Where are the Jobs, Mr. President

Do you have one?

from JoeUser Forums
President Bush tells us the economy has created almost 1.5 million jobs since August 2003. That means we are only about 1 million below the number when he took office. What the president does not tell the American people is that over the past 3 3/4 years since he took office, about 5 million new workers have tried to enter the job market. For us to remain just even, the economy must create about 120,000 new jobs each month to keep up with our population growth. The economic policies of George W. have not produced the 6 million jobs we needed to stay even.

Mr. Bush is telling us the unemployemnt rate is down to 5.4% which is about where it was in the 1990's. What President Bush is not telling the American People is that during the economic downturn of the past four years, workers have been unemployed so long, that many are no longer counted as unemployed even though they are not working. When you include the long term unemployed, the REAL unemployemt rate is above 7%.

President Bush also does not address the quality of the 1.5 million jobs he claims were created since August 2003. The truth is many of these jobs do not pay a living wage and have few if any benefits. Thus, the real impact on the jobs picture that is faced by American Workers and the picture painted by George W. are as different as night and day! The impact on workers in America has never been worse since Herbert Hoover at the time of Great Depression. Every day Lou Dobbs provides an update on the lost jobs to other countries. He has a list of over 1,000 companies that are exporting American jobs. President Bush has done nothing to stem this loss and his Secretary of Commerce has said it is " good for America to export American jobs". George Bush can pass tax cuts to the wealthy that is being paid foy by adding to the national debt but he can not work with congress to level the playing field for American workers. Add to all this that about 5 million workers, that still have jobs, have lost their health benefits since George W. became President and the JOBS PICTURE IS COMPLTET. Great work, Mr. President!
politics
9,517 views 30 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I had to be out of work for a year due to major neurological problems and surgery. It was incredibly hard to get back into the job market once I recovered, and I'm making only about half of what I was making before. I'm not complaining too hard about the pay cut, though, because I at least HAVE a job, and so many don't. Good post, you get *insightful* from me.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
A very insightful article! It's amazing the things people can say with their eyes shut, isn't it?
CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
so, do you have a job? If no, what are your qualifications? Could you be just trying to blame someone else?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Discouraged Workers" (people without a job but who are not actively seeking one) have never been counted as unemployed. They weren't in the 1990s, they aren't now. Unless you have some evidence that there are significantly more discouraged workers now than then, your argument doesn't hold any water.

The average salary of new jobs is higher than the national average. Try looking around at factcheck.org.

What specifically should be done to stop outsourcing? I have an idea; let's cut the payroll tax.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am retired after a successful career
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
reply to Madine:

The proof is the fact five million workers have entered the job maket with a net loss of 1 million jobs since Jan 2001. There is no way the unemployment rate can be the same as in 2001 with a shortfall of six million jobs. Next, I assune what you mean by payroll tax is Soicial Security tax paid by employers. That sounds like a Bush solution - help the Social Security System to fail sooner! We need to impose tax penalities on companies who move American jobs overseas. We need to provide tax credits to companies that create jobs for Americans and level the playing field in our trade policy. For example, we should not allow China to set the currency exchange rates that make it impossible to sell our goods in China and help eliminate jobs in America. Bush needs to employ the same brain trust the created the tax cuts for his wealthy supporters to stem the flow of American Jobs. That has not happened to date!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top



Reply #6 By: COL Gene - 9/29/2004 1:17:19 PM
reply to Madine:

The proof is the fact five million workers have entered the job maket with a net loss of 1 million jobs since Jan 2001. There is no way the unemployment rate can be the same as in 2001 with a shortfall of six million jobs. Next, I assune what you mean by payroll tax is Soicial Security tax paid by employers. That sounds like a Bush solution - help the Social Security System to fail sooner! We need to impose tax penalities on companies who move American jobs overseas.


I hate to say this but, as to jobs going overseas? *Whose* jobs were they in the first place? Did they belong to "America"? NO! They belonged to the employer, NOT the employee! And as such can do with them as they wish!


For example, we should not allow China to set the currency exchange rates


If you stop China from setting currency rates, then you *must* stop the rest of the world from doing the same thing.

Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
I wish someone would employ Col Gene and keep him too busy to post these biased and factually incorrect rants
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply to terptan 1980

Please show what information is not correct? The problem with so many is when facts do agree with their position, they try and say the facts are not true. Bush is a past master at this.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

I dunno...from my perspective it looks like col's facts aren't as inaccurate as you might think.


In 20 years in the workforce, I have worked in foodservice, retail, manufacturing, mining, and home health care. I have solid references, but I'm not where the work is.


The problem we have right now is, many conservatives are so shortsighted that they honestly believe that everyone who's out of work is where they are because they are slackers (an accusation I've never had levelled against me, mind you), and therefore, there should be no attempt to put these people to work; meanwhile, many liberals think the problems can be solved by throwing more money at them. I'm inclined to think that neither is right.

Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
Gideon MacLeich

You need to move up to Reno, here in Northern Nevada. The Unemployments rate is at 3.2% and I could personnely direct you to three good jobs. One of them have a Libratarian Boss. I think you would fit in good.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply to drmiler

Yes the jobs do belong to the companies. We need to make sure our tax laws encourage the companies to keep the jobs in the US. The market sets the exchange rates except for China that sets its rates so low we can not sell our products in China while making their products cheep in America. That is how we are getting to a 600 Billion trade imbalance. That can not be allowed to continue without harmiing our economy!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #12 By: COL Gene - 9/29/2004 3:34:47 PM
Reply to drmiler

Yes the jobs do belong to the companies. We need to make sure our tax laws encourage the companies to keep the jobs in the US. The market sets the exchange rates except for China that sets its rates so low we can not sell our products in China while making their products cheep in America. That is how we are getting to a 600 Billion trade imbalance. That can not be allowed to continue without harmiing our economy


We have a trade deficet because *America* won't let a lot of China's goods into the country and so China responds in kind. As far as setting rates what are you reffering to as"the market" setting the rates?
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler:

We have a trade deficet because *America* won't let a lot of China's goods into the country and so China responds in kind. As far as setting rates what are you reffering to as"the market" setting the rates?


China (and other countries) have used their currency reserves (extra money) to prop up the value of the US dollar to keep their own goods cheap and to make manufacturing attractive, i.e., the labour costs low. Since the US is the dominant consumer economy, it suffers a trade deficit (or current accounts deficit) because its artificially inflated dollar allows the import of cheap foreign goods at the expense of domestically produced ones. The movement of manufacturing overseas accelerates this effect since China's (and others') manipulation of the currency market doesn't allow their currency to gain in value as companies move their production to their countries, boosting their economies.

Naturally, the IMF and the US government are none too happy about this ...
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #14 By: sunwukong - 9/29/2004 4:07:13 PM
drmiler:

We have a trade deficet because *America* won't let a lot of China's goods into the country


Lets start with, I dunno *Norinco's* products? NONE of which are allowed to be shipped into the US!
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

You need to move up to Reno, here in Northern Nevada. The Unemployments rate is at 3.2% and I could personnely direct you to three good jobs. One of them have a Libratarian Boss. I think you would fit in good.


Lee,


A good suggestion indeed, but we're Texas bound now.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
many conservatives are so shortsighted that they honestly believe that everyone who's out of work is where they are because they are slackers (an accusation I've never had levelled against me, mind you),


Only if they're "permanently" out of work.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Madine,


No, the implications of some of the responses I have gotten from some conservatives in our current plight has said nothing about "permanent" unemployment.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lets start with, I dunno *Norinco's* products? NONE of which are allowed to be shipped into the US!


This is called a non-tariff barrier -- there are few of these in the G8 relative to overall trade traffic. The trade deficit occurs when the US balance of imports/exports favours imports. A key cause of this, lately, is the propping up of the US dollar that China and Japan engage in. If the currency markets/traders had their way, the US dollar would be worth a lot less relative to currencies of the majors (e.g., the Euro, the Japanese yen) and the high trade volume nations (e.g., China's RMB).
Reply #20 from PolMach Forums Top
So...COL Gene...how would we exactly turn around all this? I dont think big government will help very much, and that's what Mr. Kerry will try to do.

Why do you think rich people benefit so much from the tax cuts? I mean they pay more than the average joe. I'm not rich myself as I am only a college student. If you ended up not paying the right amount that the higher class deserve, wouldn't that be the same as not giving a poor man all of his tax cut?
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Take a look- Under Bush the Government and spending have gone nuts. In addition, because we cut the tax revenue while increasing spending we have almost a 1/2 Trillion dollar deficit this year. Why would anyone borrow money so they can give people who do not need a tax cut more money. Bush sold the BS in 2001 that we had this $5.7 Trillion surplus and had to give it back. Well how do you give something back we do not have.

Zell Miller of Georga said he supported the Bush tax cuts because when congress does not have the tax payers money (because of the tax cuts) they can not spent it. Sounds good. That was after Zell Miller and the conservatives just spent $87 Billion for Iraq and $550 Billion for a prescription drug plan without one cent to pay for it! I guess Congress can spend money they do not have.

Bush is like a person who earns $1,500 a month and spends $2,000. He puts the difference on the charge card every month and only pays the ever growing interest. We have been doing that in a BIG way since 1980 with no end in sight if Bush is reelected.
Reply #22 from PolMach Forums Top
The tax cut would simply allow people to spend money on something nice, therefore helping the economy. The economy did go up when the tax cuts were made. Bush said it himself thats why he made the tax cuts.

If Kerry is re-elected, he's not going to help the situation anymore than Bush would. Kerry fails to give specifics about what and how he is going to do everything he plans on. At least Bush talks about a plan he believes in. For example, I've heard Kerry say he is going to help those with medicare, but I don't believe I've heard him talk about how.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Again the job growth in Sept is below the number needed to accomodate population growrh. The messege is clear, the Bush economic and tax policies are not stimulating economic growth to create the number of jobs required to keep up with our population growth!
Reply #25 from PolMach Forums Top
September job growth numbers weaker than expected:
Link

Planned job cuts in September 40% higher than a year ago:
Link

If you take the job gains in the 1st article and subtract the layoffs in the 2nd article, you obtain a negative number (please correct me if this assertion is wrong, I'm just assuming that jobs created - jobs lost = net jobs).

Are the jobs better? From the Detroit Free Press (9/6/2004):
Income for all Americans fell 9.2 percent in 2001 and 2002, according to the IRS. The Census Bureau says median household income fell to $43,349 last year, down from about $45,000 in 1999.
The reasons vary, labor experts say. First, employers are holding back on raises. Furthermore, bolstering much of the Democratic Party argument about eroding job quality, many of the new jobs pay less than the jobs they replace.
Many of the U.S. jobs lost since 2001 have been in manufacturing. Of the 5.3 million workers who'd had the same job for at least three years, but then lost it between 2001 and the end of 2003, one-third lost jobs in manufacturing, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The full article:
Link