Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bj229r on March 08, 2008, 01:48:19 PM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/international-usa-economy-jobs.html?em&ex=1205038800&en=cd18927f5b1d36aa&ei=5087%0A (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/international-usa-economy-jobs.html?em&ex=1205038800&en=cd18927f5b1d36aa&ei=5087%0A)
The 63,000 jobs lost to the private sector in Feb is fairly common knowledge, but the last sentence in the article boggles the mind---"One bright spot was that the government added 38,000 jobs in February on top of 4,000 new-hires in January."
--depends on your POV I guess, but GOVERNMENT jobs dont PRODUCE anything :furious
-
GOVERNMENT jobs dont PRODUCE anything :furious
lots of paperwork
-
I find it disturbing only because so much of the american economy is driven by consumer spending... and you have to have a job to spend money.
I really wish I had taken more economics courses so that I would have a better understanding of how exactly our economy works. It seems to me that as soon as we enter a recession it would almost be like a death spiral, since we have no manufacturing base to pull us out of one. I might look into that one while my wife and mother are out shopping I guess.
-
Its based on beeing a good consumer, even if it involves borrowing to spend.
If you listen to news/econmy reports in amercian the word "consumer spending" seems to be the predominant word, with less focus on trade balance and other important issues when discussing the health of the economy.
That is what i pick up as an outsider anyway.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/international-usa-economy-jobs.html?em&ex=1205038800&en=cd18927f5b1d36aa&ei=5087%0A (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/international-usa-economy-jobs.html?em&ex=1205038800&en=cd18927f5b1d36aa&ei=5087%0A)
The 63,000 jobs lost to the private sector in Feb is fairly common knowledge, but the last sentence in the article boggles the mind-----depends on your POV I guess, but GOVERNMENT jobs dont PRODUCE anything :furious
I wonder if they're counting people joining the military?
-
Don't forget, we still have a lot of natural resources in the U.S. As other countries exploit theirs beyond sustainable use, ours will become more valuable just due to supply and demand.
-
Gah, I saw that in the financial news too.
Along the same line....
Most of this recent credit problem news is from people lacking any education in finance...or plain ole budgeting.
So we have all these homes bought by folks who could barely afford them...and bought them in mortgages that were not locked in. Once the rates moved upward, suddenly they can not afford the place.
For months, all over the news, we see boo-hoo stories about people who lived beyond their means and want the government to bail them out. Sure, there's a few that got nabbed by lousy lenders...but a great many were not.
Just glancing through today's news, more articles about credit woes. Simply put, we have a lot of people who fly along on credit.
I would like to think that one of the lessons that can be learned here is teaching our youngsters the importance of money. Managing it, saving it and living within ones means.
(Not that many state or local governments exercise such common sense...ugh...our state is several million in the hole...and the legislature is *aghast* that they should cut spending and reduce services)
Good economic policy begins at home :)
-
An economist, Art Laffer, estimates that 7 billion of the 14 billion dollar budget shortfall in CA is caused by productive tax payers leaving the state due the the prohibitive tax system there
-
It's just starting big time.
-
I find it disturbing only because so much of the american economy is driven by consumer spending... and you have to have a job to spend money.
I really wish I had taken more economics courses so that I would have a better understanding of how exactly our economy works. It seems to me that as soon as we enter a recession it would almost be like a death spiral, since we have no manufacturing base to pull us out of one. I might look into that one while my wife and mother are out shopping I guess.
We have a manufacturing base. Our manufacturing output has gone UP since NAFTA, not down. Jobs have decreased, but that will always happen as technology marches along and cuts the number of people required. 1 guy to repair the machines is cheaper than 5 guys doing the machine's job.
We have some problems, but the sky is most definately not falling.
-
We have a manufacturing base. Our manufacturing output has gone UP since NAFTA, not down. Jobs have decreased, but that will always happen as technology marches along and cuts the number of people required. 1 guy to repair the machines is cheaper than 5 guys doing the machine's job.
We have some problems, but the sky is most definately not falling.
BS ! Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs. Most of those lost jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries. The loss of these jobs is just the most visible tip of NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy. In fact, NAFTA has also contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened workers' collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits.
NAFTA is a free trade and investment agreement that provided investors with a unique set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign direct investment and the movement of factories within the hemisphere, especially from the United States to Canada and Mexico. Furthermore, no protections were contained in the core of the agreement to maintain labor or environmental standards. As a result, NAFTA tilted the economic playing field in favor of investors, and against workers and the environment, resulting in a hemispheric "race to the bottom" in wages and environmental quality.
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm?id=1545 (http://www.epi.org/content.cfm?id=1545)
-
What Checkers is saying is the trueth, and just remember who brought us this little gem............BILL CLINTON!.........so go a head and vote for Hillary, see what you get.
-
snip
Don't let reading comprehension get in the way of a good rant. I said OUTPUT went up, which it has. On top of that, our current unemployement rate is about 4.9%. Prior to NAFTA it was 6.7 percent. We make more stuff with less people. That's the definition of economic progress. Oh wait, this is about screwing the workers right? All those high-wage jobs are being replaced for pennies on the dollar? Again, facts don't match opinions and sound-bites.
According to data compiled by Harvard economist Robert Z. Lawrence, the average blue-collar worker's wages and benefits, adjusted for inflation, have risen by 11 percent under NAFTA. Instead of driving pay scales down, it appears to have pulled them up.
TEH SKY IZ FALLINGS! TEH SKY IZ FALLINGS! :lol
-
What? Government jobs produce! Lets see, waste, higher taxes, fraud, and a bunch of other things. Wait, that may be counter-productive. :lol
-
What Checkers is saying is the trueth, and just remember who brought us this little gem............BILL CLINTON!.........so go a head and vote for Hillary, see what you get.
Whether or not you support NAFTA, it is a bipartisan effort. Bush certainly did nothing to roll back NAFTA, nor was there any discussion of such a thing.
Charon
-
I like old style economics: Americans buy what they need. Americans manufacture what Americans need.
-
BS ! Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs. Most of those lost jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries. The loss of these jobs is just the most visible tip of NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy. In fact, NAFTA has also contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened workers' collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits.
NAFTA is a free trade and investment agreement that provided investors with a unique set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign direct investment and the movement of factories within the hemisphere, especially from the United States to Canada and Mexico. Furthermore, no protections were contained in the core of the agreement to maintain labor or environmental standards. As a result, NAFTA tilted the economic playing field in favor of investors, and against workers and the environment, resulting in a hemispheric "race to the bottom" in wages and environmental quality.
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm?id=1545 (http://www.epi.org/content.cfm?id=1545)
If your particular job can be done by an uneducated, illiterate Mexican, odds are that it WILL eventually done by an uneducated, illiterate Mexican :frown: