How has Bush economics affected the job market in the United States?

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, Bush economics [including his fathers] has hit pretty close to home. One of my biggest customers [historically], and a one hundred old Portland company has gone south - all the way to Mexico. Oh, the corporate owners will still make money, but five hundred highly skilled workers are effectively doomed - most are already gone.

Under the Bush plan, they will enjoy their new jobs as Walmart greeters and stockers.
They will be employed, according to Bush.

 

[GENIERE]

And Kerry's plan is to stop this by ...?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

See his web site. Johnkerry.com

It is exactly like Ross Perot said, "that giant sucking sound will be jobs leaving the country".

The legacy of the Bush dynasty: The death of US industry.

 

[PRBot.Com]

Gee wiz, it was Bush who came up with NAFTA, right?

Anyway, it sicken me to see so many idiots blame a president for loss of Jobs or give credit for new jobs.

There is VERY little a president can do to create or lose jobs. Too bad so many people have very little common sense.

On another note, Bush inherited a recession or at least a declining economy...

I really wish we had another candidate to vote for though because Bush is a religious fanatic and Kerry a communist.

Its a shame.

Max

 

[chroot]

I'm considering leaving the country voluntarily if Bush is re-elected.

- Warren

 

[GENIERE]

I'm considering leaving the country voluntarily if Bush is re-elected.

- Warren

Wasn't there an actor who...?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm considering leaving the country voluntarily if Bush is re-elected.

That's what Tsu keeps saying.

I keep reminding her that Hawaii is not another country

 

[Kerrie]

"W" stands for "wrong"...

Although it is easy for us to place direct blame on the president, we also need to consider that the American worker does require a much higher wage for jobs in general. China and Mexico are taking US manufacturing jobs because they don't require such high wages. This is fact. What I think should be done is higher taxes to corporations who outsource jobs, and tax incentives to those who take a hit in the American Payroll, but do their part in keeping our country's people employed. Just curious Ivan, can you say which company it is? Maybe it's one of my customers :)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Just curious Ivan, can you say which company it is? Maybe it's one of my customers :)

I can't say publicly but I will PM you. Please do not repeat the name though.

 

[PRBot.Com]

I believe in a free market economy and I believe people desrve a salary they and the emplyer agree upon. That is all.

To dictate to the private sector how much to pay employyes is to implement communism by proxy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ross Perot told us that this would happen. It was a core issue of his campaign. He told us that Bush economics would destroy US industry. Kerry intends to address this issue.

Bush argues that Taco Bell Register Operator is gainful employment.

Edit: I misread Kerries post. Same point still.

 

[wasteofo2]

I believe in a free market economy and I believe people desrve a salary they and the emplyer agree upon. That is all.

To dictate to the private sector how much to pay employyes is to implement communism by proxy.

So you're for abolishing child-labor laws, minimum wage laws, laws regulating the amount of hours someone can work, workers unions, laws enforcing safe work places etc? All these things were set in place by Socialists when unrestrained capitalism started employing 5 year olds to work in coal mines for 14 hours a day, would you be for a 1910 style capitalistic society?

 

[PRBot.Com]

I am for a free market economy, yes.

 

[wasteofo2]

I am for a free market economy, yes.

Yeah, we tried that, it failed and people's rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness were infringed upon by corporations that were only interested in making a profit.

If corporations decide wages they pay, they'll all collectively pay next to nothing and keep people in a constant state of poverty so they'll have to work for their entire waking lives and never have any substantial amount of money. This happened, people in the past saw it's downfalls, and they adjusted the system accordingly (to a degree). I believe you can find some nice free-market economies in places like Thailand and Bangladesh if you want.

Are you really so ideological as to think that 1 system and 1 system alone can work perfectly, and not see the value of mixing and matching the best of many different systems of doing things to make one better than all other pure economic systems?

 

[PRBot.Com]

I don't believe any system can work "perfectly" because I don't believe in perfection.

As for your "wage" concern, as the wages keep going up the value of the dollar keeps going down. I find it ironic that anyone with half a brain thinks government enforced wages is a good thing. Making things more expensive is not the answer but I can't expect socialists to understand economics.

 

[wasteofo2]

I don't believe any system can work "perfectly" because I don't believe in perfection.

As for your "wage" concern, as the wages keep going up the value of the dollar keeps going down. I find it ironic that anyone with half a brain thinks government enforced wages is a good thing. Making things more expensive is not the answer but I can't expect socialists to understand economics.

You're ignoring the reality of what happened directly after the industrial revolution all over the world. People were poor, had poor work conditions, lived in slums, worked for much longer hours than they currently do and had much lower standards of living. 5 year olds worked 14 hours a day in coal mines and died of black-lung before reaching their thirty's if they weren't killed in horrible accidents on the job. This is the reality of Capitalism without government restrictions. Hell, it's not even aincent history that people have forgotten the flaws of, it's going on now all around the world in countries like Indonesia and Thailand, why don't you go to one of those countries if you value a totally free-market economy so much, and why haven't these free-market systems you seem to love so much overrun America with it's socialist elements? It's because America's addition of socialistic elements to it's capitalism are what kept it from a full on communist revolution, and our specific blend is what's kept America the economic power it is today.

