NationStates Jolt Archive

Jobs have increased by 300,000 in US. Even John Kerry has called it good news.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2004/04/04/stories/2004040401330500.htm
I just wanted to say that if growth like this continues, Democrats, don't despair. There are things to complain about caused by job growth. Not that you'll ever say it is cause by job growth, but you'll blame it on Republicans. However, these problems will only exist after more jobs come. Examples:
-higher pollution caused by more consumer spending
-greater inflation from increased buying power
-rising interest rates
Just thought I could be of assistence to you.

Bump

300,000 jobs is good news. Of course, when you factor in that Bush is still -2.6 million for his administration, 300,000 doesn't seem like so much, but hey, it's something, and it's only cost us what, a trillion and a half in tax cuts and deficits as far as the eye can see? But yeah, those 300K new jobs are good news.

I posted this last night, then Al-Anbar posted the same thing except his article was trying to spin it into bad news.

300,000 jobs is good news. Of course, when you factor in that Bush is still -2.6 million for his administration, 300,000 doesn't seem like so much, but hey, it's something, and it's only cost us what, a trillion and a half in tax cuts and deficits as far as the eye can see? But yeah, those 300K new jobs are good news.
True. But do you at least acknowledge a reversal is beginning here?

I posted this last night, then Al-Anbar posted the same thing except his article was trying to spin it into bad news.
Of course Al-Anbar spun it, she's no friend of the US. Can you send me a link, I'm curious to see how she did it.

Acually, the reversal started earlier this year. The feds revised their figures so that now its +500,000 for '04 now.

I posted this last night, then Al-Anbar posted the same thing except his article was trying to spin it into bad news.
Of course Al-Anbar spun it, she's no friend of the US. Can you send me a link, I'm curious to see how she did it.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=136563

Acually, the reversal started earlier this year. The feds revised their figures so that now its +500,000 for '04 now.
I know it did. But this is still very significant. It far beated economists' expectations. I'd say it isn't out of reach for 175,000 jobs to be created this month.

I posted this last night, then Al-Anbar posted the same thing except his article was trying to spin it into bad news.
Of course Al-Anbar spun it, she's no friend of the US. Can you send me a link, I'm curious to see how she did it.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=136563
Thanks.

True. But do you at least acknowledge a reversal is beginning here?I'll say the same thing I did when everyone was crowing over the one quarter surge last year that soon evened out--show me some sustained growth over a period of months and I'll consider it. This is one month, and the overall picture still doesn't look good, especially since this job report doesn't talk about the kind of jobs and the average wages of the jobs that have been created. Are we replacing living wage jobs with minimum wage jobs? Is the average income level for lower and middle economic class Americans still going down? Is the divide between the rich and the poor still widening? There's a lot more at issue here than just net number of jobs created.

Yep, I don't get Al-Anbar's logic.

I posted this last night, then Al-Anbar posted the same thing except his article was trying to spin it into bad news.
Of course Al-Anbar spun it, she's no friend of the US. Can you send me a link, I'm curious to see how she did it.

SHE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!??!?


And indeed, these 300,000 jobs does not mean nothing when the total loss of jobs since Bush took over is over 3 million and during Clinton over 16 million jobs were created, so, no, 300K is nothing big.

True. But do you at least acknowledge a reversal is beginning here?I'll say the same thing I did when everyone was crowing over the one quarter surge last year that soon evened out--show me some sustained growth over a period of months and I'll consider it. This is one month, and the overall picture still doesn't look good, especially since this job report doesn't talk about the kind of jobs and the average wages of the jobs that have been created. Are we replacing living wage jobs with minimum wage jobs? Is the average income level for lower and middle economic class Americans still going down? Is the divide between the rich and the poor still widening? There's a lot more at issue here than just net number of jobs created.
It has been sustained. The 3rd quarter growth was exceptional, that was a no-brainer. We wouldn't have 9% growth every quarter. But we did have 4% the next quarter, which is extremely good. There's also the fact that I've heard most jobs created are in construction, retail, resturants, and Medical fields. They are not exactly minimum wage. In fact, resturants will be, as many economists predict, the fastest growing sector of the economy this decade, and they're not paying their employees minimum wage. I know many life long waiters that live rather nice lives.
As for the rest of the economic questions you pose, let me just say this: whatever you've asked, I have the same opinions on it as Anthrus. In fact, I am Anthrus.

I posted this last night, then Al-Anbar posted the same thing except his article was trying to spin it into bad news.
Of course Al-Anbar spun it, she's no friend of the US. Can you send me a link, I'm curious to see how she did it.

SHE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!??!?


And indeed, these 300,000 jobs does not mean nothing when the total loss of jobs since Bush took over is over 3 million and during Clinton over 16 million jobs were created, so, no, 300K is nothing big.
Yeah, I assumed you were a female. Sorry.
Anyhow, do you expect 16 million jobs to be created in one month? I know we lost jobs with Bush, but don't forget, companies began with the pink slips during the Clinton years. The economy has little to do with presidential actions. Trade agreements and such have impact, but for the most part, the economy does what it wants.

The economy has little to do with presidential actions. Trade agreements and such have impact, but for the most part, the economy does what it wants.
So why do you want to stick these 300,000 new jobs on the Bush administration? If the economy has little to do with presidential actions?
Why give Bush any credits for that?

