the graphs cited.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200405050850.asp
Please google Clinton Recession
Please google Reagan Economic Legacy
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4798
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jun2004/nf20040610_9541_db038.htm
And when discussing HW...you seem to be forgetting this....
By October of 1992, when President George Herbert Walker Bush ran for
re-election against Bill Clinton, the economy was 18 months into a
recovery . But as Investor's Business Daily noted, 90 percent of the
newspaper stories on the economy were negative. Yet the following
month, when Clinton defeated Bush-41, suddenly only 14 percent of
economic news stories were negative!
Sound familar?
and this....
Encyclopedia > Late 1980s recession
The recession of the late nineteen-eighties was an economic recession
that hit much of the world beginning in 1987. Economics (deriving from
the Greek words οίκω [okos], house, and νέμω [nemo], rules
hence household management) is the social science that studies the
allocation of scarce resources to satisfy unlimited wants. ... A
recession is usually defined in macroeconomics as a fall of a countrys
real Gross National Product in two or more successive quarters of a
year. ... 1987 is a common year starting on Thursday of the Gregorian
calendar. ...
According to the economists' definition of a recession, two quarters
of negative growth, the late eighties recession only covered a brief
period in 1987 (although not in the United States), and another in
1990–1991. By measures such as unemployment and public perception the
North American economy was in recession continuously for years after
1987, with only brief periods of revival. 1987 is a common year
starting on Thursday of the Gregorian calendar. ... 1990 is a common
year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar. ... 1991 is a
common year starting on Tuesday of the Gregorian calendar. ...
Dorothea Langes Migrant Mother depicts destitute pea pickers in
California during the Great Depression. ... World map showing location
of North America A satellite composite image of North America North
America is a continent in the northern hemisphere, bounded on the
north by the Arctic Ocean, on the east by the North Atlantic Ocean, on
the south by the Caribbean Sea, and on the west...
Dow Jones (19 July 1987 through 19 January 1988)
Enlarge
Dow Jones (19 July 1987 through 19 January 1988)
On Black Monday of October 1987 a stock collapse of unprecedented size
lopped twenty-five percent off the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The
collapse, larger than that of 1929, was handled well by the economy
and the stock market began to quickly recover. However the lumbering
savings and loans were beginning to collapse, putting the savings of
millions of Americans in jeopardy.
The panic that followed lead to a sharp recession that hit hardest
those countries most closely linked to the United States, including
Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. The economies of Europe and
Japan were hurt, but not as badly. The US economy continued to grow as
a whole, although certain sectors of the market such as energy and
real estate slumped. World map showing location of Europe Europe is
geologically and geographically a peninsula, forming the westernmost
part of Eurasia. ...
The first burst of the recession was short-lived, as fervent activity
by the government leading up to elections in both the United States
and Canada created what many economists at the time saw as an economic
miracle a growing consumer confidence and increased consumer spending
almost single handedly lifted the North American economy out of
recession.
It soon turned out that the quick recovery was illusory, and by 1989
economic malaise had returned. For the next several years high
unemployment, massive government deficits, and slow GDP growth
affected the United States until 1992 and Canada until 1995. While
Canada enjoyed a brief recovery in 1994 the recession is believed to
have lasted longer there due to the gross fiscal mismanagement of the
Mulroney government and the stress placed on the economy by the
spectre of Quebec separatism. The Right Honourable Martin Brian
Mulroney, PC , CC , GOQ , LL.D. (born March 20, 1939), was the
eighteenth Prime Minister of Canada from September 17, 1984, to June
25, 1993. ... Quebec The Quebec sovereignty movement is a movement
calling for the attainment of sovereignty for Quebec, a province of
the country of Canada. ...
The rest of the world was less affected by the downturn, Germany and
Japan both grew rapidly. Some pundits guessed that this would be a
permanent state of affairs and that both the German and Japanese
economies would grow to be larger than the American one.
Like all recessions the one of the late eighties and early nineties
had a deep impact on society. Rates of alcoholism and drug use
increased, as did rates of depression. Polish propaganda poster
saying: Stop drinking! Come with us and build a happy tomorrow. ... A
drug is any substance that can be used to modify a chemical process or
processes in the body, for example to treat an illness, relieve a
symptom, enhance a performance or ability, or to alter states of mind.
...
While the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney in
Canada and the successful election campaign of George H. W. Bush in
the United States may have been aided by the brief recovery of 1988,
neither leader could hold on to power though the last part of the
recession, both being swept out by opponents running on pledges to
restore the economy to health. Bush's 1992 re-election bid was
particularly clogged by his 1990 decision to renege on his "Read my
lips: no new taxes" pledge during his first campaign in 1988; the tax
increase itself may also have delayed the recovery. The Progressive
Conservative Party of Canada (PC) was a Canadian conservative
political party that existed from 1867 to 2003. ... Order: 41st
President Vice President: J. Danforth Quayle Term of office: 20
January , 1989 – 20 January , 1993 Preceded by: Ronald Reagan
Succeeded by: Bill Clinton Date of birth: 12 June , 1924 Place of
birth: Milton, Massachusetts First Lady: Barbara Pierce Bush Political
party: Republican George Herbert Walker Bush ( born 12... 1988 is a
leap year starting on a Friday of the Gregorian calendar. ... 1991 is
a leap year starting on Wednesday of the Gregorian calendar. ... 1990
is a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar. ...
Bush delivering the famous line at the 1988 convention Read my lips:
No new taxes was a famous pledge made by Republican Presidential
candidate George H.W. Bush at the 1988 Republican convention in his
acceptance speech on August 18. ...
In Australia, Paul Keating, the Australian Federal Treasurer during
this recession, referred to it as the "recession we had to have." This
quote became a cornerstone of the Liberal Party's campaign during the
1993 election, as it seemed to underscore the Labor Party's
ineffective management of the national economy. Unlike the opposition
parties in North America, however, the Liberal Party failed to enter
government. Hon Paul Keating Paul John Keating (born 18 January 1944),
Australian politician and 24th Prime Minister of Australia, came to
prominence first as the reforming Treasurer in the Hawke government,
then as the Prime Minister who pulled off an upset victory in the
unwinnable election of 1993. ... The Liberal Party of Australia also
known as the Neo Nazi Party of Australasia is an Australian liberal
conservative political party. ... Legislative elections were held in
Australia on March 13, 1993. ... The Australian Labor Party or ALP is
Australias oldest political party. ...
Perhaps the most lasting result of the recession was its impact on
Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. More closely enmeshed in the
world economy than ever before, the teetering communist regimes may
have been pushed "over the edge" by the recession of the late 1980s,
ending the Cold War and discrediting Soviet-style government and
economics
Gunner Asch
Actually...Rogers Lights. Made in Lavtvia. No extra nicotine and
rather smooth.
The Real Bev
> Gunner Asch wrote:
>>
>>How many of Clintons jobs were "would you like fries with that?" and
>>government jobs?
>>
>>Care to give us a break down?
>
> Considering wages increased substantially during the Clinton vs. GW
> years, even someone with minimum math skills could conclude there were
> more higher paying jobs than lower paying jobs in the Clinton years.
You mean White House interns got paid? I thought they were just in it
for the glory.
--
Cheers, Bev
========================================================
"We're so far beyond fucked we couldn't even catch a bus
back to fucked." --Scott en Aztlan
Ken Lay
Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
> The difference, as founder Jason Goldberg puts it, is: "Web 1.0:
> arrogance. Web 2.0: humility."
ROTFL
--
Everybody lies. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney just suck at it.
Chester Riley
Don't pay any more attention to all that boring stuff. The GOP has
some exiting news for you! They have combined forces with the Alaskan
Independence Party to bring you Britney Spears for Vice-President. Okay
so they couldn't get the real Britney nor Paris Hilton so McCain settled
for Sarah Palin instead.
