Economy: Weak and Getting Weaker

[unlawflcombatnt]

Though we allegedly only lost 35,000 jobs, we lost 27,000 manufacturing jobs. We've lost 100,000 manufacturing this year alone. We've lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs since the Bush junta came to power. We are not regaining any manufacturing jobs. Those continue to decline. Over the last 2 years we've lost a total of 67,000 manufacturing jobs. Real hourly wages in manufacturing have declined 2.2% since December of 2003, consistent with a decline in labor demand from manufacturing industries. Manufacturing job numbers can be found at: ManufacturingEmployment

The real "growth" in jobs has come from sales and service related industries, along with home construction industries. Essentially we've lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs and are replacing them with service industry jobs.

Today's nominal hourly wage increase of 0.2% is a deceptive marker of worker's buying power. Briefing.com estimates that this months consumer price index will increase 1.0%. This inflation estimate can be seen at: Briefing.com This means that inflation-adjusted hourly wages will decline 0.8% for September. This would make a 3-month decline in real hourly wages of 1.3%, and a 1.8% decline since January of 2005.

This is not an economy that is "strong, and getting stronger." This is an economy that is "weak, and getting weaker." We can't invest our way out of this mess. The economy is absolutely dependent on consumer spending. With housing appreciation slowing, consumer ability to use borrowed money to supplement declining wages is dwindling. Consumer spending is already becoming shakey. When the bankruptcy bill goes into effect, and with the housing bubble starting to deflate, our economy is going decline even further.

unlawflcombatnt
EconomicPopulistCommentary
___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[YDogg]

1. The economy is in its last throes.

:mad:

I hope not, though.

[Vincardog]

2. How many million IT jobs have disappeared and are not even counted?

The real economy is in the shittier and the rePigLickins are lying their asses off saying it is good. At least the Enron accountants are still in demand.

[unlawflcombatnt]

12. IT jobs

The best information that I've seen on IT jobs is that we've lost a little over 300,000 jobs. These are jobs that were paying an average of $65,000-75,000 per year. So from a consumer income standpoint, it's like losing over 600,000 average paying jobs.

unlawflcombatnt
EconomicPopulistCommentary
___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption.

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. Haven't you heard? Manufacturing is out, "Hollywood" movie

production is in. Movie production, graphic arts & video game development, retail, tourism, financial, medical and legal services are where it's at. Unless you are involved with one of those, you are probably unemployed, underemployed or soon to be unemployed.

The above list is what the people in NO are expecting to bail them out.

[Zynx]

19. "What are we going to do? Are we all going to service eachother?"

That was my father's quote about the manufacturing job losses back in the 1980s and I think there is something to that when we don't produce any physical goods. Luckily, we are not at that point yet and are still a ways off because no one can produce large ticket goods like we can. Only other first world countries can match our production of things like aircraft and heavy industrial equipment.

[The_Casual_Observer]

23. Heavy industrial equipment = asia

Aircraft = Airbus

[Francine Frensky]

119. Pretty soon we'll all just be doing each other's laundry

that's the old joke, that eventually we'll just end up serving each other.

maybe not so funny.

[high density]

26. Do they still make movies here?

So much is filmed in Canada now with library shots of the "real" location cut in.

[unlawflcombatnt]

27. Are Movies Still Shot in the U.S.?

That's a real good question. It does seem like they've moved much of the shooting to other countries. Does anyone here know the answer to this one?

[CanuckAmok]

29. Canada does approx...

CAD$2.3 billion dollars in film production each year, including all domestic and "visiting" production.

That's about a billion dollars in BC, and a billion dollars in Ontario, and another 300 million in other parts of the country.

Compared to California, which expends USD$17 Billion in production payroll alone each year. New York is about 8 billion a year. And that's just cast/crew payroll... that doesn't factor-in the expenditures for all the other costs of production; everything from lumber and paint sales for sets to the costs of marketing and promoting films.

[unlawflcombatnt]

31. Thanks for the information

From what you've posted it doesn't appear we're losing very much to Canada, at least.

[OneTwentyoNine]

4. Yup,its a wonder Bush didn't tell everyone to "go buy something"

In his stupid ass speech yesterday. Oh sure George,what to buy?? I know,another $10.00 worth of RIP OFF PRICED GAS.

God what a fool.....

[ClintonTyree]

7. Americans can't put it on the credit card anymore........

so it isn't going to get purchased, simple as that. If the credit card companies start raising the minimum payments from 2% TO 4% all hell is going to break lose in the economy and the second great depression will be upon us faster than you can say, "rumpledforeskin".... or is that, "stiltskin"...... :shrug: I get confused sometimes.

[hatrack]

10. You have been touched by His Noodly Appendage, brother!

This touches and uplifts my heart! Ra-men!

[Poppyseedman]

5. I live in Florida

and every other sign on businesses are looking for people to hire.

It's hard to see your point at least in Florida

What's the rest of the country doing???

[hatrack]

11. How much per hour, how many hours per week?

I don't doubt that the signs are out there, but I'd like to know more about what kinds of jobs they are.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. $5 and 5, respectively.

It's going gangbusters!

[ChiciB1]

85. Good.. My Land Is In Florida!!

C'mon down and buy!

[Pepperbelly]

6. I raise money for non-profits and ...

about the time Katrina hit and the gas prices skyrocketed, people began taking a very wary wait-and-see attitude. Who can blame them? The hits just keep coming and it seems only prudent to keep your powder dry until you see what kind of bug-shit crazy crap this shit stain will pull next.

[mrcheerful]

8. I saw on yahoo something about poverty levels of americans since 74

it struck me as odd. It stated that poverty levels among blacks was at 30% in 74 and its down to 27%. It also stated that since 74 the poverty level of whites was 8% and in 2005 its remained unchanged. I wonder how they came up with these numbers because they seem strange considering the lay offs, job losses and the other things going on across the country. Besides the fact that theres more americans living below the poverty line today then there were in 74.

[jackbourassa]

21. mr cheerful, if true, those are terrible numbers

It basically means we haven't grown at all in more than 30 years. Also, 1974 was a terrible year for the economy.

I guess we have already flushed away all the gains of the 1990s.

[ProudDad]

111. ronny ray-guns

CHANGED the poverty line to keep the numbers down.

I'm sure this bunch are doing the same.

[Jamison]

9. There is a good amount of jobs in my area.

However, unfortuneatly they are mostly pretty low-paying service type jobs, or sales jobs that pay commission only.

[unlawflcombatnt]

15. The "Cheap Labor Lobby" & Lower-paying jobs

That's pretty much the way it is in the rest of the country.

Inflation-adjusted (real) hourly wages (in manufacturing) have declined 1.3% since the beginning of 2005. (Again, this is using a projected increase in the consumer price index of 1.0% for the month of September.) In all jobs, average real hourly wages have declined nearly 1% since January.

Wages decline when the demand for labor declines, or the supply of labor increases. The expected increase in the "supply" of labor is approximately 150,000 per month. So if more than 150,000 jobs are created per month, the demand should increase faster than the supply. That's what the Bush Corporatocracy has been claiming, through their publicized job reports. If this was really the case, however, real wages would also be increasing. And they are not.

Even before Katrina, wages were declining. This makes the recent "glowing" job reports suspect. If the labor demand (jobs created) truly was greater than the labor supply (the estimated 150,000/month labor force growth), wages would generally be increasing. A possible explanation for this would be if the new jobs created paid less than the old jobs that were lost. Again, however, if the true demand for labor in these lowering paying jobs was increasing, wages would also be increasing. Again, wages are not increasing.

From simple supply and demand theory it appears that job creation is NOT sufficient to keep up with labor force growth. Where are all of those "jobs no Americans will take"? I think it's more a case of all of those "employers who won't pay enough to hire Americans." And those employers can continue to behave in this manner because of the Bush/Greed-span supported "cheap labor lobby."

[PsycheCC]

13. Good post, but I need help with the numbers.

100.000 lost this year. 67,000 lost over the last two years. So, does that mean we gained manufacturing jobs last year? And it's 2.8 million lost over how long? I agree with your view of the economy, but the numbers are confusing. Can you clarify please?

[unlawflcombatnt]

14. The numbers

We actually picked up 33,000 manufacturing jobs in 2004. But we've lost 100,000 already this year. So actually we lost those 67,000 jobs over a period of 21 months, since this only runs through September of this year. The 2.8 million total manufacturing job loss is comprised of those lost after December of 2000 through September of 2005. These are the all of the manufacturing jobs lost on Bush's watch.

unlawflcombatnt
EconomicPopulistCommentary
___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[PsycheCC]

18. Got it. Thanks Unlawful.

[tandoori]

92. Could the job loss be due to the perported "productivity" increases?

In other words the mantra in the business media is that productivity
has grown at record pace over last few years so actually we are
producing more goods with fewer people. May be good for the businesses
but not so good for well paying jobs.

[unlawflcombatnt]

104. Productivity

Productivity (in terms of cost) increases when labor costs are reduced by using low-wage foreign workers. The ratio of output value to input cost rises when $100/day American workers are replaced with $2/day Chinese workers.

We're not only producing more goods with less people, we're producing more goods with much less labor cost.

[cpamomfromtexas]

109. How many jobs per month are needed

Just to keep up with the population growth?

[unlawflcombatnt]

116. Approximately 150,000 Jobs/month to keep up with population growth

The number most economists use is 150,000 jobs per month to break even. It's an estimate, however, and may not be exactly right. Since we don't really know how many illegal immigrants come into this country, it could be much more than that. Also, we can't really trust the Bush junta to publish accurate information on anything.

If more than 150,000 jobs were actually being created per month, and the labor force growth really is only 150,000/month, you'd expect wages to go up. If the labor demand exceeds the labor supply, wages should increase. Since real wages are actually decreasing, it suggests that labor force growth is exceeding labor demand growth.

[cliss]

17. If you look at the whole picture,

the American economy is like the Titanic. We haven't been hit by an iceberg. We're just taking on water. Slowly, slowly, we're sinking to the bottom.

Our manufacturing base is pretty much gone. This was the one thing that propelled the US economy to the world's greatest powerhouse at the beginning of the 1900's. Slowly but steadily, that's eroded.

Think of a nightclub singer who's getting old. He uses hair dye. He has dentures. The paying public is getting thin. And yet, he stands up there and wheezes into the microphone. He doesn't see it. He thinks he's still.......#1.

That's us.

[unlawflcombatnt]

20. Titanic

The Titanic is an excellent description of our economy. We've painted over our weaknesses with increased amounts of consumer and government deficit spending, so that the water we're taking on isn't as obvious.

[raccoon]

34. That is a kick-butt analogy, about the night-club singer. nt

[Neshanic]

22. This is the month that it will all fall apart. Last two weeks of October.

[Nederland]

39. Define "fall apart"

Use specifics.

What will GDP growth be?

What will unemployment be?

What will inflation be?

What will interest rates be?

[Neil Lisst]

24. unlawflcombatnt, your original post is dead-on

Really, it is.

The business markets rock along in stasis because they're international now, and because everyone is hedging. This creates a balance at that level, but it ignores what is going on in the economy in which most Americans live.

Their dollar is buying less and less.

They are getting no overtime, and fewer hours per week.

They are getting jobs that don't pay as much and aren't as secure.

They are tapped out on debt, personal and home real estate.

This country is poised for a major economic slump, maybe the biggest since the early 1980s.

------------------
progressive political comic
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst/

[unlawflcombatnt]

25. The economy in which most Americans live

I think that statement sums it up. The financial analysts have no concept of the economy that most Americans live in. To them, economic growth is defined by corporate profits. But those profits will disappear when Americans lose the ability to buy their own production. And that day is near.

[butterfly77]

28. how many of the people...

who post these statistics are appointed by bush? They can fix these numbers and hide the real truth. What about people who are not counted in these numbers and people who live in shelters or whose unemployment had ran out, this country is in a depression. Some parts of the country don't realize it because of where they live. I suppose the areas where repubs live get all of the government contracts, especially for the war.

[unlawflcombatnt]

30. Good Point

You're right on the money to question the people who concoct these statistics. The Secretaries of Labor and Commerce are appointed by Bush. I suspect the numbers have been exaggerated to show the Bush junta in the best possible light.

The employment numbers look especially suspicious. If employment was increasing faster than labor force growth, wages would be increasing. However, they are decreasing. This strongly suggests that the supply of labor is exceeding the demand. Given an assumed labor force growth of 150,000 per month, the reported job creation of greater than 150,000/month seems very suspicious, given that inflation-adjusted wages are declining.

[Neil Lisst]

32. The unemployment numbers are grossly understated

Team Bush is absolutely cooking the books.

Here's a simple math test.

If the US adds 10 million people to the job market and only gains 2 million jobs, should the unemployment rate go UP or DOWN?

Roughly, that is what has happened since Bush took office.

It is impossible for the unemployment to have remained almost constant the past 4 years. So how can we explain the numbers? Easy. Don't count people as Unemployed AFTER they exhaust their unemployment benefits. It's literally a fiction now, the unemployment rate.

Anyone who thinks the rate of unemployment is the same today as during the Clinton administration is simply delusional.


------
TERROR ALERT!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst/

[Nederland]

46. Educate yourself

It is a DU myth that the unemployment rate is calculated by only counting those getting unemployment benefits. Its simply not true.

[Toots]

33. We are not regaining any manufacturing jobs.

Didn't McDonalds open a few new franchises? Didn't Bush* declare that flipping burgers was manufacturing. You are not citing official propaganda figures.

[unlawflcombatnt]

35. You're Right

I left out all those "burger" manufacturing jobs. And I forgot about all of those Ebay jobs that Cheney cited. There are a lot of "fraud" manufacturing jobs on Ebay.

[mrdmk]

40. Question, I knew Mr. Bush Jr. was attempting to get fast food

thrown into manufacturing, they actually did that?

[barb162]

36. yes, it's a disaster and getting worse. People who had great jobs

with great benefits are now working as part-time cashiers, therefore they aren't counted as unemployed. Things are going to get way worse too.

[raccoon]

37. I wonder if the underemployed were counted, what

the numbers would be. Of course, they aren't counted, and they'd be hard to count.

But let's say you could restrict the underemployment count to people such as you mentioned, people who lost their jobs due to layoffs, plant closings, outsourcing, etc., and now are earning less than 60% of what they used to make (and probably have no benefits). I wonder what the numbers would be. I suspect we'd be appalled.

[barb162]

54. I know a lot of people who make way less now than they did

ten yrs. ago. And these are very smart, hard-working types who know what they are doing. They got caught up in outsourcing, got thrown out on the street and took what they could get. Yeah, I wonder what the numbers would be too.

[unlawflcombatnt]

41. U.S. Software Related Jobs Lost

This is a graph from the Economic Policy Institute showing the number of software-related jobs lost since 2000.



According to this, we've lost 378,000 jobs in the computer software and related industries since March of 2001. These jobs have not been replace by "better" jobs.

[barb162]

55. I know a lot of people in this field, many neighbors, lots are

unemployed or working at things way under their skill level or part-time somewhere.

[amandabeech]

61. And how many of those jobs are taken by H-1B and L-1 visa holders?

Not that I have anything against them personally, but they keep wages down. Many in the software industry also say that they are extremely compliant, because they could get thrown out easily. It has been reported here many times, also, that companies simply refuse to hire U.S.-born techies for whatever reason.

Politically, unemployment among citizens means the most, since they are the ones who can vote and throw the bums out.

[barb162]

69. Microsoft is great at firing its US workers, then saying there

is a shortage of USA workers and that it wants and needs more H-1B workers. Of course the Administration never calls Microsoft on this scam. The otehr companies are doing the same thing. All these unemployed USA tech people probably send 5000 resumes to Microsoft for each job opening and never get called for an interview. When are USA workers going to get the picture?

[amandabeech]

71. Yup, and how many Democrats vote for continued expantion of H-1B?

Why would any of those expunged Americans vote Democratic or even be motivated to vote at all? Unless of course, they are voting on social issues or perhaps the environment.

The only way to get anywhere IMHO is to get rid of corporate money. And the only way to even start doing that is with a Constitutional Amendment exempting campaign finance from the First Amendment interpretation that Free Speech means few limits on campaign funding.

I favor public funding exclusively, myself.

[ProudDad]

112. Not only that M$

is outsourcing programming jobs to India, etc.

[Nederland]

38. Automation

First of all, this country has been losing manufacturing jobs for thirty years. More importantly, the key measure of manufacturing is output, not employment. In that respect manufacturing in this country has been steady increasing. We now manufacture more goods than at any point in our history, its just that we do it with less people.

What you are seeing is nothing more than the final phase of industrialization where mechanization takes the form of fully automated production lines where all the work is done by robots. Yes, its a shame that people loose their jobs as a result, but the bottom line is that if the US wants to continue to be to manufacture goods at all it needs to automate.

[unlawflcombatnt]

42. No, you're Wrong

What we are seeing is the movement of manufacturing to cheap foreign labor markets. Here's another graph to illustrate the point.



The "automation" you're talking about involves getting work done by cheaper labor in foreign countries so that the ration of output value to input cost becomes greater.

What we're seeing is the "final phase" of the complete destruction of our manufacturing base.

[Nederland]

43. Read my post

Nothing in yours disputes what I said.

[unlawflcombatnt]

44. You're "Wrong, and Getting Wronger."

I read your post and nothing in it disputes what I said. We're losing jobs in computer and high tech industries. These are the the so-called "new" industries that you corporatists are always referring to. We are losing jobs in ALL fields. Maybe you think all manufacturing are aging industries.

Do you think computers and software are "aging" industries? Nearly all computers and accessories are made in China now. Is computer assembly your idea of an "aging" industry? Maybe computer software is also one of those "aging" industries.

We're putting MD's out of jobs in this country by having high tech MRIs, CT scans, and other studies read by foreign MD's. Should we retrain Radiologists who've spent over 13 years in training to go into another field? Maybe Medicine is an "aging" industry altogether. Maybe we could retrain all MD's to be Corporate CEO's, since this is the only field pay is increasing in. Maybe they could learn to be "insider trade specialists" like your idol, Bill Frist. Or maybe they could learn how to practice video medicine from a distance, like the great Dr. Frist.

Where are all these "new" jobs that you Right-Wingers keep blabbing about? Maybe you think we just don't have enough investment capital to make up for the lack of consumer spending power. Yeah, that must be the problem, since you've taught us that 'investment creates jobs, even if there is absolutely no expected return.' We all now understand that profits can be created without any sales whatsoever, as you've clearly pointed out.

Maybe we should completely eliminate taxes on Corporations and the affluent, so they'd have even more capital to over-invest. We should thank both you and Larry "I-lost-my-straitjacket" Kudlow for showing us the importance of investment, and lack of necessity of consumer spending. No one really has to buy production in order to make money, do they. That's all just a left-wing hoax, isn't it.

[Nederland]

45. Response

You are completely missing the point. You babble on and on about how many jobs are being lost, but fail to acknowledge that output is increasing at the same time. There is an economic term for a situation when greater economic output is produced using fewer workers, its called increased productivity.

Now if you'd like to explain why in the world we should be pursuing a policy of reduced productivity I'd be happy to hear it. More than likely however, you will completely ignore this point and continue to babble on and on about how many jobs we've lost.

FYI, if we were actually losing jobs in "ALL fields", don't you think we'd see higher unemployment numbers? Think about it.

[mrcheerful]

48. Pure Repuke BS!

Since when is a countries productivity based on imports? The only things america is exporting are jobs and raw materials. The reason lumber mills are closing in the north west isn't a bird or a bug, its because Japan refuses to buy finished wood products, they want whole logs to mill in Japan by their mill workers. Same thing is going on in China, they export finished goods for Wal-Mart and we export the raw materials and machines to make those products.

BTW, if you'd bother to research things you'd know unemployment numbers are based on those getting unemployment checks. People are not counted once the check stop, regardless if that person got a job or not. The numbers also don't include disabled, retired or wel fare people.

( edited because my key board skipped letters.)

[Nederland]

49. Pure ignorance

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who doesn't know how unemployment numbers are calculated. They are not calculated by looking at who is getting unemployment checks, they are calculated by a very large government survey called the CPS.

Please educate yourself, you'll find you are less likely to look like an idiot:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

[mrcheerful]

51. Yeah and santa is bringing you a wittle red wagon too.

Now why would anyone trust the government thats lied about everything in the last 5 years at face value? I noticed they try to say the esta meant it based on percentages, which means they call someone in an area and ask. Yeah right. Its all Repuke BS. Theres no way that any true numbers of the population of unemployed could be figured out that way. Think about it, every 10 years the have to do a census, why don't they just estimate how many people live in the US instead, its cheaper that way. The reason is they'd never get a close number of the population. In fact they might as well just count those getting checks, at least that number would be a fact and not a guess!

[Nederland]

52. Get some tin-foil

Let me get this straight.

I produce a link to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics on how the unemployment rate is actually calculated, and has been calculated for over 60 years now, during both Democratic and Republican administrations.

You produce a rambling discourse that questions the validity of statistical sampling methods that have been around for centuries along with absolutely no links whatsoever to bolster your case.

You really think anyone reading this thread believes you're winning this argument?

[unlawflcombatnt]

121. Unemployment

In fact, the study comes from the Household Survey involving 60,000 households, unlike the much larger payroll study that includes over 180,000 businesses and related entities.

The Household Survey is the most imprecise study done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and has an unbelievably large margin of error. And it relies simply on answers on a questionnaire about whether someone is working. It's not even in the same league as the payroll study which is based on actual records of employment.

Furthermore, unemployment statistics are calculated from the "participating" labor force, not the total labor force. There are enough subjective judgment calls in this calculation to cause large errors. This also makes it subject to statistical chicanery by an administration that has set new records for dishonesty and deception.

If our Corporatist administration was really trying to provide honest employment information, they'd publish the percentage of the total labor force that is actually employed, like the British do. Instead, however, they publish only the unemployed percentage and reclassify many of the truly unemployed as not being in the "participating" labor force. Then they don't have to count these workers as unemployed. The current unemployment miscalculation eliminates 2 million unemployed workers from the unemployment count in this manner. This reduces a 6.6% unemployment rate to a 5.1% unemployment rate.

[ProudDad]

113. Very Interesting

thanks for the link.

[unlawflcombatnt]

53. Still Wrong

We don't see higher unemployment numbers because your friends in the Bush Corporatocracy have artificially lowered the labor force participation rate. If the correct labor force participation rate was being used the unemployment rate would be 6.4%, not 5.1%. And that doesn't count all of the people that are only marginally employed. Catherine Bradbury at the Federal Reserve has actually stated that unemployment would even be higher than what I've stated.

In addition, common sense economics tells you that if real wages are declining (which they are) that the demand for labor is declining. Or the labor force is increasing at a much greater rate than 150,000/month. Either way, job growth is not keeping up with labor force growth. To deceive the public, you Republicans have simply used an artificially low labor force participation rate to calculate unemployment statistics off a smaller number of workers.

[Nederland]

58. Wrong about what?

As I predicted, you continue to ignore my main point: manufacturing jobs are being lost because of improvements in productivity. For the sake of argument, I will state that I agree that the unemployment rate should be slightly higher than it is. But I have to ask, what is your point? Even at 6.4%, unemployment is much lower here than in most European countries.

Answer a direct question: do you think improvements in productivity are something that we should be avoiding?

[unlawflcombatnt]

59. Productivity

I'm not ignoring any "point" because you haven't made any point. I won't answer a rhetorical question. How about if you answer a question? Do you think wages should increase if productivity increases? Or do you think Corporations should reap 100% of the benefits of increased productivity, like they do now?

"Productivity" increases do not explain the massive shifting of jobs overseas. Nor do they explain the massive influx of H1B visa holders into this country who will work for much less than Americans will work for.

Automation does not account for all of the job loss. Automation doesn't cause a factory to close in Ohio and another one to open in China. That's not automation. It's economic treason by Corporate America. And it's not motivated by "necessity." It's motivated by pure unadulterated greed. A greed that forces "poor" Corporate America to shop globally for the cheapest labor to make their already exorbitant profits even more exorbitant.

[Nederland]

60. Now I understand your confusion

You think its possible to somehow solve the problem of manufacturing job loss via government action. It's not. Granted, many US companies are moving their production facilities overseas. However, if they didn't some other company would set up production facilities overseas, undercut their prices and put the entire company out of business instead of just the manufacturing arm. What good would that do?

Naturally your solution to the above problem is protective tariffs, thereby making US consumers pay more for goods than they have to. Your idea of a successfully economy therefore is one is which wealth is tranferred from companies and industries that can compete to companies and industries that can't. Do that is like a football team hiring players that can't run or catch--its stupid.

If you want a strong country you can go running away from competition. You've got to learn to do better. Complaining about the fact that you can't win because the other guy is better than you is not a recipe for a strong country, its a recipe for a nation of losers.

You are welcome to it, but I'll have none of it.

[amandabeech]

62. On what basis do you consider yourself to be a Democrat, sir?

Just curious.

[Nederland]

65. On the basis

...that my economic views are identical to Bill Clinton's and Al Gore's (at least, Al Gore during his 1992 debate with Ross Perot).

There is a key difference between pursuing an economic policy that transfers wealth from successful companies and industries to less successful companies and industries and a tax policy that transfers wealth from successful individuals to less successful individuals. The later is a sustainable practice that serves to mitigate the inevitable unequal distribution of wealth that comes with capitalism. The former is an unsustainable policy that destroys the entire basis of a successful economy: the ability to produce goods efficiently and competitively.

On edit: Oh, that and the fact that I'm very much a social liberal: pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-death penalty, etc.

[amandabeech]

67. Many people did not consider many of Clinton's economic policies

to be particularly "Democratic." Really, many pointed out that the Republicans were advocating the same thing.

So for many people, why bother to vote unless very much motivated by socially liberal concerns?

[Nederland]

68. Believe me

I am well aware of the fact that my views are in the DU minority :) I take pleasure in knowing however that Clinton won two general elections and currenly enjoys an approval rating nearly twice that of the current president. More importantly, I believe the free trade is the right thing to do, regardless of what "many" people think of its place in the Democratic platform.

Free trade means that people who have lower wages have a competative advantage over those with higher wages. A competative advantage translates into larger market share and larger profits. Larger profits opens the way to higher wages. Why wouldn't a Democrat support a system that transfers wealth from the rich to the poor?

