The US Economy

I don't take "broadbased" to be a numerical thing. I assume Timber means employment gains across many industries, as opposed to "manufacturing jobs" or "farm jobs"; gains having a broad base. (Timber?)

Who is "us" in the "let's deal with that if...?"

I borrowed the following from pistoff's new forum, but felt it should also be shared here.
*******************************
"Economy/Budgetary Priorities

Claim: "How about the fact that we are now increasing jobs or the fact that unemployment is now down to 5.6 percent? There was a winter recession and unemployment went up, and now it's heading in the right direction."

Fact: The job market continues to stagnate. Since President Bush's first tax cut in March 2001, the economy has shed more than 2 million jobs. He will be the first president since Herbert Hoover to end his term with a net job loss record. Additionally, the White House Counsel of Economic Advisors pledged that the President's "jobs and growth" package would create 1,836,000 new jobs by the end of 2003 as part of its pledge to create 5.5 million new jobs by 2004. But the economy added 221,000 jobs since the last tax cut went into effect, meaning the White House has fallen 1,615,000 jobs short of their mark.

Claim: "There is good momentum when it comes to the creation of new jobs."

Fact: Statistics show there is not good job momentum. In the last two months we've seen an average of 73,000 private sector jobs created. At this pace, we wouldn't see a new net job created until May 2007. Even beyond the recession and 9/11, just looking at the recovery since November 2001, the current pace of job growth puts us on track to have the worst jobs recovery since the Great Depression."

I clipped this from a new release today.
*************
"The two reports may help ease worries over the embattled U.S. factory sector, which has yet to see employment recover from the 2001 recession. Manufacturers have trimmed payrolls for 42 straight months, with about 2.8 million factory jobs lost since President Bush (news - web sites) took office in January 2001. Still, another widely watched index compiled by the Institute for Supply Management has shown eight straight months of growing factory output."
*********************************
What disturbs me most with this "recovery" is the fact that we're still down 2.8 million factory jobs since Bush took the helm in 2001. Whatever gains we see for the remainder of this year is going to be a struggle between more layoffs and any addition of jobs. The net effect is going to be a decrease, because our economy is barely plugging along. General Motors is the largest automaker in the US, and they've lost 15 percent market share last year. By my reckoning, they're going to be laying off more workers (factory jobs) in 2004.

That's about right, Scrat. LW, the "Us" is the all of us who are all in this together. All of us. We all have to deal with all the ups and downs.

Oh, and c.i., yeah, market share is important, and GM's market share has been slipping ... since the Beatles were together. An expanding overall market sorta moots the overall impact of market share; a fifth of a ten-pound pie is more than a quarter of a six-pound pie. While GM's market share declined overall in '03, at 28% vs 28.3% for 2002, for the last half it actually picked up from the pace earlier in the year, coming in at 28.7% for the period, For the full year, GM reported net income of $3.82 billion, or $7.14 a share, up from $1.74 billion, or $3.35 a share, in 2002. Revenue rose 4.6% to $185.52 billion from $177.32 billion the previous year, excluding the one-time gain realized from the spinoff of Hughes/DirecTV. The company's stock is trading some 60% higher than its year-ago low, closing today just under $50 as comapred to less than $30 a little less than a year ago. Over the past six months, GM has signioficantly outperformed the Dow and the S&P 500. GM ain't hurtin'.

With all due respect, CI, so what if we've lost "manufacturing jobs"?

(bold mine)

Here's the rest of it, if you are interested in rethinking your point of view: Manufacturing confusion It has its own topic, but feel free to comment on it either there or here.

timber, I was talking about 2003, not 2002. Come on, guy, get on the same plate.
Scrat, The only issue I'm addressing is GWBush's claim that his tax cuts will add 2.8 million jobs this year. I'm not talking about the past. Get on the stick.

LET'S TALK ABOUT "YOUR" JOBS

Jobs .. and the economy. Those seem to be the issues that are driving many, if not most, of those who are supporting the Kerry candidacy.

First of all ... I'm going to repeat this simply because it makes the whiners so unbelievably angry. Listen up. They're not your jobs! The jobs belong to the employers .. not to you! You have job skills and, presumably, a willingness to work. Your task in a free economy is to get out there and find some employer with a job who needs your skills ... and strike a deal.

If you do not have the particular set of job skills that an employer needs, or if you have priced your labor out of the marketplace, guess what? It's not the employer's fault. The fault lies with you. Either develop a new set of job skills that are actually in demand, or adjust your pricing. The employer knows what he's looking for. If you're not it .. it's your problem, not his.