Sarah Palin's going to be highly controversial for as long as she's in
the spotlight so you won't be bored thinking about things like the
losing your job and your health care, the country going to hell in a
handbasket, fundemental strategic blunders like Iraq, and irreversable
climate change. Even though she is afraid to talk to reporter outside
of a carefully controlled environment, she craves Britney like attention
so expect Palin to say or do something to cause an uproar whenever
things get too quiet.
Never mind that she's a lightweight in experience and knowledge, her car
wash was shut down by the state because she didn't file any of the
paperwork, she is vindictive to enemies and brothers in law, and her
voice is about as pleasant as someone scratching a chalkboard. All of
this stuff is just going to make things even more exiting.
As a bonus, Palin supports 97% of George Bush's policies and she will be
available to handle all of America's foreign policy crises and lead the
war on terror in case McCain dies in office like 7 previous American
Presidents. This is important because McCain has a pretty reckless
temperment. He picked Palin after all and now McCain he can stop being
envious of Obama's celebrity. Before that McCain crashed 5 planes in
the military and then got himself captured. And when he got out he did
a gutsy thing and dumped his faithful first wife to marry a millionaire.
wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:15:21 -0500, "johnny@." <johnny@.> wrote:
>
>> August 31, 2008
>> Federation for American Immigration Reform
>>
>> High-immigration cheerleaders claim that we need immigration for our
>> economy. But they ignore the detrimental effect that importing workers
>> has on American workers, particularly low-skilled natives. In a supply
>> and demand economy like ours, the more there is of something, the less
>> value it has.
>> By artificially inflating the number of workers in our country,
>> immigration lowers the value of workers, and wages are depressed. As
>> George Washington University economics professor Robert Dunn notes, "I
>> know business people who tell me they're not interested in hiring
>> Americans because the people who come from outside are cheaper. But ...
>> if there's an unlimited supply of labor facing this country from
>> outside, from the South or wherever, at five dollars an hour, I don't
>> care how fast this economy grows, the wage rate for such people is going
>> to be five dollars an hour!"1
>>
>> The Skill Levels of Most Immigrants Are Low.
>>
>> Thanks to immigration laws that favor relatives instead of skilled
>> workers, most of the immigrants being admitted are low-skilled. Out of
>> all the adult immigrants admitted in 2000, 69 percent had no reported
>> profession, occupation, or job at all.2 The average adult immigrant has
>> only a ninth-grade education; more than a third of immigrants over 25
>> are not high school graduates.3
>>
>> Claims That We Need Low-Skilled Workers Are False.
>>
>> Some employers claim that they need to import low-skilled workers to
>> compete in the world market, where wages are very low. But those
>> employers have simply become dependent on cheap foreign labor to the
>> detriment of American workers: "Network recruitment [of immigrants] not
>> only excludes American workers from certain jobs; it also builds a
>> dependency relationship between U.S. employers and Mexican sources that
>> requires a constant infusion of new workers," says economist Philip
>> Martin.4 Such a strategy for our economy is doomed to failure anyway:
>> "The low-wage strategy may work in the short run, but in the long run
>> it's a loser. In the long run, we are not going to win a wage-cutting
>> contest with the Third World," notes economist Vernon Briggs.5
>>
>> Besides, the United States already has plenty of low-skilled native
>> workers: "No technologically advanced industrial nation that has 27
>> million illiterate adults ... need have any fear about a shortage of
>> unskilled workers in its foreseeable future."6
>>
>> http://www.rightsidenews.com/200808311844/border-and-sovereignty/lower-wages-for-american-workers.html
krw
@hotmail.com says...
>
> Don't pay any more attention to all that boring stuff. The GOP has
> some exiting news for you! They have combined forces with the Alaskan
> Independence Party to bring you Britney Spears for Vice-President. Okay
> so they couldn't get the real Britney nor Paris Hilton so McCain settled
> for Sarah Palin instead.
If you're going to lie, at least be funny.
--
Keith
B. Peg
However, I feel the Muslim Obama will be better for America in the long term
since the Muslim religion is the largest in the world. His (sealed)
racist's wife's doctoral thesis from Princeton should appease the
African-Americans as well. Between the two, America should be safe from the
divisive problems experienced in Europe like France's recent Muslim
demonstrations and burnings.
