|
Edited on Fri May-07-04 09:14 PM by Nicholas_J
PBS Nightly News and the O'Franken Factor.
Tonight ABC News Reported that most of this months new jobs were the same thing. Mostly Part time work, mostly in the service industry, mostly people taking kobs out of desperation and a great deal of underemployment with people who are taking as much as 75 percent salary cuts to go back to work becauses they have been out of work for so long, and were layed off of well paying jobs wthat they had for decades with places like GM and Ford and other things. They did a few nice little interviews with people who took those jobs at 75 percent pay cuts.
This is typical of Republican administrations where they create an artficial job shortage for just long ennough for people to be willing to take new jobs being created at at lower salaries. It happened during the Reagan Administration, same thing with George H.W. Bush
When Democrats come in, they do stuff like CLinton, where the new jobs are creates in new sectors, because the Dems focus on creating new small bsinesses and create ecoonomic conditions that foster those compaies expanding and raising salaries. REpublican administrations consistantly focus on large businesses, do not support small business creation, and create an economic environment in which large businesses do big layoffs, get rid of long time employees, have the fiscal resources to hold out during the so called crisis, and then start to hire for the old jobs again at lower salaries.
It was a news blurb during an O'Franken several weeks ago that reported that 307,000 of the 360,000 jobs created in March were low paying service industry and jobs with greatly dropped salaries.
Another report (on Air America again) however indicated that 100,000 of the jobs were not new jobs, but rehires of people who were out on strike, going back to work once the strikes were over.
Both O'Franken and PBS did news reports opeople who were making 100,000 a year going back to work in the same field, but accepting salaries like 30,000 a year in order to keep life and limb together.
Since the great depression, most REpublican Administrations have created enironments in which the stock market does not do well, and then they work to bring it up a bit, but the market stays relatively flat, compared to the previous democratic administration. Just as is happening during this Bush Adminstration. BUsh let the market crap out, and then worked to bring it back to the levels that existed at the end of the Clinton Administration, and it will hand somplace between 10 and 11 thousand as long as Bush stays in office.
Check it out. sme thing happened during the Reagan and Bush I years where in a 12 year period the market only went up by about 50 percent in 12 years, but during the Clinton Administration there was a 250 percent increase in the markets during an 8 year period.
Overlaying a chart of administrations between 1929 and the present shows that most historical benhmarks and the largest increases in markets occured during Democratic Administrations, while most events named Black (select your day of the week) occured during Republican Administrations, who run fairly consistant bear markets.
I have a neat little pamphlet that was written by some old guy who started investing during the great depression, that came with something like Money Magazine, where this guy did just that, an overlay of the markets with administration, and his comclusion was if you want to get rich, start investing at the beginning of a Democratic Administration after several years of Republican rule.
You go back clear to the End of Fords administration adn watch what happened for example:
1975 8.5
Carter
1976 7.7
1977 7.1
1978 6.1
1979 5.8
Reagan
1980 7.1
1981 7.6
1982 9.7
1983 9.6
1984 7.5
1985 7.2
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
Bush I
1989 5.3
1990 5.6
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
Clinton
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997
I 5.3
II 4.9
III 4.9
If you notice the trend, during Democratic Administrations, Unemployment works its way towards the lowest levels during the period
but you note that during Reagans Admnistration, a lot of the time unemployment was kept at historically high levels, and only brought down at the time that Reagan had served 2 terms and could not serve again, but needed to provide something in the economy that would keep the Republican who was running to flll Reagans seat, just in time to check a poor employment rate from harming the Republican candidate.
Reagan kept it relatively high until Bush had to Run. Carter with a a terrible economic environment due to the large jumps in oil prices during his term managed to bring down unemployment to very low levels, from highs created under Ford.
But right now I am listening to Robert Reich on PBS (Wall Street Week in Review) again pointing out thesame thing. ALmost all of the new jobs created in the last two months have been low end, very low paying, no benefit, service industry jobs.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