The economy has little to do with presidential actions. Trade agreements and such have impact, but for the most part, the economy does what it wants.
So why do you want to stick these 300,000 new jobs on the Bush administration? If the economy has little to do with presidential actions?
Why give Bush any credits for that?
I'm not. And I don't think these jobs were created because of Bush. However, I do think that presidents are unfairly credited with creating/destroying jobs. The exception, I believe, was Ronald Reagan, and maybe Jimmy Carter. But the rest of recent presidents had very little impact on job growth.

I posted this last night, then Al-Anbar posted the same thing except his article was trying to spin it into bad news.
Of course Al-Anbar spun it, she's no friend of the US. Can you send me a link, I'm curious to see how she did it.

SHE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!??!?


And indeed, these 300,000 jobs does not mean nothing when the total loss of jobs since Bush took over is over 3 million and during Clinton over 16 million jobs were created, so, no, 300K is nothing big.

Clinton gave birth to the term "McJob." If we're going to criticize Bush for the quality of jobs created, then the criticism extends futher back.

300,000 jobs is good news. Of course, when you factor in that Bush is still -2.6 million for his administration, 300,000 doesn't seem like so much, but hey, it's something, and it's only cost us what, a trillion and a half in tax cuts and deficits as far as the eye can see? But yeah, those 300K new jobs are good news.
The Economy is something you liberals will never understand. It usually takes 3-6 years for the actions taken by the government to affect the economy. The recssion Bush Sr. had was caused by the horrible economic policy of Reagan (I love the man, but its the truth). Clinton's economic success was caused by Bush Sr's economic policy. All Clinton did was not fuck it up. Dubya's economic woes were caused by the Clinton administration's failures late in their second term, a little day called Sept. 11th, and the .com bust. Aside from the possibility that the Bush administration may have known something to prevent Sept. 11th, what could the Bush administration have done to prevent the sluggish economy that is now on the rebound?

300,000 jobs is good news. Of course, when you factor in that Bush is still -2.6 million for his administration, 300,000 doesn't seem like so much, but hey, it's something, and it's only cost us what, a trillion and a half in tax cuts and deficits as far as the eye can see? But yeah, those 300K new jobs are good news.
The Economy is something you liberals will never understand. It usually takes 3-6 years for the actions taken by the government to affect the economy. The recssion Bush Sr. had was caused by the horrible economic policy of Reagan (I love the man, but its the truth). Clinton's economic success was caused by Bush Sr's economic policy. All Clinton did was not f--- it up. Dubya's economic woes were caused by the Clinton administration's failures late in their second term, a little day called Sept. 11th, and the .com bust. Aside from the possibility that the Bush administration may have known something to prevent Sept. 11th, what could the Bush administration have done to prevent the sluggish economy that is now on the rebound?
I just want to say that Reagan was not as bad as we think. In fact, he did everything right. But he went shifted us from a socialist economy to a frree market economy too quick for many to even know what hit them. But overall, Reagan was pivotal to doubling the size of the US economy.

300,000 jobs is good news. Of course, when you factor in that Bush is still -2.6 million for his administration, 300,000 doesn't seem like so much, but hey, it's something, and it's only cost us what, a trillion and a half in tax cuts and deficits as far as the eye can see? But yeah, those 300K new jobs are good news.
The Economy is something you liberals will never understand. It usually takes 3-6 years for the actions taken by the government to affect the economy. The recssion Bush Sr. had was caused by the horrible economic policy of Reagan (I love the man, but its the truth). Clinton's economic success was caused by Bush Sr's economic policy. All Clinton did was not f--- it up. Dubya's economic woes were caused by the Clinton administration's failures late in their second term, a little day called Sept. 11th, and the .com bust. Aside from the possibility that the Bush administration may have known something to prevent Sept. 11th, what could the Bush administration have done to prevent the sluggish economy that is now on the rebound?
I just want to say that Reagan was not as bad as we think. In fact, he did everything right. But he went shifted us from a socialist economy to a frree market economy too quick for many to even know what hit them. But overall, Reagan was pivotal to doubling the size of the US economy.

I posted this last night, then Al-Anbar posted the same thing except his article was trying to spin it into bad news.
Of course Al-Anbar spun it, she's no friend of the US. Can you send me a link, I'm curious to see how she did it.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=136563
Thanks.
Yes i would like to thank you too. Didnt make much sense and proved her point by quoting 3 cases of layoffs in DEMOCRATIC states. They were only a couple hundred in each case anyway.

btw, this:

But overall, Reagan was pivotal to doubling the size of the US economy.

is a great illustration of this:
However, I do think that presidents are unfairly credited with creating/destroying jobs.

Long term actions of the Legislature and actions of regulatory bodies have far more impact on the economy than who's ass is in the Presidents seat.

btw, this:

But overall, Reagan was pivotal to doubling the size of the US economy.

is a great illustration of this:
However, I do think that presidents are unfairly credited with creating/destroying jobs.

Long term actions of the Legislature and actions of regulatory bodies have far more impact on the economy than who's ass is in the Presidents seat.
Not in the case of Reagan. Of course, Congress did have to pass his tax cuts, if that's what you mean. But they were his plans. Same with his new federalism ideas.

It's really a combination of both... policy affects both current and future administrations.

What I love is the fact that whenever the economy is on the downturn under a Republican administration many of them claim that government has very little control over the economy, that it goes in cycles etc, but as soon as something good happens they all stand up in arms and say "hey, look at our wonderful economic policies".

Clearly this does not apply to all but definitely to some.