Jobs report

[NoCalMike 0]

It is really incredible...

 

Do you realize that you are actually arguing that I am wrong about how my life is? How the lives are around me?...You are actually arguing that I am wrong about this, but politicians who have no idea what this situation is really like are correct only because they are in defense your political party.

 

Incredible.

I'm arguing (And very simply) that your life isn't always indicitive of the economic situation.

well either is a grocery store going up in your area. Look nobody said there aren't ANY JOBS anywhere being created. Also it has to do with net jobs created. You have to look at new jobs opposed to how many jobs are being lost at the same time. Outsourcing jobs effects people in the midwest a lot more then people in say, a big city. When a city loses a corporation, hell, there is 100 more to choose from in a matter of minutes. In other cities, if a plant decides to move overseas, you can goodbye to the prosperity of the city and it's residents. And don't just come back with, "well move to the city, asshole"

[Justice 0]

It is really incredible...

 

Do you realize that you are actually arguing that I am wrong about how my life is? How the lives are around me?...You are actually arguing that I am wrong about this, but politicians who have no idea what this situation is really like are correct only because they are in defense your political party.

 

Incredible.

I'm arguing (And very simply) that your life isn't always indicitive of the economic situation.

well either is a grocery store going up in your area. Look nobody said there aren't ANY JOBS anywhere being created. Also it has to do with net jobs created. You have to look at new jobs opposed to how many jobs are being lost at the same time. Outsourcing jobs effects people in the midwest a lot more then people in say, a big city. When a city loses a corporation, hell, there is 100 more to choose from in a matter of minutes. In other cities, if a plant decides to move overseas, you can goodbye to the prosperity of the city and it's residents. And don't just come back with, "well move to the city, asshole"

I never said it was; I specifically said it wasn't, and cited it to show him that not all areas are suffering, and to say that "OMG MY AREA SUCKS" is not an argument when it comes to the economy. I slammed him for making a claim on simply acendotal evidence. The job report does show a huge increase though the household survey, one so big that there has to be some sort of middle ground somewhere in there. Even the middle ground is a substatial gain, too.

 

Plus, NoCal, I'm in the Midwest.The rural Midwest. Trust me, the economy is doing great around a lot of rural areas around me, though I've seen slumping around as well. Some companys move out, other things move in, okay? That's how life works. Some towns die off; new towns start up. Welcome to life.

 

I think what baffles me most about this response is that it's clearly trying to come to the aid of someone who doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about, someone who makes you, Tyler, JotW, Robbie, and (To a lesser extent) Jig look bad. Look at his argument: Can you honestly tell me that's a 'sound' argument? I'm blasting him for just posting Democratic Party-line shit (Even though he's a... *snicker*... Libertarian). He follows the God damn party more faithfully than you do. Why the hell are you defending him for doing nothing but make you looks shitty by presenting your own arguments in the shittiest fashion possible (See: They Knew topic on Iraq). Explain, please.

 

Oh, and tell me if you honestly think he's a real Libertarian.

[snuffbox 0]

Why would I lie about my party affiliation or philosophy?

 

I am in favor of vast social liberites and the smallest government possible. Im in favor of repeal of marijuana laws and the enactment of taxes thereon. I favor taxation ideas like that and the elimination of worthless money spending in favor of massive taxcuts...next to zero for low-middle income, and a fraction of the current for wealthier people(yes, I realize that leans to a more socialist libertarianism. I favor free trade but strongly disagree with tax breaks for American companies shipping factories to forein nations.

 

I could continue with my platform?...

 

Please note, just because one doesnt like George Bush doesnt mean they are a Democrat...dont let Coulter and Hannity fool you.

 

 

The only people in the Bush regime that I genuinely loathe are Cheney and Ashcroft for their attacks on Americans and their ideals(I do respect the intelligence of Cheney)....as I have said before, I respect Bush as a man but I feel he is the most 'wrong' president since Nixon or Hoover.