B~
krw
@worldnet.att.net says...
Right. The UK had nothing to fear from Hitler.
--
Keith
Macuser
connected and loyal to the franchise. "Brownie," a horse trader put in
charge of FEMA, is an example of this. 30 days left of this, and thank god
almighty we will be free at last from the Bushes.
"Thrift is sexy."
Strabo
> The Bush "plan" was very self-dealing, giving out jobs and favors to the
> connected and loyal to the franchise. "Brownie," a horse trader put in
> charge of FEMA, is an example of this. 30 days left of this, and thank
> god almighty we will be free at last from the Bushes.
>
Obama wants Bush war team to stay
Bill Gertz (Contact)
Monday, December 22, 2008
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who has been named to the same
Cabinet post in the incoming administration of President-elect Barack
Obama, is asking experienced members of the Bush war team to stick
around to smooth the transition in the Pentagon. (File photo)
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has asked most Bush administration
political appointees except those targeted for dismissal to stay on in
the Pentagon until replaced by the Obama administration in the coming
months.
"I have received authorization from the president-elect's transition
team to extend a number of Department of Defense political appointees an
invitation to voluntarily remain in their current positions until
replaced," Mr. Gates said in an Dec. 19 e-mail to political appointees.
The chance to stay is "available to all willing political appointees
with the exception of those who are contacted individually and told
otherwise," he stated.
Notification of those who must depart was to be done before the close of
business Monday. The identity of the dismissed officials could not be
learned.
The policy affects some 250 political appointees in the department.
Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England and Undersecretary of Defense
for Policy Eric Edelman have already announced they plan to depart by
Jan. 20.
Two senior officials expected to stay are John Young, the undersecretary
of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, and James R.
Clapper, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence.
About 40 positions in the Pentagon require Senate confirmation,
including the undersecretaries and assistant secretaries and some
deputies. The rest do not require a formal presidential nomination and
Senate approval and can be made by the defense secretary.
Senate confirmation in some cases can take months and require hearings.
In other cases, nominees can be approved within a few weeks of nomination.
Geoff Morrell, Pentagon press secretary, confirmed that Mr. Gates wants
to retain most political appointees. He said the policy of keeping so
many holdover officials is unusual for a transition from a Republican to
Democratic administration.
The decision to keep the appointees is part of an effort by Mr. Gates to
avoid a "leadership vacuum" at a time when the United States in engaged
in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr. Morrell said.
Other federal agencies are not keeping political appointees, including
the state, justice and homeland security departments that are planning
personnel changes without Bush administration appointees in place.
It is his top priority to ensure a smooth transition, Mr. Morrell said
of Mr. Gates.
Mr. Morrell, a deputy assistant secretary who is also staying on, said
most of the service secretaries and undersecretaries will be staying,
until their replacement is nominated and confirmed by the Senate.
In the past, a change of administration normally involved mass
resignations of political appointees between November and January,
leaving subordinates in key policy positions as "acting" officials.
Not all the political appointees will be permitted to stay, but Mr.
Morrell declined to identify those asked to leave.
"To the extent you are willing and in a position to continue to serve, I
am deeply appreciative," Mr. Gates stated in the email. "However, I
encourage you to continue to prudently plan for the transition from DOD
employment, as the pace of personnel decisions by the incoming
administration is likely to accelerate."
Mr. Gates said he could not provide "more clarity and guidance" on how
long those that wish to become holdovers will be allowed to stay on in
their positions.
The secretary said he appreciated the appointees' willingness to
continue "in the interest of providing continuity for this department
and for its critical mission to the nation in a time of war."
Mr. Gates promised to thank each appointee personally in January. "But I
still want to take advantage of this note to thank you collectively for
all you have done for our country. I wish you and yours happy holidays,"
he said.
The note was signed "Bob Gates" and sent by Mr. Gates' chief of staff,
Robert Rangel.
<
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/22/obama-wants-bush-war-team-stay/?page=2
>
>
Your suffering has only begun.
>