White House sees about 2.6M new U.S. jobs in 2004

[Natoma]

http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/09/news/economy/bush_jobs.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

Last year, the Bush administration was looking for the creation of about 1.7 million jobs. But the economy actually lost 53,000 jobs, bringing the total number of jobs lost since Bush took office to 2.2 million.

As an aside, for all you people out there who are constantly hearing "3 Million jobs lost" or whatever, that's just people playing with numbers. 3 Million manufacturing jobs have been lost while ~800K "white collar" jobs have been created, over the last 4 years

Anyways, if this prediction doesn't come to fruition, you can bet the democrats are going to skewer the white house this fall over this. As much as I dislike Bush, he's got balls to do the things he does.

 

[RussSchultz]

Not to bring the 'partisan' discussion into this thread, but the loss of manufacturing jobs, while a true fact, isn't usually discussed in its entirity when its discussed in public by politicians.

They just won't admit that outsourcing is going to happen, and there's not much that can be done to stop it if the total cost of using Chinese, Indian, or Mexican workers is less than using an American worker would be. No amount of criticizing the current administration will change that.

If we're going to participate in the global economy, so must the jobs. NAFTA and the WTO has entagled us so far in the global economy that job protectionism just isn't going to be viable without isolating the US. If we didn't participate in globalization, we'd be left out in the cold, if we do participate, we lose some jobs.

And personally, I think its a good thing. I feel its spreading the wealth to move jobs from the US to developing nations. Workfare on a global basis.

 

[Natoma]

Common sense and fair play in politics? You ask too much......

 

[RussSchultz]

p.s. I always wonder what the 'anti-globalists' are really after. It always seemed to me that they claim they're "for" one thing (helping the downtrodden worker), but the end result of their protests accomplishes the direct opposite of their purported goal (keeping work/capital from entering 3rd world nations).

 

[Clashman]

I'll believe it when I see it:

Last year, the Bush administration was looking for the creation of about 1.7 million jobs. But the economy actually lost 53,000 jobs.

I would also be hoping for a little more real jobs and less "McJobs" this next year. If you look at where jobs have actually been created during the recent dip in unemployment, a large percentage have been crap service jobs like you'll find at McDonald's, WalMart, etc.

These WalMart jobs are more a sign of people lowering their expectations, or absolutely having to get a job because their unemployment benefits were exhausted and they were dropped from the rolls, (which, BTW, is another way in which unemployment figures are artificially deflated); than they are indicators of any real level of economic revival. So once again, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Natoma]

Why do you hate America Clashman? You unpatriotic-Quran-reciting-french-fry-eating-clean-air-breathing-pro-fudge-packing-frenchman! Did I say you looked french too?

p.s.: Agreed on your post btw.

 

[Natoma]

p.s. I always wonder what the 'anti-globalists' are really after. It always seemed to me that they claim they're "for" one thing (helping the downtrodden worker), but the end result of their protests accomplishes the direct opposite of their purported goal (keeping work/capital from entering 3rd world nations).

Not sure what you mean? Elaborate?

 

[DemoCoder]

He's just mad cause the only jobs you can get in France are McGovernment civil service bureaucracy jobs.

 

[RussSchultz]

p.s. I always wonder what the 'anti-globalists' are really after. It always seemed to me that they claim they're "for" one thing (helping the downtrodden worker), but the end result of their protests accomplishes the direct opposite of their purported goal (keeping work/capital from entering 3rd world nations).

Not sure what you mean? Elaborate?

I can't reconcile what the whole anti-globalist protest stance is in my mind.

On one hand, they purport to stand up for workers rights, and particularly the exploitation of the 3rd world as cheap labor to fuel our economy.

On the other hand, their solution(keeping us from using the 3rd world as labor) ends up keeping the 3rd world isolated and poor.

If could be, of course, that because though they present themselves as a movement, but are actually a bunch of different movements, such that I end up blending their goals into a complete mish-mash of unintelligibility.

 

[Natoma]

Oh now I get it.