[Justice 0]

Why would I lie about my party affiliation or philosophy?

I could continue with my platform?...

So that you aren't pegged as a simple "Party-Line Dem"?

 

I am in favor of vast social liberites and the smallest government possible. Im in favor of repeal of marijuana laws and the enactment of taxes thereon. I favor taxation ideas like that and the elimination of worthless money spending in favor of massive taxcuts...next to zero for low-middle income, and a fraction of the current for wealthier people(yes, I realize that leans to a more socialist libertarianism. I favor free trade but strongly disagree with tax breaks for American companies shipping factories to forein nations.

 

Just because you can quote that doesn't really make me believe you. Nothing you've really said on this forum has lead me to believe you actually believe any of that. Perhaps if you actually EXPLAINED your opinion outside of witless remarks and what is generally party-line Democratic statements, I'd put more faith in you. But as of yet, you haven't shown me any of that yet.

 

Please note, just because one doesnt like George Bush doesnt mean they are a Democrat...dont let Coulter and Hannity fool you.

 

I don't listen to either, so that's pretty hard. It's because you come off as more virulent and say more Party-line Democrat things on this forums than most of the admitted democrats that gives you such a damn bad rap. You should honestly go into explaining your opinions rather than trying to make little emotional appeals that rely on evidence that is purely acentedotal.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well for one, I don't follow the Democratic Party line what-so-ever. I am a liberal, but I am not constricted by a party in which does about equally nothing for me as the republicans(imo) so it often comes off like I am democrat, but that is just because Bush is the president so there is a mutual effort to want him to go....

 

Secondly, I am not defending anyone, I just looked at the thread and decided to throw my 2 cents in, not to come to anyone's aid. I feel if you post at a message board you should be able to handle your own arguments.

[snuffbox 0]

Why would I lie about my party affiliation or philosophy?

I could continue with my platform?...

So that you aren't pegged as a simple "Party-Line Dem"?

 

I am in favor of vast social liberites and the smallest government possible. Im in favor of repeal of marijuana laws and the enactment of taxes thereon. I favor taxation ideas like that and the elimination of worthless money spending in favor of massive taxcuts...next to zero for low-middle income, and a fraction of the current for wealthier people(yes, I realize that leans to a more socialist libertarianism. I favor free trade but strongly disagree with tax breaks for American companies shipping factories to forein nations.

 

Just because you can quote that doesn't really make me believe you. Nothing you've really said on this forum has lead me to believe you actually believe any of that. Perhaps if you actually EXPLAINED your opinion outside of witless remarks and what is generally party-line Democratic statements, I'd put more faith in you. But as of yet, you haven't shown me any of that yet.

 

Please note, just because one doesnt like George Bush doesnt mean they are a Democrat...dont let Coulter and Hannity fool you.

 

I don't listen to either, so that's pretty hard. It's because you come off as more virulent and say more Party-line Democrat things on this forums than most of the admitted democrats that gives you such a damn bad rap. You should honestly go into explaining your opinions rather than trying to make little emotional appeals that rely on evidence that is purely acentedotal.

Sorry guy, im libertarian...though it is interesting to a certain degree to see my affiliation under such scrutiny.

 

I plan to vote for Bednarik in November...Kerry needs alot of improvement to sway my vote.

 

I've gone on the record in this forum calling John Kerry the 'Hubert Humphrey of this generation'...I dont feel like finding that anywhere, but I feel its true, and thats not a good thing.

 

Nonetheless, Kerry stands tall over Bush in terms of leadership quality and experience.

[pappajacks 0]

Only 32K jobs were created in July when economists predicted 241K. Not to forget that the mediocre job number of June (which was 112K) was revised to 78K. That's a grand total of 110K jobs in 2 months. Hardly anything to be proud of.

