Reasons to be optimistic

A single month of jobs creation on the heels of 30 months of jobs loses does not make a party -- not yet.

Burger flipping jobs aside, let's revisit this topic at the end of August and see if Bush's economic miracle is truly underway, or whether March's strong jobs showing was like Cheney's diet -- just a month phenomena.

Agreed we should look at this again on down the road; however the author of the column presented some interesting facts and debunked the accusation that millions of jobs have been lost over the last few years. And he explained very well how that accusation is simply not true.

He is also a fellow at the Heritage Foundation which has a very large dog indeed in the eternal fight between liberal and conservative political views. Cui bono?

That makes what he said untrue? Anything that is positive is untrue? Come on. Let's hear your facts that debunk his.

Setanta:

Very true.

Revisionist history is the Heritage Foundation's metier. :wink:

My point is that his "facts" are a manipulation of statistical data, something which he has criticized himself. In historiography (the study of how history gets written, how records are compiled), there is a question, which is cui bono, to whom the benefit. In that the Heritage Foundation is a "conservative think tank," and their donations derive from conservatives and other conservative organizations, the answer to the question of who benefits by the "spin" he puts on these particular statistics (he can easily, of course, ignore any which may tend not to make his case) is the Foundation for which he works. It is an important question in considering the value of any source. And, in fact, this is a secondary or tertiary source--he does not produce the statistics, nor even publish them, he only interprets. There is not reason to assume that he has, as you alleged, presented facts. Given the general tenor of economic news over the last few years, this flies in the face of statistical analyses, including those of a Republican dominated government. He has proven nothing, and the reason for his statements is suspect.

But the point is, facts are facts regardless of which 'side' puts them out there. If I am ever guilty of a rant in a forum like this, it is a rant against the tendency to paint everything black or white with no wiggle room whatsoever to give the opposing side any credit for anything.

If you tell me you refuse to consider testimony from a conservative because all conservatives lie about anything and everything and therefore whatever they say must be discarded, then okay. I may think you're a shortsighted idiot, but I'll take what you tell me at face value and move on.

But to debunk what a man says purely because he is associated with a 'conservative' organization suggests that liberals will manipulate the facts to suit their purposes as well. I don't think all do. At best, this kind of polarization based on ideology alone is not helpful to constructive debate.

I used this article because it supports what my local financial gurus have been telling me for weeks.

Fox, I'm not trying to beat up on you, nor am i willing to necessarily call this gentleman a liar. However, the Heritage Foundation is not a news gathering and reporting organization, with a reputation at stake. It is an organization the avowed purpose of which is to forward a conservative political agenda. In that the reelection of the Shrub may well hinge upon the population's perception of the economic situation, it is in the interest of those who have a conservative agenda to put the best light on the economic situation. Therefore, i say that the answer to the question cui bono? is the Heritage Foundation. Furthermore, the author is not the source of the statistics about which he makes claim, and we have no way of knowing what he has failed to take notice of-although at least two things occur to me right away. During the Reagan administration, the Department of Labor (the source for such statistics) began counting active duty military personnel among the employed, thereby effectively reducing overnight the percentage of the unemployed. Note, the relative number, the percentage, of the unemployed "fell," but no claim was made that employment has risen. He does not take note of that. Additionally, when people who have been reporting to the state agencies which disburse unemployment compensation stop receiving benefits, and stop reporting that they are looking for work, they fall off the DoL's radar in the employement/unemployment equation.

This gentleman refers to self-employment. Just how rosy a prospect that is for a formerly unemployed person is problematic. If you are employed by someone else, 6.2% of your income will be withheld for Social Security, and 1.45% for Medicare, and your employer matches those amounts. If you are self-employed, you pay 12.4% and 2.9% respectively, off the top. Any health insurance you may have you will pay for yourself. Any money you might scrape together for a retirement fund will not be matched by an employer. It is by no means certain that those who manage to create self-employment are better off than they were before, whether when employed or when receiving unemployment compensation. This gentleman is trying to make a case for a rosy economic picture, but, in my opinion, fails because his piece ignores some core realities of life, and of how statistics are interpreted; and as i originally pointed out, is employed by the Heritage Foundation, whose motives in such an endeavor are suspect.

Therefore, i am saying that whether or not facts are involved is questionable, and the messenger's motives for alleging those "facts" is questionable.

Well, i wrote that before i saw that you choose to charaterize me as an idiot. I'll waste no more time discussing things with you.

As somebody who is self employed, I do take care of my own insurance, retirement etc. so I know what is involved. I resigned last July from a very lucrative job with a corporation run by 'good liberals' who didn't provide insurance or retirement benefits for their employees either. Am I better off? I make less money now, but I prefer working for myself, setting my own hours, and being in charge of my own destiny. I am happier, yes. Is that better off? Depends on your definition I guess.

Nevertheless, I'll agree with Setanta that one must consider the source before wholeheartedly swallowing the facts presented. I give a good deal of credit and accolades to all conservatives and liberals who understand that bias on either side can color how the facts are presented. Liberals have as much motive to distort facts to make Bush look bad as conservatives have motive to distort facts to make him look good.

Being a former member of the media, however, I can assure you that many, if not most, in that profession have their own axes to grind and are by no means any more reliable or bound by ethics or a 'reputation to maintain' than any others who write opinion from whatever source.

Again, I chose the particular piece I posted because it isn't all doom and gloom and it supports what my local financial gurus have been telling me. And it is an explanation for how a 'jobless recovery' can result in amazing increases in productivity and a booming economy. Maybe the recovery hasn't been so 'jobless' as some statistics suggest. I think that is worth exploring so that we do have the honest facts and not those colored by political expediency.

As an aside: the NY Times headlined the piece "Labor's Lost Jobs" - the rest of the headline I added to better reflect the actual content of the piece. I bet it galled the Times to run it at all.

And Setanta, I did NOT characterize you as an idiot. Please read the paragraph in context.