MERGED: 2nd U.S. Presidential Debate

[sharky]

I hope your not going to ignore the fact that 2 million jobs have been created over the past 13 months. In addition, the trend in unemployment is downward. 5.4% unemployment is lower than the average unemployment rate in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, and it is still dropping. If Kerry gets elected, there will be very little for him to do on the economic front except to maintain the growth and low unemployment that Bush has handed him. Anything that Kerry could do to effect the economy won't be felt until August of next year, and by then unemployment will be down near 4.5%, and people will be probably be worried about a labor shortage.

Yes, but so what? You need 180,000 jobs a month to keep pace with population growth. The past four months we have only created around 400,000 jobs. Total employment is still below the point it was at when Bush took office. In fact, after Bush's first tax cut, we were supposed to get more jobs. Instead, we lost alot and stayed low. We haven't even reached the level we were at when Bush signed his first tax cut. And the reason the Republicans continually quote this 2 million jobs in 13 months is because you have to go back that far to make the number look good. Not to mention that Bush never mentions that the jobs that have been created pay less on average than the jobs that were lost. How does a manufacturing job replaced with a minimum wage job good for the economy? From WSJ:

 

[Diane L]

STING, as Sharky points out, what is the nature of these new jobs? I fear too many of them are in the "Do you want fries with that shake?" and "Welcome to Walmart!" category...jobs with part-time hours, wages at minimum wage or slightly higher, and no health benefits.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

So do people expect the same type of pay that existed during the tech boom. Is outsourcing completely bad when it helps a poor country like India (interesting question considering some people want us to help the downtrodden outside the US and what better way then a decent job and wage).

13 months is not that far IMO... Fed has indicated that there will be soft patches in the recovery. To be honest I think the Bush administration has been a decent steward of the economy.

 

[sharky]

No, but there is a difference between a manufacturing job paying $15-$20 an hour and a McDonalds job paying $5 an hour.

 

[Klaus]

STING, as Sharky points out, what is the nature of these new jobs? I fear too many of them are in the "Do you want fries with that shake?" and "Welcome to Walmart!" category...jobs with part-time hours, wages at minimum wage or slightly higher, and no health benefits.

In my country people with these jobs are in she statisctics still counted as unemployed.
(Basically they are called unemployed as long as they don't have a job which gives them enough money to live).
Is this different in the US?

 

[STING2]

Yes, but so what? You need 180,000 jobs a month to keep pace with population growth. The past four months we have only created around 400,000 jobs. Total employment is still below the point it was at when Bush took office. In fact, after Bush's first tax cut, we were supposed to get more jobs. Instead, we lost alot and stayed low. We haven't even reached the level we were at when Bush signed his first tax cut. And the reason the Republicans continually quote this 2 million jobs in 13 months is because you have to go back that far to make the number look good. Not to mention that Bush never mentions that the jobs that have been created pay less on average than the jobs that were lost. How does a manufacturing job replaced with a minimum wage job good for the economy? From WSJ:

This summer the United Nations came out with its annual ranking that list the standards of living of every country in the world. The United States was 8th on the list, with only Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Australia, Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada ahead of it. If the economy was as bad as you claim it to be, this would not be possible.

How many other countries can you list with a 5.4% unemployment rate or lower? How many 1st world industrialized countries have a GDP growth rate greater than 4%?

Bush's tax cut has helped to create 2 million new jobs. Also, if the creation of jobs was not really keeping up with population growth as you claim, the unemployment rate would be rising, not falling.

Economist look at a countries Unemployment rate, Inflation rate and GDP growth when deterimining the over all economic health of the country. In all three area's, the United States is doing very well. How much do you think John Kerry, if elected, will be able to reduce unemployment by, since by the time anything he does will take effect, unemployment will already be down to 4.5% or 4%?

Do you realize that the current unemployment rate is lower than the average unemployment rate of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s?

Anytime someone works, it is better for the economy. This idea that all the new jobs created over the past year are at McDonalds is rubish. All sectors of the economy have seen growth over the past year.

 

[sharky]

Bush's tax cut has helped to create 2 million new jobs. Also, if the creation of jobs was not really keeping up with population growth as you claim, the unemployment rate would be rising, not falling.

Not true. The rate remained steady this month after declines during the summer with the positive jobs data. As for the rate, it does not include people who have given up looking for a job or have taken a job making far less money than what they made before.

Anytime someone works, it is better for the economy. This idea that all the new jobs created over the past year are at McDonalds is rubish. All sectors of the economy have seen growth over the past year.

Manufacturing lost jobs last month. The only sector that has seen any real growth this year is the government. Aren't Republicans traditionally small government?

Do you realize that the current unemployment rate is lower than the average unemployment rate of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s?

Different eras. You had fewer people in the work force and most of the Baby Boomers were still in school. Because they are now more workers, the number of jobs needed has gone up dramatically. And in terms of dollar adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage was over $7 then compared to slightly over $5 now.

 

[iacrobat]

So do people expect the same type of pay that existed during the tech boom. Is outsourcing completely bad when it helps a poor country like India .

[tangent]
Do manufacturing jobs that are sent to India and the far east always help that country or the people working the new jobs?

Jobs that don't pay a liveable wage and are not secure on any level are not really long term, viable solutions to unemployment. The only people helped are the end user who might get a cheaper product, and those making a better profit.

If a corporation is not willing to stay in its own country, why do you think it won't leave the one it outsources to.
[/tangent]

 

[Sherry Darling]

Worthy tangent! I was hoping someone would remind us all of that.

SD

 

[STING2]

Not true. The rate remained steady this month after declines during the summer with the positive jobs data. As for the rate, it does not include people who have given up looking for a job or have taken a job making far less money than what they made before.



Manufacturing lost jobs last month. The only sector that has seen any real growth this year is the government. Aren't Republicans traditionally small government?



Different eras. You had fewer people in the work force and most of the Baby Boomers were still in school. Because they are now more workers, the number of jobs needed has gone up dramatically. And in terms of dollar adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage was over $7 then compared to slightly over $5 now.

The rate usually does not go down every month, but has steadily been dropping every two months for over a year now. Its probably a safe bet that we'll see a 5.3% unemployment rate the first week of November. The United Nations did record the people who are in what is considered(long term unemployment, below the radar, etc.) and the rate was 1.2% for this year. But its incorrect to see that all people in this category or unable to find a job or have stopped looking because they can't find a job. There are so many other factors involved.

All sectors of the economy have grown, some less than others. GDP growth in the United States for 2004 is 4.8%. This is higher than any other modern industrialized country in the world. When it comes to unemployment, the United States has the 5th lowest unemployment rate in the world! Only Britain 4.7%, Austria 4.5%, Japan 4.8%, and Switzerland 3.7%, have lower unemployment rates. With the current trend in economic growth, that won't last to much longer. Once one gets down to 4% unemployment, people will be complaining about the lack of workers!

The Baby Boomers were all out of school by the early 1980s and most were out of school by the early 1970s.

Your point about there being more workers today than before only makes George Bush's economy look EVEN BETTER. The current unemployment rate is the 6th lowest of the past 30 years. Imagine how much lower it would be compared to past years if the working population in previous years was the same as it is today. The Unemployment percentages for past years would be even higher. The fact that George Bush has one of the lowest unemployment rates in history, with the largest potential workforce in history is a huge achievement!

The standard of living for most Americans has improved dramatically over the past 30 years. GDP after counting for inflation is 3 times what it was in the 1960s. Per Capita GDP has doubled. Just think of all the things the average household has today, that would be unrecognizable to a person living in your average household in 1970. Today there is an average of one car per person in the United States. Back in 1970, it was one car per four people.