Notice that I very carefully said "opens the way" to higher wages, not guarantees them. This is why I support free trade among democracies but oppose letting China into the WTO. When a country like Mexico sees its GDP increase as a result of trade, its citizens have a democratic mechanism to ensure that the increase in wealth is distributed across the board. Workers can unionize and demand higher pay from companies that sees their profit rise from greater exports. All in all, the record of free trade among democracies is rather good: see Mexico (pre-China WTO), Portugal, Spain, Eastern Europe, etc.

[amandabeech]

70. Well, I agree that the free trade gospel works much better among

most democracies and even better among democracies of more equivalent development. Nevertheless, I hear that Germany is hearing that sucking sound coming from the East.

Some democracies, however, support a mercantilist economy like China's, IMHO. I'm talking about some of the other East Asian democracies. There will be no "rebalancing" coming from that quarter.

As to Mexico, my impression "democracy" there functions very, very differently, and that power and wealth are extremely concentrated in a very few hands, and have been for centuries. Add to that rampant corruption, and frankly, I don't see the Spain/Portugal/Eastern Europe situation repeating itself in Mexico for some time, even if we should back out of MFN with China or put hefty tariffs on its products.

[Nederland]

74. Response

Germany is hearing the sucking sound coming from the East. Its called the transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor.

Why, as a Democrat, do you think that is a bad thing?

[unlawflcombatnt]

78. Why Oppose that Sucking Sound?

Because that sucking sound is coming from rich multinational corporations and their rich investors, who are increasing their profits by exploiting impoverished slave labor, instead of paying European workers a decent wage.

It's not a "transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor." It's a transfer of wealth from European workers to rich multinational corporations. It's a typical Corporatocratic transfer of wealth from the less affluent to the more affluent. It's exactly what's happening in the U.S. as well.

[Nederland]

80. Bullshit

Life for the average Eastern European is getting better. The money is not only going to rich multinationals, a great deal of it is going to the average person.

[unlawflcombatnt]

93. Complete Hypocrisy

The money is not going to the poor. The money is going to the large multinationals, and the wages being paid to Eastern European workers is less than those that were being paid to Western European workers. It's pure worker exploitation by rich investors who'd rather exploit foreign workers than pay their own countryman enough to do the work. It increases the multinationals' profit, and impoverishes their own country's workers.

You're a real do-gooder, aren't you. Take from the middle class and poor, and give to the rich corporate multinationals. Then falsely claim your motivation is to "help" the poor in foreign countries. What complete hypocrisy.

[amandabeech]

88. I don't think that transfer from rich to poor is a bad thing.

What is happening here is that the transfer is from poor, working class and lower middle class Americans to admittedly poor second and third world citizens.

The economic classes here who can least afford the transfer are the ones making the sacrifice. To my mind any transfer should come from monied classes here or in Germany for that matter.

I am concerned with the Latin Americanization of our social structure. It seems as though wealth is being concentrated in the top 20% of our population, while the middle class and lower are getting poorer and may be becoming disillusioned with their future prospects. Such an economic structure and disillusionment does not lead to a stable democratic political structure, IMHO.

[unlawflcombatnt]

77. Right Question. Wrong Answer

I'm glad you've drifted away from blaming all job losses on automation.

You've posed the question "Why wouldn't a Democrat support a system that transfers wealth from the rich to the poor?"

Democrats do support such a system. That's exactly why most Democrats oppose free trade. Free trade transfers wealth American workers to multinational corporations. Profits are increased at the expense of reduced aggregate American labor income. Sending jobs to cheap foreign labor markets reduces total labor costs for American multinationals and increases their profits as a result. They pass only a fraction of those labor cost savings on to American consumers. It's completely illogical to suggest anything else. If those companies were passing the entire cost savings on to American workers, there would be no benefit to outsourcing. And if they're not passing the entire savings on to American workers and consumers, then it is a net loss for American consumers. There is simply no logic to the claim that this "helps" American consumers and workers. It helps Corporate America only, and even then it is a short-term gain. The ultimate reduction in aggregate consumer income and demand that results from outsourcing will hurt Corporate America as well. American consumers will have less money to buy their products.

You asked the right question. But you have the wrong answer.

[Nederland]

82. They only support it within the US

When it comes time to transfer wealth from America to the rest of the world they are opposed to it.

Can't blame them, only Americans voted for them. There attitude is: screw the world's poor--they can't vote for me.

[unlawflcombatnt]

94. Should our government put foreign interests above American interests?

Should elected officials be serving the interests of someone other than their own constituents? Should they be more concerned about the welfare of foreign workers than they are about American workers?

I thought the function of the American government was to protect Americans, not to impoverish them to satisfy Corporate greed and falsely claim it's to "help" the poor in other countries.

The way to help poor countries is to give them financial assistance, not to give them American jobs.

[Nederland]

97. Response

The key here is to recognize that raising the standard of living in devloping countries IS in America's long term interest. The right way of helping poor countries is not to give them financial assistence, but give them unfettered access to our markets so they can help themselves.

[unlawflcombatnt]

99. Unfettered Access to Foreign Slave Labor

Yeah, and we need to allow Corporate America "unfettered" access to foreign slave labor markets. We shouldn't be worrying about American workers anyway. They're all just lazy, unproductive, and unskilled. So what right do American workers have to expect good paying jobs? :sarcasm:

[HughBeaumont]

103. All that's going to do is

a) put every American in a Hooverville (soon to be called a Bushville), essentially destroying our middle and working class, since the cost of living isn't going to be coming down anytime soon to accommodate your plan.

b) give the third-world countries the tools to develop lower-cost corporations and unequal competition; eventually causing American corps to slash MORE American jobs in favor of exploited labor to keep up and widening the gap between rich and poor on BOTH sides of the pond.

But hey, I guess people who can barely eat, live in a shitty apartment and can't pay their electric bill in this country and need to work two minimum wage jobs and have no free time to live such a luxurious lifestyle are still making a kings RANSOM in your eyes, right? I mean, THEY HAVE ELECTRICITY!!

[HughBeaumont]

76. But, the other guy isn't BETTER, they're CHEAPER.

And they can remain CHEAPER because their cost of living is exponentially CHEAPER. You act like it's the American worker's FAULT that they can't compete with their Indian or Chinese counterparts and you also incorrectly theorize that it's because of intelligence that we're losing out.

Guy, we can get all the degrees in the world that are possible; we can spend every single hour of our free time and every single spare dollar we have in this endless and futile quest to be the optimal employee. Guess what: SO CAN THE INDIANS AND THE CHINESE.

They have access to universities just like we do. They have more access to emerging technologies than the American worker does, because our short-term-first corporations such as Oracle, MicroSoft and Cisco are already giving them their R&D hand over fist. Nano and bio-tech are already swelling in these countries while we're busy debating to teach our schools creationism in a lab coat. We aren't developing any emerging industries because we're shifting all of that important development overseas.

Joe Sixpack isn't going to build the next PC/killer app in his garage like he did in the 80s because there's not enough FUNDING for it. Corporations have already sent that investment overseas and VCs won't fund you unless half your staff is cheap labor. Your idiotic theory assumes that education and invention is going to save the American worker and it isn't. Foreign workers will always, always, ALWAYS be less expensive. This doesn't have a DAMN thing to do with "better". Jesus.

[Nederland]

79. You misread my post

I said nothing about intelligence.

Just so its completely clear, let me spell it out for you. The real reason that American workers can't compete with with the rest of the world is because they make 100 times more than workers in the rest of the world. Why do you think that's fair? Why is it that people on the far left see some grave injustice at the fact that CEO's make 100 times more than line workers, but none at the fact that those very same line workers make 100 times more than workers elsewhere? At least the CEO's have the excuse that their job is different--American workers are basically saying that they deserve to make more money simply because they are Americans.

You comment that foreign workers "will always, always ALWAYS be less expensive" smacks of a typically arrogant American attitude that Americans somehow deserve a higher standard of living than the rest of the world. Well I have news for you. The day is rapidly coming that American worker won't be the most expensive in the world because the world is sick and tired of paying them inflated wages. Americans do not have a God given right to a higher standard of living than the rest of the world. Yes, the world is flat and Americans are about to learn a very hard lesson in assuming that somehow they are better than everyone else.

[HughBeaumont]

83. And you're completely missing the point . . . AGAIN.

First of all, what else are you talking about when you say "better"? It HAS to be intelligence. How else do you get "better" when you compete in the work world? Work more hours for peanuts?

Also, how exactly am I being arrogant or giving off arrogance when I state that foreign workers will always be less expensive?

My comment is hardly an advocation for the "American Standard" of living. Our wages aren't high because of some weird bragging right that you think we all have - they're high (personally, I don't think the average American wage is high enough, and definitely not high enough to keep up with the cost of living) because they HAVE to be.

The reality is that if our wage was the exact same as that of an Indian, Russian or Chinese, Americans would literally be living in cardboard boxes, wouldn't be able to eat but one meal a day and would be working until the day we died. And that's in mid-market areas - forget big cities or their suburbs.

Like our foreign counterparts, we get paid just enough to eke out a less-than-comfortable living; I'm saying they're cheaper to the robber-baron business owner - even if he's paying someone in Bangalore $8-11 dollars an hour, he's making out like a bandit and so is the Indian worker. Pay US that, and we're walking to work and living in the Parent's Basement Arms for life.

Let's cut out luxuries. Let's cut out the monster-sized vehicles and sport-utility homes that you think every American owns (many of us don't). Let's forget about vacations, travel, second cars, etc. What's you're idea of a ridiculously "high" American wage? $40,000/year, for example? Guess what - nowadays, that won't even get you an apartment in most large American cities, it's barely good enough for a condo or a REALLY small old house in mid-market areas, and even then you would seriously have to cut a lot of costs simply to get by - things like beater automobiles (let's hope your mid-market city's public transportation-friendly . .. most aren't), home/car repairs, schooling, new clothes for work, etc.

ALL of us would love to have a lower cost of living; it's arguably too damned high, all of it. But the Robber Barons who run this fascist nation simply ain't allowing that to happen. We're against old, bald, arch-conservative males who feel that they simply don't have ENOUGH money or ENOUGH power or ENOUGH of a stranglehold on all of those elements. Many of us live hand to mouth and can barely make rent, let alone save a dime for retirement.

I got news for you: I wouldn't be cheering for our demise just yet. Because the reality of it is this - as we go, so goes the rest of the world. If we can't afford to buy goods because we have no jobs, who will buy the products at the prices these jagoffs sell them at? We're already seeing what happens when you concentrate all of the wealth in one class of the population and not let anyone else in - you get an economy that's gangbusters for Wall Street but a dumpster full of shit for Main Street.

CEOs have little to do with the direction of any company, they often didn't build anything or invent a product of any kind, and earn a lottery winning every single year as a reward no matter WHICH direction their company/stock price heads. So don't act like what they do is SO much more worthwhile than what anyone else does for a living.

And I have YET to see an example of an American company that hires Americans at higher wages because of job offshoring.

[Nederland]

87. Oh. My. God.

Have you ever left this country and actually traveled to see what people live like in the rest of the world? Are you completely ignorant of how people actually live outside this country?

Billions of people in the world live on less than $2 a day, and you have the nerve to claim that American workers wages are high because they "HAVE to be high". In the United States, a single person making less than $8,980 a year is considered poor. Do you have ANY idea how living conditions for person in this country making $8,980 compares to people elsewhere in the world making $730 a year ($2 dollars a day)? There is no comparison. A quarter of the world's population is wondering where they are going to get there next meal and you have the NERVE to claim that Americans workers aren't paid enough money.

You're disgusting.

[HughBeaumont]

89. SIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGHH.

Yes, and we need to help all of those people too . . . don't really know how we arrived at this point?

And it's absolutely the right thing for Americas ruling wealthy to uplift another country's working/middle class at the complete neglect and destruction of our own. :sarcasm:

How DARE anyone demand a pauper's wages . . .or shelter . . .or clothing. Americans should be dirt impoverished just like the rest of the world! Only ONE class should have all the cash. Yeah, THAT'll make the world a way better place. :eyes: :eyes:

Apples to rickshaws, dude. You're making zero sense, you're drifting worse than Huck and Jim and you have no point.

There are AMERICANS who are wondering where they're going to get their next meal. Oh yes. It DOES happen here. And I'm talking people who would have been part of the working class under Clinton but are now unemployed because of Bewsh's corporate gladhanding.

According to you, the Eastern Europeans are doing just fine, not at ALL being short-changed by MNCs. Maybe THEY, like us, should all live in buck tents as well; they just aren't suffering ENOUGH!!!

[unlawflcombatnt]

118. You've said it all

You're right on the money. I couldn't have put it better myself.

[unlawflcombatnt]

115. Free Trade = Economic Treason

Why don't you just move to another country, since you hate Americans so much? Americans have every right to expect to live better than workers in the rest of the world. Only rich, overindulged, under-worked Corporatocrats like yourself think otherwise.

CEOs have no right to expect to make 400 times what the average American worker makes, especially when it has been done by lowering or eliminating American worker wages. In 1960, the average CEO salary was 40 times that of the average American worker. Now it's 400 times that of the American worker. That's exclusively due to the increased productivity of workers and the lack of corresponding increase in worker wages.

People like you just love to justify sending jobs overseas to cut labor costs while you reap all of the benefits and defend your actions by regurgitating your free trade hypocrisy.

Maybe you should just take your Virginia Tech-educated elitism and move to one of those poor foreign countries whose interests you put above those of Americans. That way you could "help" them in person, instead of exploit them from inside this country.