Hmm.. I think what they're probably talking about is something along the lines of raising the minimum wages, as well as instituting worker protections in 3rd world nations, before we send our money to those countries. That way once people start working, they won't be exploited en masse like they were during our own industrial revolution, ~120 years ago.

I think.

 

[Natoma]

He's just mad cause the only jobs you can get in France are McGovernment civil service bureaucracy jobs.

I thought France began opening up to more pro-market reforms last year in order to spur growth?

 

[Clashman]

Perhaps anti-globalization activists don't try to present themselves as a single movement at all, but are simply lumped together into the easiest of generalizations by mass media, which tends to be some sort of "Pat Buchanon Anti-Globalization", (which is probably one of the main things nearly all parties involved can agree they are not).

 

[Clashman]

He's just mad cause the only jobs you can get in France are McGovernment civil service bureaucracy jobs.

Yeah, why enjoy 5 weeks of paid vacation a year when you could be flippin' burgers at Mickey D's for a whopping 6 bucks an hour?

 

[RussSchultz]

They pay $9.50 starting here in Austin, plus some sort of benefits.

 

[L233]

He's just mad cause the only jobs you can get in France are McGovernment civil service bureaucracy jobs.

Yes, France isn't actually a national economy, its just a huge bureaucratic apparatus doing nothing more than administering itself. They pay their bills by printing money and live off air.

 

[L233]

They pay $9.50 starting here in Austin, plus some sort of benefits.

Beats picking cotton.

 

[Clashman]

I couldn't find any U.S. figures right off the bat, but in the UK McD workers were generally paid, (and this isn't starting wages) between 3.6 and 5.6 pounds an hour, ($6.75-10.40 U.S.), at a time (2000), when the currency gap between the two countries was much closer. If you can find a McDonalds that pays 9.50 an hour and has 5 weeks paid vacation, (and we have to throw in health care as well, because you know those dirty french and their socialized medicine), well I'll consider giving up veganism and flipping burgers, (not really, but I'd be damn tempted).

 

[DemoCoder]

Oh now I get it.

Hmm.. I think what they're probably talking about is something along the lines of raising the minimum wages, as well as instituting worker protections in 3rd world nations, before we send our money to those countries. That way once people start working, they won't be exploited en masse like they were during our own industrial revolution, ~120 years ago.

I think.

You don't think.

You want your cake and eat the whole thing at once. "once people start working..." So, in your mind, it is better for someone not to be working at all, or working for even worse wages, then be "exploited" by a foreign company? Is it better to employ 20,000 at $1hr with "benefits" or 60,000 at 50cents/hr, if the alternative was living off humantarian donatations, or working for a local employer at even less?

Why is it that us westerners got go through our own hard-nosed capitalist phase with high growth, creative destruction, fight for our rights ourselves, and evolve protections slowly and democratically over a long period, but we must deny this route to others. Hey, let's just impose OSHA-style rules on those Indian call centers. Aeron chairs and ergonomic keyboards for everyone! That oughta stop the oursourcing!

Hey, let's set the wage to $5/hr in Malayasia, right? That will do the greatest good for the greatest number eh?

 

[DemoCoder]

He's just mad cause the only jobs you can get in France are McGovernment civil service bureaucracy jobs.

Yes, France isn't actually a national economy, its just a huge bureaucratic apparatus doing nothing more than administering itself. They pay their bills by printing money and live off air.

I couldn't have said it better myself. One fourth of the French workforce is employed by the government. Much higher than Germany, US, U.K. and Japan. (Japan has lowest fraction) Of course, I think the figures are worse for Franch if you include quasi-private structures like Airbus.

I love this: http://gmj.gallup.com/content/default.asp?ci=9865

 

[RussSchultz]

I would also be hoping for a little more real jobs and less "McJobs" this next year. If you look at where jobs have actually been created during the recent dip in unemployment, a large percentage have been crap service jobs like you'll find at McDonald's, WalMart, etc.

Where would I look? I perused BLS.GOV and didn't find any breakdowns of the jobs...of course I didn't look very closely or for very long.

Perhaps you could point me to some statistics about what types of jobs were created?