AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@georgeob1,

Good evening. I have been browsing around the new BLS numbers. I can't quite find the table I have been looking for. Please try this google: BLS table B-1.
The 2nd option gives data re employment by every sector in our economy. I looked at the seasonally adjusted columns for Oct 2009 and Oct 2010.
Way down at the bottom is Government, broken down by Federal, State and Local. That does seem to show a decline in 2010, particularly in Local, which lagged behind the private sector. Perhaps the lag is attributable to governments being on a different fiscal year or perhaps to government inertia compared to the private sector or perhaps to unions (although there are no government unions in many places in the country).
Anyway, if one of yall thinks this table is pertinent, please link it.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

It has nothing to do with inertia; it's about government's inability to do most things without efficiency and proper the lack of fiscal management skills. When times are good, they spend more than they take in believing that the income stream in the future is guaranteed. They approve pay structures, retirement benefits, and other "benefits" to attract the most unproductive people in our society. They work for 30 years, and live off the taxpayers for the next 50 years at 60 to 90% of the pay with lifetime health care benefits.

They've been going broke for decades, but are too stubborn to learn that you can't continue paying people benefits for longer than their work span. That's simple logic. It doesn't require Econ 101 to learn that simple truth.

The government unions are so corrupted, they will not compromise on pay or benefits to keep their own salaries and benefits. They would rather see future government workers not have jobs.

Only governments play budget games to make sure their income and expenses are balanced for the year, but any simpleton knows that the games they play are unethical, unrealistic, and not manageable.

The Tea Party will have their hands full when they try to apply their campaign rhetoric to the reality of Washington DC. It's not going to happen.

0 Replies

http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/MARKMCKITRICK.jpg

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Got this in an email. I assume it's accurate.

Quote:

For whatever it’s worth, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says for the first time in five months, the U.S. economy added jobs in October -- 151,000, to be exact…

* Private employers added 159,000 jobs

* Uncle Sam cut 1,000 jobs

* State and local governments cut another 7,000

The U-3 unemployment rate commonly reported in the media held steady at 9.6%. The U-6 figure that includes part-timers who want to work full time and people who’ve given up looking for work, fell a tad to 17%.

2 Replies

@JPB,

Sounds about right to this observer, but what we need are trend-lines that shows increased jobs for at least six months.

0 Replies

@JPB,

Yes, those numbers are correct, JPB.
The average work week, by the way, for people who have jobs, increased by 6 minutes.
Be aware, though, that seasonal jobs (for the holidays) may start to skew the numbers.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

A double deep recession and a very slow climb up.

http://www.ezimages.net/upload/5MIN/TheLongSlowGrind.PNG

Quote:

As usual, the devil of this report lies in the details, some of which the statisticians are unable to manipulate. A few that stand out…

* Manufacturing jobs actually fell by 7,000

* The only reason U-3 held steady is that a quarter-million people dropped out of the labor force. If you’re not in the labor force, you can’t be counted as unemployed!

* Thus, the labor participation rate -- the percentage of adults either working or looking for work -- fell last month to 64.5% -- a 26-year low.

Source

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB, Good graph; the longer and higher job loss for 2007 pretty much represents what I think will result in a prolonged recession. The fact that the feds will feed $600 billion into the economy seems like trying to cure the current economic problems with pumping money into it without the means by which to borrow and spend it.

It may have helped the stock market this week, but I think it's going to be short-lived.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

It would be nice if all of us could just print up some cash and try to cure our own individual economic woes.

Sadly, Obama and his ilk are as dumb as a sack of hammers when it comes to economics.

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

In a way we can; borrow the money and pay interest on it. The feds will use the money to buy back bonds to increase the money supply, but as I've explained earlier, most businesses and individuals do not have the means to borrow and spend that money. They already owe too much on their homes; their mortgage is worth more than the market value.