[ProudDad]

114. Why do you try to put down Europe?

I'd rather be unemployed in most European countries with their generous safety nets and universal health care than to be under-employed here as a LARGE minority of our workers are.

Why don't you discuss how "productivity" is measured? If this magic "productivity" you speak of is a real increase in production of goods with better processes and equipment, that's one thing. If it's a measure of increased production of crap by overworking the few who are left after the layoff scythe has cut up the workforce, that's another.

You're not hearing the answer -- manufacturing jobs are being SENT OVERSEAS where the cheaper labor lives.

[pitohui]

57. no he is quite correct

automation does take jobs, & we need to have some plan for the post-job economy

i know a man who helps work to automate plants, & the net result of his efforts is almost always a tighter, more efficient operation -- which means the same job can be done w. less employees because of the use of the automated factories, sometimes he is even told how many jobs the plant hopes to shed while increasing production

we are not being real if we pretend that there will always be jobs for everyone who wants a job, many jobs will be taken by our technology & isn't this what we are working for, a world where robots will do the hard boring tedious work?

we need to face this reality & find ways that ppl who cannot get jobs can survive w. dignity, the kind of person who used to work in a catfish factory is rarely someone who can be retrained to smile & look pretty for her boss while answering the telephone in a front office

some ppl for mental, physical, or just plain because of their looks will be forever un-employable when the factory jobs go to robots

[Rainscents]

47. I notice, stock market is not doing well...

I guess, these two goes hands and hands.

[Jamison]

50. I noticed that too.

If the economy were really booming, the DOW wouldn't be stagnant at 10,000-10,500. Back when the economy was truly booming in the mid-late 90's the DOW was surging upward by around 1,000+ points per year.

[pitohui]

56. not so, the two are not linked

you can have a fast growing economy & the DOW not doing much of anything, ever heard of the post war era, late 40s and 50s

indeed, the DOW often goes up on news of lay-offs, what is good for the worker is not good for the owner & vice versa, we are not all on the same team


here is a link to a pocket history of the DOW:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/business_basics/145986.stm

for instance, this note is from the clinton years:

31 August 1998
Another bad day for Wall Street. The 'bears' are rampant as the Dow Jones drops to 7,539 - down 512 points or more than 6%. The Dow has now lost 19.2% since its high in July.

yet the overall economy was just fine at that time

to clarify, *i agree w. you that the economy is shitty, i just don't agree the DOW is much proof of that*

[amandabeech]

64. The Dow Industrials consist of huge, multinational corporations.

It has never been clear to me whether today's Dow reflects world-wide or U.S. economic conditions.

The Nasdaq index includes many smaller companies in un-sexy industries that are immersed in the U.S. economy in addition to large tech firms like Microsoft. You can see where the Nasdaq is these days in contrast to its glory years.

[unlawflcombatnt]

100. DJI & Multinationals

Some of the companies do have foreign holdings. It's hard to say how much of the Dow Jones is tied up in foreign countries. With the exception of China, most other countries aren't doing any better than the United States, if as well.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

63. My opinion:

Our economy is going to crash big time, very soon. Ohio, for one, is in very bad shape. You all can discuss all the statistical evidence you want, but the numbers I trust are the numbers I see: The food lines are getting larger and larger, the number of people I personally know that are desperately seeking work has grown to a staggering figure, and almost every week, I hear of companies either forcing their employees to take huge pay cuts or laying them off.

These same people are losing homes at a record pace. If they are fortunate to still have a home, they are running scared wondering how they are going to afford the heat for their homes this winter, or how they are going to afford the gas to drive to work provided they can find work. They are begging for jobs, any jobs, and the food line becomes longer each week.

[Nederland]

66. Define "crash" and "soon"

Use specifics.

What will GDP growth be?

What will unemployment be?

What will inflation be?

What will interest rates be?

When will it happen? In a few months? In a few years?

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. 1929 great drepresion style crash

the leading edges are here

Oh and our unemployment is already higher than anything the gov'mint will admit

[Nederland]

81. When?

You didn't say...

[Vinnie From Indy]

96. I have been reading your posts amd I think your ideas suck

I agree that jobs are being lost to robotics and such, but your central premise that Americans should somewhow not be upset about losing jobs because poor people in China or Indonesia or wherever are now realizing higher wages is silly. I say this for a variety fo reasons.


In the most fundamental sense, our government is tasked with protecting it's citizens and not enabling corporations to evade taxes, environmental laws and child labor laws by moving offshore with their manufacturing in return for campaign contributions as is being done today. It is not to say that globalization will or should be stopped, but it should be done in a manner that doesn't destroy the lives of millions of Americans as is being done today. Why do you think we have government?

Also, their are a number of sources and methods used to calculate the unemployment figures in the US.

The fact is that it took the US and other industrialized countries over one hundred years to move from what was basically slave labor and unregulated environmental destruction to where we are today. You seem to give no thought to the fact that in your model it seems quite obvious that multi national corporations will spend the next few centuries jumping from one country to the next like locusts looking for the next uneaten field of wheat in their never ending search for cheap, exploitable labor. Someone once said that "Capitalism would be great, except for all the capitalists." I believe that democracy has to act a brake on the pure capitalism discussed in the classroom. The biggest danger of a capitalistic society is that it runs amok if left unchecked. If allowed to do so, it gravitates toward fascism which, I believe, was best described by Mussolini. He said "Fascism should more appropriately be called 'corporatism' for it is the merging of the state and corporations". We see it today in American politics.

It amusing to think of a politician coming out and saying, "Vote for me and I'll be sure the poor people of Guatemala make more money. Instead of $2 a day, they will now make $2.50. Oh, and by the way, none of you folks will have jobs because I am backing a bill that will provide tax incentives for RCA to move the TV plant to Mexico. God Bless America!"

[Ikonoklast]

101. I wish I knew the answers

to those questions. I would be the most sought-after investment/economic adviser on the planet.

I think one issue that has been lost in this discussion is that the U.S. economy up to now has been the engine driving global economics due to the size of our market. When real disposable income dries up imports into this country will decline. Foreign manufacturers that are exporting for domestic consumption will suffer, no matter who the parent corporation is. Their suppliers of raw materials will suffer, workers wages will suffer, etc.

Another point made is wages. We are still a very productive society, but wage earners have not participated in the resulting increase of corporate profits due to increased productivity. It is a downward spiraling race to the absolute bottom to find the cheapest hourly rate in the world, and I'm not sure where that might be. Mexico is afraid of wage competition from Honduras and El Salvador where workers can be had for even cheaper wages than that paid in Mexico. The Japanese are complaining about Korean and Chinese labor, and so on.

I'm for free trade, just as long as it is fair trade. I'm for workers participating in the profits generated by their labor, but it seems that is reserved only for shareholders and owners of the means of production.