Now ... you say you're going to vote for a Democrat this year because of jobs? You mean to tell me that you're going to vote against George Bush this year because you don't have a set of job skills that are in demand in our free marketplace? Yeah .. that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

Tell me. Just what do you want the president to do? You information technology people out there .. just what are you demanding? Do you want companies to stop outsourcing IT jobs to India? OK ... tell me how to do that. These companies aren't shipping parts overseas and completed products back. All they do is ship information overseas by phone lines or the Internet. Then that information is modified and shipped back the same way. What do you want the government .. the president to do? Do you want some federal law that prohibits companies from transmitting information overseas by the Internet, having that information transformed or modified, and then shipped back? And tell me just how do you enforce that law? Does that law then apply to you also if you seek information from a company that is located overseas, thus depriving a domestic company of your business?

Ditto for manufacturing. I've already told you the story about the California company that makes computer mouses. (computer mice?) This company ships the components to China. The mouse is assembled in China and shipped back, then sold for around $40. Why? Because the assembly is cheaper in China than it would be in the US. So, you say you want the president to force this company to have that mouse assembled in the US? Fine .. then the price for the mouse goes up to about $70 a pop and sales drop. As the sales drop the jobs of the people in this country who manufacture the components for that mouse go away. Then the 100 marketing jobs this company supports in California also go away. You see, perhaps you can succeed in forcing this company to assemble these mouses in the US, but there just isn't any way you can force the American consumer to pay 80% more for the "made in America" version.

As Bruce Bartlett says in an article listed in my reading assignments, "No nation has ever gotten rich by forcing its citizens to pay more for domestic goods and services that could have been procured more cheaply abroad."

What we are seeing here is a demonstration of the "government owes me" mentality of far too many Americans. Every time you arrive at a speed bump in your life's journey you start screaming to the government for help. Sure, the speed bump is going to slow you down a bit ... but just keep moving forward and things inevitably pick up speed again. Americans are becoming helpless whiners. The more helpless you are, and the more you whine, the more likely it is you're going to vote for a Democrat. Democrats specialize in stroking the malcontent.

Congratulations, whiners. At a time when America is fighting World War IV, the war against Islamic terrorism ... you're going to vote for a candidate who wants to treat terrorism as a freaking law enforcement problem because you've made some pitiful jobs choices. Pitiful.

What "is" pitiful is GWBush's claim that his tax cuts are gonna generate 2.8 million additional jobs this year.

CI -- don't see it as a pity, see it as a business opportunity. This seems like a good time to renew an offer I made in another thread, and which you joined into. I am willing to bet any conservative on A2K that the economy will *not* add 2.8 million jobs throughout 2004. Let's see if you guys have the conviction to put your money where your mouth is.

If I counted correctly, CI and I have had 0 takers so far.

CI, You wrote:

Please don't take me to task if you didn't mean it when you wrote it.

That may be partly due to CI's problem deciding what it is he means. :wink: (Just kidding, CI. NO OFFENSE INTENDED!)

Seriously though, I don't care either way about the 2.8M number. I'm sure we will continue to see job growth, and that's a good thing. (I wouldn't care about that statement or the specific number had Clinton made it, so don't waste our time going there.)

Sorry, c.i. ; I was on the right page (which is in GM's Q4 '03 Shareholder's Report) when I typed " ...up from $1.74 billion, or $3.35 a share, in 2002 ... " , but I mis-typed. 2003 is the year at discussion, not 2002. Sorry.

Scrat, I'm only speaking to the claims this president makes to the American People. I don't give a sh*t about 2.8 million jobs since I'm retired, and have no plans to return to the work force. What galls me more than anything is how this president is able to throw numbers around that has very little substance in them. BTW, both statements are true on their own merit.
timber, No need to be sorry. I've made those types of mistakes too! Clarification is enough.

Again, I can only go by YOUR statements in trying to ascertain what "disturbs" YOU. When you write....
...I assume that you mean exactly what you have written. When you then take me to task for thinking that (!), and tell me that you don't care at all about those manufacturing jobs (?), it leaves me a bit puzzled , but my confusion is clearly not due to anything I have done.

So, if you are, in fact, "disturbed" about the loss of manufacturing jobs, I hope that the Sowell piece will put your mind at ease, and if you are not "disturbed" by that loss (whether "most" disturbed or only a little bit) I hope you will read it anyway, as it is quite an enjoyable read.

Scrat, Exactly what bothers you about my statement, "Quote:
What disturbs me most with this "recovery" is the fact that we're still down 2.8 million factory jobs since Bush took the helm in 2001."

Nothing bothers me about that statement. I am simply puzzled that you made it and then took me to task for assuming you meant it. (You have twice denied "caring" about those manufacturing jobs since writing that. If our roles were reversed, wouldn't that puzzle you?)

But again, read the Sowell piece. Either way--disturbed or not--you might find it informative.

It seems to me your confusion is "your" problem, not mine.

BTW, I'm often confused myself, so join the 'party.'

Um, okay.