 

I have trouble understanding those who say the economy is doing good. Economic figures during the last few months have shown otherwise. Factory orders, personal spending, construction spending, durable orders, housing starts and retail sales have all been lower than expected. Not to mention that the GDP for the 2nd quarter is 3%, below the forecast of 3.8% and well below the GDP of the 1st quarter which was 4.5%.

 

Don't expect Greenspan to raise rates on Tuesday by 50 basis points as many expected. Frankly he shouldnt even raise them by 25. Economy is not doing as good as some are making us believe.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, your deluded partisinship is reaching abysmal levels.

You would certainly recognize that better than I.

Bush says the economy is good, you agree....thousands are suffering through an actually bad time, its just pointless anecdotes.

Unemployment is lower now than it has been since Oct. 2001. But, yes, more people MUST be suffering now.

Are these the philosophies you learned in your poli-sci class?

Listen to your favorite president, ignore the obvious?

1) Nah, it's the curse of logic.

2) If it makes you feel better to think that...

Yes, my pay is lower. Yes, my job has laid off workers...myself included for a time. Yes, thousands and thousands have lost jobs.

Yet I'm doing better. Odd, huh? I didn't make SHIT under Clinton. So, using your logic, Clinton's economy was MUCH worse than Bush's, right?

 

Right?

 

Oh, wait, anecdotal evidence isn't really a substitute for honest-to-good evidence and proof.

well either is a grocery store going up in your area. Look nobody said there aren't ANY JOBS anywhere being created. Also it has to do with net jobs created. You have to look at new jobs opposed to how many jobs are being lost at the same time. Outsourcing jobs effects people in the midwest a lot more then people in say, a big city. When a city loses a corporation, hell, there is 100 more to choose from in a matter of minutes. In other cities, if a plant decides to move overseas, you can goodbye to the prosperity of the city and it's residents. And don't just come back with, "well move to the city, asshole"

And it's many on the left who like to make the problems worse.

 

Just for example, let's look at the hatred for Wal-Mart. How often do you hear people bitch that Wal-Mart will drive "mom and pop stores" out of business --- even though they ignore that it happens due to them SELLING STUFF CHEAPER. And, it ALSO ignores that they employ more people than anybody and are one of the best companies to START WORKING WITH.

 

But, no, have to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

The only people in the Bush regime that I genuinely loathe are Cheney and Ashcroft for their attacks on Americans and their ideals(I do respect the intelligence of Cheney)....as I have said before, I respect Bush as a man but I feel he is the most 'wrong' president since Nixon or Hoover.

Any evidence or proof of these "attacks"? Or am I not supposed to ask --- like one is not supposed to ask why the amount of actual PROOF behind other sacred cowd (you know, Bush smeared McCain, blacks were disenfranchised in FL, etc.)?

Well for one, I don't follow the Democratic Party line what-so-ever.

BWA HA HA HA!

 

I've openly criticized Bush more than you've criticized Dems.

 

"Oh, they're as bad as the Republicans" --- yet, somehow, specifics are few and far between.

-=Mike

...Not flaming so BX can get some sand out of his vagina...

[NoCalMike 0]

Just for example, let's look at the hatred for Wal-Mart. How often do you hear people bitch that Wal-Mart will drive "mom and pop stores" out of business --- even though they ignore that it happens due to them SELLING STUFF CHEAPER. And, it ALSO ignores that they employ more people than anybody and are one of the best companies to START WORKING WITH.

 

But, no, have to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

[

 

Well for one, I don't follow the Democratic Party line what-so-ever.

BWA HA HA HA!

 

I've openly criticized Bush more than you've criticized Dems.

 

"Oh, they're as bad as the Republicans" --- yet, somehow, specifics are few and far between.

the Wal-Mart structure works fine in bigger cities, where there is no effect when corporations come and go, however in smaller towns where Wal-Mart comes in and causes the shut down of mom and pop stores, then a year later decides they town does not have enough people to make them enough profit they just feel fit to move right on out, leaving the town devastated.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Some basic economic facts, I'm pulling this off of Census Data. I'd link to it, but its a search on their site. You'll have to trust me on them. I'm summarizing

 

Real after-tax incomes are up by 10% since December 2000

 

Consumer confidence is at its highest level in 2 years. The Conference Board's index of consumer confidence increased nearly 30 index points in the past 12 months, from 77 last July to 106.1 this July.