This is not a zero-sum game. Just because there are a great many poor people in this world does not mean that those that have more must be brought down to the level of those that have little or nothing. Instead, we should concentrate our efforts to raise those economies up. We should be investing in these places, as long as real wages are being paid that would enable the workers there to improve their overall living conditions, not just pay subsistence wages designed to keep families barely above starvation. That will not work as long as there are those in our society that are willing to use any means necessary to keep wealth concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer families and the politicians they control. We seem to be slipping into an oligarchy, bordering on fascism.

I was asked the question once, if I thought that if Henry Ford would be able to do it, would he rather employ 500,000 people and sell 1 million cars a year making $100 profit on each sale, or employ 50 people making one car and be able to sell it for $100 million in profit. I never could justify either answer fully knowing that both are viable options as far as his profits would be. I do know how the head of a corporation would answer.

[Old Hickory Fan]

72. Keep your eyes on derivatives market n/t

[Javaman]

75. moron* sips brandy while the bombs fall...

This is the image that continually runs through my mind. He lives in this delusional world while it crumbles under his* feet.

[ChiciB1]

84. I Think I May Have Waited Too Long To Sell My Land!!

I hope it hangs on for a little longer! What a crass thing to say for sure, but having taken too much out of an IRA this year because of major family upheavals... well the Tax Man Cometh!!

I have six months at best!

[Burried News]

86. Great Thread. Appreciate the education.

[TrogL]

90. What happens when everybody's all credited out?

I cannot understand how these new housing refinancing deals eg. seniors getting cash out of their houses can be legal without calling them a "mortgage". I suspect many people don't understand what they're doing.

Then there's the crowd that's taking out credit cards to pay out other credit cards and don't forget the payday loan industry charging 3000% interest.

Pretty soon they're going to run out of new and creative ideas for fleecing people out of their future earnings.

[TrogL]

91. What happens when everybody's all credited out?

I cannot understand how these new housing refinancing deals eg. seniors getting cash out of their houses can be legal without calling them a "mortgage". I suspect many people don't understand what they're doing.

Then there's the crowd that's taking out credit cards to pay out other credit cards and don't forget the payday loan industry charging 3000% interest.

Pretty soon they're going to run out of new and creative ideas for fleecing people out of their future earnings.

[Doctor_J]

95. But Smirk inherited this recession

and the war, and the anthrax bombers, and the deficit, and the unemployment, and the poverty. So none of it is his fault.

[unlawflcombatnt]

98. None of it was Bush's fault

It was all Clinton's fault. Everyone knows that. He arranged for the recession to start in Bush's first year. It was all a plot to make Georgie boy look bad.

[OneTwentyoNine]

102. LOL,did Clinton give you a phone call too??

Yup,called me up personally and told me in no certain terms I was to buy NO big ticket items and cut back by 50% on daily necessity's once Bush took office.

Looking at the economy I guess Clinton must have even called up a shit load of Republicans also....

[zann725]

105. This also does NOT include all those whose unemployment ran out, & gave up

looking a long time ago. Many of whom are now homeless...and "off-the-charts" and essentially uncountable in most polls.

And it usually does NOT include all those who never found comparable work to the skilled (and highly-paid) work they previously did FULL-TIME, and are now reduced to occasional, low-paying "temp" work WITHOUT benefits. These "temps" drop off-and-on the "employed" so often, I doubt their large numbers are rarely, if ever, considered among the essentially unemployed which they truly are.

[unlawflcombatnt]

106. Unemployment

You're right about a lot of truly unemployed persons not being counted as unemployed. This is where the "labor force participation rate" comes into play. Unemployment is not calculated from the number of all workers in the labor force. It's calculated from those workers that are "participating" in the labor force. By simply lowering the % of workers who are considered to be participating, the unemployment rate itself is lowered. Simply claiming that 2 million actually unemployed workers are "not participating," instead of unemployed reduces the unemployment rate 2%. So a 7.1% unemployment rate can be reduced to 5.1% by simply reclassifying "unemployed" workers as "non-participating."

The labor force participation rate used by the Bush junta is 1-1.5% lower than that used under Clinton. So the (mis)calculated unemployment rate is 1.5-2.0% lower than it would otherwise be.

[DuaneBidoux]

107. Min Payments on Credit Cards set to double

good concept in a strong economy but it will be a rude surprise for many people living on the edge.

[ChiciB1]

108. Heard That Too... And Let's Not Forget

HEATING OIL!! There was news today that it will be a very COLD winter too!

Sometimes IT IS better to live in Florida!

[unlawflcombatnt]

110. Credit Cards

Personal Spending declined 0.5% in August. With real wages declining, a reduction in net credit card spending is going to have a more noticeable effect on consumer spending. It's going to leave consumers with less money to spend at the same time we've lost all the jobs from Katrina. This is not a good time for credit card minimum payments go up.

unlawflcombatnt
EconomicPopulistCommentary
___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[DrDoubleplusgood]

117. Chocolate rations

It is common sense that a shitstorm is brewing between the new bankruptcy laws, min payments going up, out of this world transport and heat costs, GM and such going under, no good jobs to support consumer spending(when will companies get this?), housing bubble bursting. Think it's possible that even once a lot of us are freezing and starving or losing our homes we will still never hear the word "recession" officially? Maybe they will(or already are) cooking the books indefinitely. Can we really trust any gov't stats? This will be just like the chocolate ration scene from 1984-at the very least, the gap between the experience of regular people and the blabbing of the talking heads will continue to widen greatly. The cognitive dissonance will be deafening.

[unlawflcombatnt]

120. Is a Bank Run looming?

I've recently had some strange experiences with the banks I deal with. All could be viewed as attempts by those banks to hold on to money. I don't know if these are isolated incidents or not, but I've experienced 3 suspicious actions by banks during the last week. Wells Fargo Bank froze both of my accounts because they allegedly couldn't verify my taxpayer ID number. They acknowledged that there were ample funds in the account. They simply froze it due to a technicality. I had opened the account 10 days earlier with no apparent problem. However, within 1 hour of someone trying to cash the very 1st check I wrote, they froze both accounts. Essentially they were able to tie up the money I had in both accounts for over a week, causing 3 separate checks to bounce. They also stated it was "OK" for me to deposit money, but I couldn't take any out.

At the Bank of the West, where I had another account, I tried to cash 2 separate checks that I had written to myself. The bank would only cash one check, claiming they didn't have enough cash on hand to cash both checks (The total of both checks was about $6,000.) The same bank has delayed in sending me new checks which should have arrived 4 days ago. Interestingly enough, checks are deposited into this account by direct deposit. So they're automatically getting their money, while making it difficult to withdraw money.

All of this makes me wonder if there's about to be a run on banks. Has anyone else had peculiar experiences with their banks recently?