The Great American Job Machine

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice bit of spin- I wouldn't have expected anything less from the National Review. They could make spending eternity in Hell seem like retirement to the tropics...

They didn't mention how many of those seven job changes in the first ten years are voluntary vs forced, there being some difference. And they forget to mention that folks will take damn near any job when their benefits run out, or that nobody is seriously considering a re-employment benefit..

I particularly like the part about average wages having gone up by an entire penny while my natural gas rate has gone up by 70%+, electricity by 20%, and my family healthcare plan by $200/mo... At least I don't have to worry about the rent going up, too, but lots of people do...

But we must be getting ahead, the Editor of the National Review says so, and I'm sure he has a lot of personal experience in this area...

Almost every job change I have had has been an upward movement, even if it was forced.

So everyone else must be moving up too based on your sample of 1? Didn't you attack Dave for giving anecdotal evidence of layoffs?


------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: Ldir

So everyone else must be moving up too based on your sample of 1?

Your words... not his.

By the way, the "apologist" thing is getting old. :beer:

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The fact is that Bush is the first president since Hoover with no net job creation. The spin is that it's a good thing.

Considering Bush is the only President that inherited a recession (BAA), had a stock market crash (BAA), had rampant securities firm scandals (BAA) and the largest attack against the US ever (BAA), it is pretty damn impressive that our economy is doing as well as it is (BAA BAA BAA). He is definitely doing a good job (BAA BAA Buhaahaahaahaa).

Don't like Bush, eh? Rather have Gore?

Well, in response to the same situation, he said he would have simply raised taxes (BAA). If we had Gore in office, we'd likely be deeper in a recession (BAA) and have much higher unemployment (BAA).

This fairy tale authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.

You are so full of it.

 

[Insane3D]

However, you are too partisan to see that.

Ummm...pot...kettle...

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: Ldir

So everyone else must be moving up too based on your sample of 1?

Your words... not his.

By the way, the "apologist" thing is getting old. :beer:

Yes it is. Why don't you apologists start paying attention to reality? All you do is bleat about wonderful Dubya. He is perfect. Everything is beautiful. No news is so bad you won't spin it. Ignore the troll behind the curtain. Lah de dah de dah.

The Bush Apologists of America (BAA): America's loudest circle jerk BAA BAA BAA. Telling America to get flocked since 1980.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: Ldir

So everyone else must be moving up too based on your sample of 1?

Your words... not his.

By the way, the "apologist" thing is getting old. :beer:

Yes it is. Why don't you apologists start paying attention to reality? All you do is bleat about wonderful Dubya. He is perfect. Everything is beautiful. No news is so bad you won't spin it. Ignore the troll behind the curtain. Lah de dah de dah.

The Bush Apologists of America (BAA): America's loudest circle jerk BAA BAA BAA. Telling America to get flocked since 1980.

Sit down, son...

When did I ever apologize for anyone?

That's what I thought.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Finally.....

someone who "gets it"

great link charrison! :beer:

This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.


This is one.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Now if it just destroys Dubya's job, it'll be a great thing.
"It is in destroying jobs that the economy improves and makes it possible for the standard of living of all Americans to increase. "
Fits Dubya's job like a glove

typical mindless response....

This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.


This is another.

Any more questions?

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Finally.....

someone who "gets it"

great link charrison! :beer:

This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.


This is one.

And where do you see the word "sorry" ?????

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Finally.....

someone who "gets it"

great link charrison! :beer:

This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.


This is one.

And where do you see the word "sorry" ?????

This is LDIR's way of trying to be cute and institute a little slogan instead of discussing issues. Typical tactic of someone who stands on weaker ground. Ever seen a debate with a smart-ass jokester?

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Let's analyze your worthless link:
"Even when the economy isn't creating net new jobs, as has been the case recently, it's creating new jobs."
Well Duh, I guess if 500 people get fired and 300 find new jobs we should just say "300 new jobs created," and forget the 500 that were lost. Which part of not creating net new jobs don't you understand?
It means more people get laid off than find new jobs.

Did you miss the recent economic data when the unemployment rate went down .1%? You do realize that means more people finding jobs than being laid off, right? I am being serious, not snide here.

 

[smashp]

1/4 of the jobs added to the economy in the last year have been in food service



We are becoming a country of waiters and busboys.

 

[Fencer128]

Hi,

So the key points from the article seem to be:

1. There is going to be a minimum but finite unemployment figure due to job re-creation.

2. Job re-creation is good as it is a catalyst for workers to gain new skills.

3. A large portion of the unemployed aren't necessarily "long-term" unemployed, or indeed choosing it as a lifestytle.

4. An extension to the period over which the jobless receive cash *might* encourage people to stay out of work longer.

It seems that point 3 conflicts with point 4 slightly. Surely those with a work ethic who don't manage to find work in the period up to the 40th percentile - but do say to the 60th - won't be "long term" unemployed but will benefit from the extra cash for their family living expenses?

I agree with point 1 and point 2 somewhat. It's no good having a highly trained/educated workforce and no labour market, so there is a limit to be analysed there.

The contect of the article appears to be implying that the constant re-creation of jobs is associated with a sign of recovery, when, as pointed out, it is always occuring anyway. It would have been better IMHO to take the views represented and not to necessarily tied them in to a statement about the health/recovery of the economy - more about how the job market works in general.

Seems to be a good but brief analysis for turnover in the job market - but not particularly convincing as to an indicator for the health of the economy, as the context is implying.

I'm sure I'm confused and probably blatantly wrong somewhere - but I'm a physicist and not an economist!

Cheers,

Andy

ps Just noticed - the article is more in tune with - do we support an democrat initiative to extend unemployment benefit timescales than what is the state of the economy. However, the thread has kind of moved towards the article being some kind of statement about the health of the economy.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Finally.....

someone who "gets it"

great link charrison! :beer:

This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.


This is one.

And where do you see the word "sorry" ?????

LOL. Read a book or something. The word apologist has little relation to apologizing.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Finally.....

someone who "gets it"

great link charrison! :beer:

This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.


This is one.

And where do you see the word "sorry" ?????

This is LDIR's way of trying to be cute and institute a little slogan instead of discussing issues. Typical tactic of someone who stands on weaker ground. Ever seen a debate with a smart-ass jokester?

Originally posted by: alchemize
I wish someone would delete this post and ban you!

I have now. Sorry if you do not like my answer to his question.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Finally.....

someone who "gets it"

great link charrison! :beer:

This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.


This is one.

And where do you see the word "sorry" ?????

This is LDIR's way of trying to be cute and institute a little slogan instead of discussing issues. Typical tactic of someone who stands on weaker ground. Ever seen a debate with a smart-ass jokester?

Originally posted by: alchemize
I wish someone would delete this post and ban you!

I have now. Sorry if you do not like my answer to his question.

Talk about selectively taking a post, and editing it to fit your needs. Are you Michael Moore? Why did you leave out my /sarcasm in the original post? Guess your quote doesn't quite work then does it?

I don't have a creative acronym for you, what you did was just plain deceive. Oh ye who loves to talk of "pulling the wool over someones eyes". What a hypocrite. More evidence that you can't discuss an issue and only know how to pull out cute little one liners that mean nothing. Thanks for supporting my argument though.