 

The national homeownership rate, in the second quarter of 2004, was at an all time high of 69.2 percent. Minority homeownership set a new record of 51% in the second quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the first quarter and up 2.1 percentage points from a year ago. NOTE: Aside from R&D, this is the most pivotal indicator of economic growth. We WANT growth here.

 

Inflation remains low by historical standards.

 

The national unemployment rate declined to 5.5% in July - down 0.8 percentage point from a peak of 6.3% in June 2003 and the lowest rate since October 2001.

 

Employment over the last year was up in 46 of the 50 states

 

Who's Hiring?

Table 3b. The 10 fastest growing occupations, 2002-12

(Numbers in thousands of jobs)

 

Employment Change

Occupation Most significant source of post-

2002 2012 Number Percent secondary education or training(1)

 

Medical assistants Moderate-term on-the-job training

Network systems and data communications analysts Bachelor's degree

Physician assistants Bachelor's degree

Social and human service assistants Moderate-term on-the-job training

Home health aides Short-term on-the-job training

Medical records and health information technicians Associate degree

Physical therapist aides Short-term on-the-job training

Computer software engineers, applications Bachelor's degree

Computer software engineers, systems software Bachelor's degree

Physical therapist assistants Associate degree

 

 

Current Economic Growth Projections (BLS, 2003) And yes, theyre not influenced by who's administration is in power...theyre bureaucrats...they dont care either way

 

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ooq/2003/winter/art04.pdf

Edited August 9, 2004 by Stephen Joseph

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

And how are we to think you didn't just make this all up? Next thing I know, you'll tell me that you do this for a living or something.

 

in smaller towns where Wal-Mart comes in and causes the shut down of mom and pop stores

 

Good -- those stores suck anyway. Wal-Mart doesn't shut them down -- those stores just have to adapt (provide better service, etc.).

 

Oh, yeah, during the Clinton Boom I was working two shit jobs for less than $20k. DAMN YOU BILL FOR NOT GETTING ME A BETTER JOB(s)...

[NoCalMike 0]

Employment over the last year was up in 46 of the 50 states

 

Who's Hiring?

Table 3b. The 10 fastest growing occupations, 2002-12

(Numbers in thousands of jobs)

 

Employment Change

Occupation Most significant source of post-

2002 2012 Number Percent secondary education or training(1)

 

Medical assistants Moderate-term on-the-job training

Network systems and data communications analysts Bachelor's degree

Physician assistants Bachelor's degree

Social and human service assistants Moderate-term on-the-job training

Home health aides Short-term on-the-job training

Medical records and health information technicians Associate degree

Physical therapist aides Short-term on-the-job training

Computer software engineers, applications Bachelor's degree

Computer software engineers, systems software Bachelor's degree

Physical therapist assistants Associate degree

 

 

Current Economic Growth Projections (BLS, 2003) And yes, theyre not influenced by who's administration is in power...theyre bureaucrats...they dont care either way

 

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ooq/2003/winter/art04.pdf

Well that is good, since my degree will cover all three of those

[jesse_ewiak 0]

The economy has turned the corner...

 

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Allright... Here's the deal. When the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the Federal Reserve, and most every freaking economist out there say the economy is getting better... it is. Yes, I'll grant you that job growth looks exactly like that. However, what you're focusing on is not correct. That focuses on one factor and one input of production and use that 1 piece of information to explain the economy's general trend.

 

We don't care about short-term as much as the long-term. Therefore, when the orgs listed above say the economy is getting better, that means the projections years out are getting better and better. THAT's what we want. It's like dumping your best pitcher because his last two performances haven't been good. You don't. You go for the return over the long haul.

 

Further, you're ascribing economic performance to depend solely on the executive branch. It doesn't. There's alot more to the economy than the fiscal stimuli our government gives us. This is a worldwide issue, so that means we're affected by quite alot of factors simply beyond our control. Blaming the president, whoever it is, is quite asinine in any election year. But it happens, and just ask Carter what it feels like, or Bush Sr.

 

Right now, growth projections have been cut, .1%. Click on the article below to get an idea of what's going on. Alot of the key economic indicators are good, some are slowing because of seasonal effects.

 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5659249/

 

Don't attempt to explain the economy with one instrument. Thanks.

Of course, like KKK says, the next thing I'll tell you is that I'm an economist. Right...

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

 

Economist: A stodgy old cologne for the dapper young man.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

the graphic's funny, ill give ya that

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

You didn't like the Econo-mist pun?

[Guest Paul H.]

I was really surprised when I saw this on CNN this morning.  Everyone – EVERYONE – had been predicting well over 200,000 new jobs in July.  Now Greenspan’s theory that June was just a seasonal blip isn’t nearly as reassuring.

Shit happens. We've got this massive oil cost problem (I guess the war WASN'T for oil, huh?). Economy is STILL growing, new jobs are STILL being created, and the rate is STILL going down.

-=Mike

Yes,cuz the oil companies that have their hands up Bush's ass actually want the oil price to drop,right?

 

They do what they do to get controll of the oil they don't give a fuck about your gas prices,Mike.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Where did you come from?...

[Guest Paul H.]

The future.....TNS...

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Well, hi and stuff...

[Guest Paul H.]

Wassup..

[Stephen Joseph 0]

So Paul, econ 101.

 

A company isn't just concerned about price, they're concerned about price AND quantity. A company who simply pursued getting prices higher and higher would soon find themselves not selling anything.

 

The best cure for high prices is high prices. Why? Because others are induced to either create a substitute or enter the market to compete for profits. Both drop price.

 

Companies want to maximize profit (Q*P)-C(Q). That's what they care about, not Price.

 

Got it? Good.

Edited August 10, 2004 by Stephen Joseph

[Guest Paul H.]

I never said they where pursuing the highest possible price.I do know they don't actually control the prices,man.

 

I think your insuating to me that maybe a certain International Cartel would be inspired to produce more oil by the other companies decisions and therefore the prices will drop?

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Paul (from a few posts up)

 

-----

Yes,cuz the oil companies that have their hands up Bush's ass actually want the oil price to drop,right?

 

They do what they do to get controll of the oil they don't give a fuck about your gas prices,Mike.

 

----

 

That's where I drew my inference, from where you said they don't want prices to drop. They'd definitely want them to drop if the increased quantity purchased would increase their total profit

 

In response to your new post,

 

Cartels aren't inspired to produce greater quantities. They're induced to cheat and hope the others don't notice it. I have no doubt OPEC will crack, as it has always.

 

I greatly dislike insinuations that Bush, or any president, has the ability to manipulate markets to the benefit of a few. That's laughable at best. Nine times out of ten, the president has no short-term control over what goes on, and only a slight bit in the long-run.

 

What I wanted to get across is that as you have higher profit opportunities, you'll get the following responses: Entry, increased production, increased R&D into substitutes, etc...Time and again we've seen competitors destroy profits of a once great firm *automobiles, anyone...1980s?*

 

Considering that the US is still nowhere close to paying for its energy what the rest of the world is, adjusted for exchange rate differences, I'm not very concerned about the rise in energy prices. You can't maintain below market rates for very long.

 

In reality, most of the price rise has nothing to do with cartels, or companies, but with exchange rate changes.

 

And ohh, AoO, i got your pun, took me awhile. =)

[Guest Paul H.]

"That's where I drew my inference, from where you said they don't want prices to drop. They'd definitely want them to drop if the increased quantity purchased would increase their total profit."