You can't fix an economy with that kind of constraint on consumers when they already worry about their jobs, and how to pay for their children's college education.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Oops. I am not sure why Cyclo and I are on this thread talking about employment numbers. But it is always nice to meet up with JPB, Georgeob and CI. Very civil of course. Back to the econ thread for me.
I am still hoping that we could see a discussion here, led by one of our conservative folks, about the potential candidates for President in 2012.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Laying off increasing numbers of government workers during a time when we have a huge amount of people out of work is completely and totally foolish. Yet Okie and other Republicans here say that this is EXACTLY what should be done. I can't believe that an ounce of actual logical thought has been put into this by them.

Cycloptichorn

Ask any economist that knows who produces things in this country, cyclops. Any time a job sector in a free market becomes non-productive, those jobs go away and jobs reappear where something productive can be done to meet the demand. That is the beauty of a free market, that it cleanses itself and raises efficiencies by shifting the labor market to areas of higher demand. That is why employees of buggy manufacturers have mostly lost their jobs, and they may now be working in more productive private sectors that have higher demand for the service or product provided.

In accord with what I have just pointed out in the above, the government is not a productive enterprise, it is highly stagnant and not delivering what the people want, need, and have paid for. Therefore, the only logical effect of this should be the trimming down of the non-productive and wasteful employment, so that the market can re-direct those jobs into sectors and industries that actually are producing something valuable and useful for those that pay for them. It is long overdue for us, the American people, to once again take control of a government that is out of control, to pare it down to a size that can be paid for and to have it do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. We should be running it, not it running us.

One of my suggestions was to apply a sizeable pay cut to federal employees. If a private business was going broke, and the employees were overpaid, that is one of the first cost cutting measures that would be looked at, and it should be no different for government employees. After all, they are not any more special than we are out here, and it is us that is paying them to serve us. They pay little or nothing and they produce almost nothing tangible for the consumers out here, such as food, shelter, and clothing.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

In accord with what I have just pointed out in the above, the government is not a productive enterprise, it is highly stagnant and not delivering what the people want, need, and have paid for.

On the contrary; many if not most functions of government work well, quite well indeed, on both the State and Federal level. So well that you don't even notice them, that you can go about your business, make your fortune, and have it all protected by a powerful force of civil and criminal law. And it's been that way for a long time, and this is part of the US' success in the world.

Quote:

After all, they are not any more special than we are out here, and it is us that is paying them to serve us. They pay little or nothing and they produce almost nothing tangible for the consumers out here, such as food, shelter, and clothing.

Is this serious?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

okie has no perception of how government works for us. He thinks homeland security, all public transportation systems, all communication systems, education, public health services, consumer protections, DMV, CDC, our military, border security, are all waste, and not worth the cost. He believes roads, airlines, subways, and railways are produced and run by
private enterprise without any government supervision for safety.

Why do we have government? After all, isn't Obama transforming it into a socialist, communist, country?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I suspect that okie would regard everyone more than one-sixteenth of an inch to the left of him of socialistic leanings.

0 Replies

What the Obamablamers fail to recognize is that many things have to worsen while they are being corrected. The economy might have to sink lower yet. However, if world oil production has peaked, as some say it has, then the economy might never recover.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Conservatism will prevail. It will take time to reverse the many mistakes
made by Obama and his democrats, but Conservatism will prevail.

0 Replies

Every time I see the words conservatism or conservative, I think of this quote:

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth, Act 5, scene 5

0 Replies

POMade understands nothing about American Conservatism.

0 Replies

It is what it is!

Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt

Year……TOTAL US CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
1980……………..99 million [CARTER]
1988…………… 115 million [REAGAN]
1992…………….118 million [BUSH41]
2000……………137 million [CLINTON]
2007………..….146 million [BUSH43]
2008………….. 145 million [BUSH43]
2009,……….....140 million [OBAMA]
2010.……………139 million [OBAMA] (as of September 2010 and not final year of term)

Year.…….PERCENT OF CIVILIAN POPULATION EMPLOYED
1980…………………………………….59.2 [CARTER]
1988…………………………………….62.3 [REAGAN]
1992…………………………………….61.5 [BUSH41]
2000…………………………………….64.4 [CLINTON]
2007…………………………………….63.0 [BUSH43]
2008…………………………………….62.2 [BUSH43]
2009…………………………………….59.3 [OBAMA]
2010…………………………………….58.5 [OBAMA] (as of September 2010 and not final year of term)

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know