However, I'm making a moot point, us "socialists" can't expect laissez faire capitalists to undestand concepts like caring for the greater good, fairness or value for things other than money in general.

 

[PRBot.Com]

You're ignoring the reality of what happened directly after the industrial revolution all over the world.

And since the new laws in the US "the world" has changed and there are no more 5 year olds working 14 hours a day? get over it.

There are 18 times more slaves in the world today since socialism has infested so many nations.

The quality of life has not improved in the US for anyone except for the parsites the welfare supports.

You socialists claimed imcreasing minimum wage would improve the lives of millions. It has not. Minimum wage was raised and misser y raised in parallel because the dollar was devalued and things became more expensive. Energy costs have gone up, sewer costs in cities have gone up, labor costs have gone up. You cannot improve the lives of people by increasing the costs of labor.

What you end up doing is you hurt the local economy because foreign countries can produce the same products cheaper thus loss of jobs here.

1+1=2. Very simple stuff.

 

[wasteofo2]

And since the new laws in the US "the world" has changed and there are no more 5 year olds working 14 hours a day? get over it.

Did I say that? No. But there are no more 5 year olds working 14 hours a day in the USA, they're all in other countries doing the work that people like you want to be done for cheap.

There are 18 times more slaves in the world today since socialism has infested so many nations.

Get it straight, I'm not a socialist, I'm in favor of Capitalism with reasonable restrictions, such as those the American government has on them now. Of course countries such as the USSR and China have done the same crappy things that happened in the early 1900's, I'm not defending them.

The quality of life has not improved in the US for anyone except for the parsites the welfare supports.

If you really think that the quality of life for the average American isn't better in 2004 than it was in 1904, there's just something fundamentally wrong with your grasp of history and reality.

You socialists claimed imcreasing minimum wage would improve the lives of millions. It has not. Minimum wage was raised and misser y raised in parallel because the dollar was devalued and things became more expensive. Energy costs have gone up, sewer costs in cities have gone up, labor costs have gone up. You cannot improve the lives of people by increasing the costs of labor.

Go read something about America in the wake of the industrial revolution, if you don't think that the reforms that were brought about around the 30's improved the quality of life for people, you just have a fundamental misundestdanding of history.

What you end up doing is you hurt the local economy because foreign countries can produce the same products cheaper thus loss of jobs here.

So we should reduce our standards of labor to those of Mexico? Great idea, go propose it to anyone who works in a factory and I'm sure they'll see your cool, level-headed reasoning as totally logical and a great idea.

1+1=2. Very simple stuff.

You sure it's not 2+2=5?

 

[PRBot.Com]

If you really think that the quality of life for the average American isn't better in 2004 than it was in 1904, there's just something fundamentally wrong with your grasp of history and reality.

You are mixing apples and oranges. Yes, life is better because of new technologies and drugs not because of government regulations.

Since the minimum wage was implemented the number of peop,e who work for minimum wage has quadrupled and since the minum wage forced the value of the dollar to go lower and the cost of labor to go up there are MORE people living in missery than not.

 

[wasteofo2]

You are mixing apples and oranges. Yes, life is better because of new technologies and drugs not because of government regulations.

Since the minimum wage was implemented the number of peop,e who work for minimum wage has quadrupled and since the minum wage forced the value of the dollar to go lower and the cost of labor to go up there are MORE people living in missery than not.

Please qualify these ridiculous claims or stop repeating them. How do you define "living in missery", and where do you get your statistics that the majority of Americans are living "in missery"?

 

[PRBot.Com]

I get all my information from Socialist International :D http://www.socialistinternational.org :D

 

[wasteofo2]

I get all my information from Socialist International :D http://www.socialistinternational.org :D

That's it, you're just ridiculous, don't bother responding to anything I say anymore nor trying to get me to respond to anything you say, you're on my ignore list so I won't have to read any of your nonsense again.

 

[Kerrie]

Bush argues that Taco Bell Register Operator is gainful employment.

Many college educated professionals have had to take a jobs that are of the service industry because another in India now has his/her job. Over time, if this continues to happen, will there be a bigger separation in the class systems-say, no middle class with either the super rich and those living in poverty?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hey, no problem for Bush's buddies. They can still claim their companies are doing well. They can still tell us how the economy is robust, everything is wonderful, and people have jobs.

So I wonder how much Gas Station Attendants stash away each month. Maybe Taxi Drivers do well. How about Hotel Clerk? If you have a degree in engineering, maybe you should consider Sanitation Engineer. Well, according to Bush, anyone in these professions are doing just great! I'm sure they would all agree.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Job volatility (periods of personal unemployment) has gone way up in recent years. That's presented as "an efficient job market" by corporation fans, but it increases the stress and anxiety that static or falling payrolls induces. The people who can cope with this easily, like the people who still have long term jobs with one employer, are in the minority.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I can name companies like Tyson Foods, Frito Lay, Boeing, FMC, and many more in which life long time employees now fear the loss of their jobs. Boeing has layed off 30 year employees! This has never been seen before.

Its all going overseas. But hey, the corporations are doing fine; they just don't provide any jobs. Oh wait, that's okay as long as they're profitable.

 

[Aquamarine]

I find this thread strange. If ones assumes (falsely) that third world countries are making the western world poorer, isn't this great? Shouldn't the rich western world give to the really poor people in the third world? Isn't that what left-liberals have always argued for? Why are the really poor people in the third world worth less than those in the western world? Isn't unchanged income a small price to pay for reducing poverty in the rest of the world?

But of course the real reason for reduced growth in the western world is reduced capitalism. They have no one to blame but themselves.

Regarding the industrial revolution, people were not forced to work. They were free to live and die on the edge of starvation like people had done all the time before. But people probably preferred to work rather than see their children die, now given the choice. It must be understood that GDP/capita was essentially unchanged until that time, making it impossible to raise the living standards to any great extent.

 

[Locrian]

I find this thread strange. If ones assumes (falsely) that third world countries are making the western world poorer, isn't this great? Shouldn't the rich western world give to the really poor people in the third world? Isn't that what left-liberals have always argued for? Why are the really poor people in the third world worth less than those in the western world? Isn't unchanged income a small price to pay for reducing poverty in the rest of the world?

I don't know about the rest of the post, and I doubt our ideologies are similar...

but that is an excellent paragraph.

 

[Kerrie]

I find this thread strange. If ones assumes (falsely) that third world countries are making the western world poorer, isn't this great? Shouldn't the rich western world give to the really poor people in the third world? Isn't that what left-liberals have always argued for? Why are the really poor people in the third world worth less than those in the western world? Isn't unchanged income a small price to pay for reducing poverty in the rest of the world?

But of course the real reason for reduced growth in the western world is reduced capitalism. They have no one to blame but themselves.

Regarding the industrial revolution, people were not forced to work. They were free to live and die on the edge of starvation like people had done all the time before. But people probably preferred to work rather than see their children die, now given the choice. It must be understood that GDP/capita was essentially unchanged until that time, making it impossible to raise the living standards to any great extent.

this is why i love america, because of the opportunity we have to sustain a higher standard of living then most of the world. as for 3rd world countries go, don't preach on your soap box unless you have served time in the peace corps...

Hey, no problem for Bush's buddies. They can still claim their companies are doing well. They can still tell us how the economy is robust, everything is wonderful, and people have jobs.

i understand completely what you are saying...the bush administration has not handled the whole recession very well at all. logically though, don't these corporations need the american dollar still to thrive? if the average american watching their dollars and chooses not spend it at corporations because they have to feed their families, won't the corporations in the end fail too?

 

[russ_watters]

Job volatility (periods of personal unemployment) has gone way up in recent years. That's presented as "an efficient job market" by corporation fans, but it increases the stress and anxiety that static or falling payrolls induces. The people who can cope with this easily, like the people who still have long term jobs with one employer, are in the minority.

I consider that a positive thing. I like the fact that I have the freedom to choose to change jobs multiple times in my life at higher pay.

My boss's first job was working as a draftsman. He got yelled at once for spending too much time hanging around the engineers. He told his boss he wanted to learn and go beyond being just a draftsman. His boss pointed to people in the drafting room (there were dozens of draftsmen) and said - 'that guy has been there for 15 years, that guy 20, that guy 30, etc.' Yea job security! Count me out (my boss quit immediately and today instead of still being in that room, owns his own company).

Regarding unemployment itself though, HERE is some perspective: Following the 2001 recession, unemployment peaked (as it always does after a recession) at 6.3% in 2003.

After the previous recession, it peaked at 7.8% (in 1992).
After the previous recession, it peaked at 10.8% (1982).
After the previous recession, it peaked at 9.0% (1975).

You guys want to tell me again how bad we have it today (or, rather, had it in 2003 - today, unemployment is at 5.4% and dropping)?

Aquamarine - great post/point.

Boeing has layed off 30 year employees! This has never been seen before.

Huh? That sounds like early retirement. That's been common for decades!

edit: Forseeing an inevitable reply, no, the new jobs created under Bush are not primarily lower-paying than the ones lost. http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h03ar.html are the income limits for each 5th and the top 5% (what you have to make to be in each category). If people were dropping from the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th 5th down to the 1st fifth, it would be pushing the average and the upper limit of the bottom 5th down even as unemployment is decreasing(the new people in the group would push the people on top out). Is it happening? Hint: no - even at peak unemployment, there was only a small drop in the salary of those on the bottom (1.6%), but its now going back up. In fact, of every group, the top 5% was the hardest hit by the recession/high unemployment - average income is still down 2.8% from its peak 2 years ago - the other 4 groups are all at all-time highs.