People buy more oil cuz it's cheaper they get more money,I hear you.

 

Something I never understood about OPEC is do they sell their Oil directly to the other countries?How can they coordinate like that and dictate what prices they will sell at?

 

Shouldn't their be a largest-oil-buyers' cartel to negotiate with them group to group then?You say they don't really control anything but obvioulsy they have some influence.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

They're a cartel, that's how. Just like Diamonds and Milk. Yup...Milk.

 

They coordinate by meeting and mutually agreeing to do stuff. Normally there's a leader (Saudi Arabia) who gets the stuff together and they all decide on quotas and what-not. Enforcement mechanisms come from possible retaliation if they're caught cheating, fines, lost profits due to unchecked competition once cheating starts...etc. The longer a cartel is around, the more time they have to learn not to cheat. However, if a cartle is operating on anything other than an infinite time horizon, cheating always occurs, and it always breaks down (God Bless John Nash).

 

They sell their oil to refiners, shippers, users. It's all crude coming up at first. A cartel is like a union, but for goods and not labor. Unions are able to coordinate demands on behalf of alot of people, cartels can do the same. And again, there's punishment for any members that don't tow the line. Of course, profits are mighty tempting when prices are really freaking high, and so they cheat...again and again.

 

A buyer's cartel aka monopsony (when buyers have market power) cant work because there's so many users to a relatively small number of pure providers. It is much easier to coordinate a small group, geographically located, than a larger group.

 

Cartels always have some influence over price. I won't deny that. But the difference is the influence they have over the short-term and long-term. Short-term, yeah they can make life a pain. Long-term, they don't have much power. I mean, look at what the diamond cartels are facing now...synthetic diamonds that cannot be distinguished from the real...at all! and at half the price.

[EricMM 0]

No one says Bush dictates price, or anything like that.

 

I think, and I think I'm right, that Bush's policies have created opportunities for Big Oil to do far better than Big Oil WOULD have done if Bush's policies had favored someone else (anyone else).

 

Who should Bush be favoring, Big Oil or world peace? Big Oil or America? Bush isn't stupid, he knows what he's doing. We're stupid because WE don't. That or we're fools for believing him/believing IN him.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I think, and I think I'm right, that Bush's policies have created opportunities for Big Oil to do far better than Big Oil WOULD have done if Bush's policies had favored someone else (anyone else).

 

Who should Bush be favoring, Big Oil or world peace? Big Oil or America? Bush isn't stupid, he knows what he's doing. We're stupid because WE don't. That or we're fools for believing him/believing IN him.

Umm... every policy benefits some and hurts others...there's no free lunch. I fail to see the point.

 

I quote "The business of America is business" Economic growth helps everyone out in the end. I favor policies that allow our businesses to grow.

 

I think its also stupid to think that Bush would weigh moneyied interests and world peace on the same scale and then go with the moneyied interests. At least, by an economic persepective, he and his advisors would be incredibly stupid to do so otherwise. If you honestly think this war was about oil, then I won't be able to convince you. Simply put, the war was more about ideology than about oil. Any economic advisor wouldve told anyone wanting to benefit by going to war over oil that the idea is flawed at best.

 

Anyways, its hopeless. I won't convince you that this war wasnt about oil, and you wont convince me your first argument has a logical point other than duh.

[Guest MikeSC]

No one says Bush dictates price, or anything like that.

 

I think, and I think I'm right, that Bush's policies have created opportunities for Big Oil to do far better than Big Oil WOULD have done if Bush's policies had favored someone else (anyone else).

 

Who should Bush be favoring, Big Oil or world peace? Big Oil or America? Bush isn't stupid, he knows what he's doing. We're stupid because WE don't. That or we're fools for believing him/believing IN him.

Eric, think about it.

 

Why on Earth would Bush shoot himself in the foot by trying to hammer our economy (which was tanking when he took office, a fact he freely admitted) with high oil prices? It doesn't benefit him whatsoever.

-=Mike