OT: New Job Numbers dog Bush Campaign

[spursfan101]

President Bush's re-election campaign is in a race against time, and he lost a critical month on Friday, economic experts said. The presidential election could well be determined by how many jobs the economy adds, and on that score, February's numbers dealt a blow to Mr. Bush, economists said. American payrolls grew by just 21,000 jobs last month, far less than the 125,000 to 145,000 analysts were expecting and hoping for.  :unsure:  

[WayOutWest]

Not to mention almost all of those jobs where in the public sector, looks like nobody is hiring in the private sector despite all those tax cuts to the rich and big buisness.

[spursfan101]

It seems that Bush is following Reagan's "trickle down ecomonic" theory.  Reagan, many will contend, was the greatest president of all time, and he was for some, as created more millionaires than in any other presidentancy.  He extended the gap between middle class, poor and the wealthy though, I see the Shrub doing the same.

[Randy]

It seems that Bush is following Reagan's "trickle down ecomonic" theory.  Reagan, many will contend, was the greatest president of all time, and he was for some, as created more millionaires than in any other presidentancy.  He extended the gap between middle class, poor and the wealthy though, I see the Shrub doing the same.

Actually, what both Clinton and Bush have both allowed is too many businesses to go overseas.  Why?  Cheap labor and low import taxes.  And Americans seem to be fat and sassy because they want to buy cheap products at WalMart -- we had better wake up and realize that these "cheap" products are killing are economy -- slowly but surely.  

Here are a couple of issues that we have to start facing:

1.  Jobs going overseas.  We need high tariffs on businesses who move overseas to avoid taxes and labor costs.  We may be getting a cheaper product (toaster, tv, etc.) but it is costing us a LOT more than we realize and will, eventually, cripple our economy (i.e. we will have tons of low salary jobs -- fast food, support, etc. and high salary jobs and VERY few in-between).  The fault for this goes to both Bushes AND Clinton (esp. the latter two presidencies).

2.  Unions.  Nothing wrong with unions until they start pricing themselves out of existence without giving quality and quantity.  Several unions protect workers and their right to be ineffective and even incompetent  Unions have to start encouraging their workers to give a quality days work for their pay.  I know of several union jobs here (Boeing is a great example) in which workers move very slowly only to ensure that they have overtime to pay for their hobbies.  Union workers are actually discouraged from moving too quickly and to "pace" themselves therefore, in their thinking, protecting jobs and ensuring more work.  However, employers aren't stupid and they recognize that they can take jobs overseas and pay workers less money for more work.  Unions need to start recognizing this or they will unionize themselves right out of existence.

Losing jobs to overseas is becoming a crises and I don't even think that America knows -- and I'm not sure they care.  And what we don't care about, is something that politicians will never care about.

[spursfan101]

Randy for President. Let the White House be white...with purple and yellow trim.  Valid points, our system, or the people in the system, are failing us Randy.  Bush and Kerry are both big sellouts, wish we had a 3rd choice.  (that wasn't Ralph Nader.)

[ziggy]

I am a free trader, because I believe in the end it will be better for America.  We have the greatest level of ingenuity, the most transparent equity markets even with the issues of the late 90's, the best and most mobile work force, the best infrastucture of transportation and telecommunications.  There will be some wrenching changes in getting there, but we will in the end be stronger for it.
As far as today, even with all the hand wringing about employment numbers employment is actually strong.  I recognize that doesn't put food on the table for those that are out of work, and I don't mean to minimize those issues.  
At the same time considering the dramatic impacts on employment from 9-11, the collapse of the tech and telecommunications sector, starting in 2000, to have 5.7% unemployment this early in the recovery is very encouraging.  By historical standards 5.7% unemployment is excellent.  It is generally considered by most economists that 5% is near the minimum level, just through job movements, and the cronic unemployables (if that is a word).
We should also recognize that the difference between today and even 9/11 the world has changed.  I was in China when 9/11 occured, and I remember hearing that China was hopeful of the fact that when Most Favored Nation strading status and full WTO membership occured in 2002 that they would see serious growth.  Comparing today to 1998/1999 or even 2000 is apples and oranges.  China is without question our single biggest trade and employment concern today, and they did not have MFN or WTO until 2002.