Reply
Fri 3 Sep, 2004 09:51 am
Isn't that good news for everyone in America?
Cycloptichorn
Not to mention that it's not such great news -- slower than predicted. It's OK, not great.
Seems like good news to me too Cy. I'm sure most Americans are happy about it, even Kerry. Regardless of the effects this news has on either campaign, I don't think Kerry was sitting around hoping the numbers were a lot worse.
Of course, if he really was hoping for worse numbers, then I guess this is the second time in my life I have been wrong.
Now if giant companies like Intel would stop slashing their profit projections and the stock market would rebound from sinking to the level when Bush took office, it could be much better news. The question is just what kinds of jobs were created?
Lightwizard wrote:Now if giant companies like Intel would stop slashing their profit projections and the stock market would rebound from sinking to the level when Bush took office, it could be much better news. The question is just what kinds of jobs were created?
Maybe the kind of jobs where people can work to earn money instead of sitting around waiting for the government to give them money.
Is the economy really better off tho, CR, if the jobs that were created are inferior to those that were there before?
It certainly doesn't help the idea of an 'ownership society' when the average wages decrease in the middle and lower classes, who are the ones being affected by the unemployment. In fact, it increases the gap between the rich and the poor while seeming to be a productive move for our economy.
In another thread AU posted a link to how the gov't is changing the way census material is reported in order to make it look like there are less poor people than there really are. I'll try and hunt it up for ya.
Cycloptichorn
Let's put it this way Cy, the economy is better off for thosw 144,000 who filled those jobs, unless you believe they were better off being out of work completely.
Those workers may or may not feel they are better off (and without the snideness of some who believe they have all been living off the government), but in the big picture it's offset by other lackluster indicators of a "growing" economy.
They are better off in the short run, but as LW (good to see ya more often again btw LW) points out, over time it has a really negative effect on our economy and people's lives when wages decrease.
I mean, sure, people who are out of work are happy that they have jobs. But what happens when we have millions of people whose jobs aren't as good as they used to be? It negatively impacts their spending, their families, education, etc...
Cycloptichorn
So your answer is to only create jobs that pay what? $30,000/year? $50,000/year? Wonder what that would do for the economy. Oh yeah, I know, drive up prices so that the poverty line will then be at $30,000.
The fact is, there is a need for jobs at all wage levels. Without lower paying, entry level positions being created, where will younger adults get the practical experience to qualify themselves for higher paying positions?
I agree that it is certainly desirable to create jobs that are higher paying. But those can and will never be the only types of jobs that must be created. So to me, any way you slice it, the news that 144,000 jobs were created is a plus. Regardless of who the man is in the WH on whose watch they were created.
Correct -- to Cyplohorn, that is.
If all those jobs created were at or barely above mimimum wage, how does that make it the rosiest news of the day and bad news for Kerry?
I agree that new jobs are a plus. That's why I said earlier that this is good news for everyone.
But, CR, despite our little foray into Socialism as presented by your last post, I don't think we should 'only' create jobs that pay 30k, or anything like that.... I just think that the jobs created need to match the quality of the jobs that were LOST if you want to consider what's happening right now as a success - otherwise it's a sort of an empty victory.
Cycloptichorn
Well guess what ehBeth, I personally think everyone would want to see 200,000 jobs created per month. So what is the point you wish to make? I bet Bush would love to see 200,000 new jobs per month. So I guess he should wave his magic wand and create them? Nope, can't be done that way. Should he have a full-proof way of creating them? Not even economists agree on the best way to create new jobs. So I guess Bush and whoever next wins the White House will have to use their own best judgement and rely on the advice of trusted experts to do the best they can.
Meanwhile, guess we will all have to be happy for the 144,000 who have filled these newly created jobs.
CoastalRat wrote:So what is the point you wish to make?
Just reporting the industry news.
ehBeth wrote:CoastalRat wrote:So what is the point you wish to make?
Just reporting the industry news.
Didn't mean to have that comment seen as a snide remark, sorry. After I reread I realized it could be taken wrongly. I just think it is so funny how one side will take good news and try to spin it into bad by saying people want better news. But your point probably did need to be made for those who may not have gone and read the article.
Re: More bad news for Kerry
More bad news? What was the other bad news?
Bush Family Values: Teenage Son, Dad and Gramps all working for minimum wage at the same McDonalds.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace