March Unemployment Rate: 4.7%

[nbcrusader]

alright nbcrusader, let's say you got laid off from your posh 7ob three years ago, but since nothing has opened up to you since, you decide to take a 7ob you're overqualifed for 7ust for the fact it's a source of income... even if it's half of what you used to make, and that's not taking inflation into account (though in three years, it's not that much of a factor)

now you're part of a statistic that lumps you with the rest of the "employed".

don't complain now, you can always move your way up at your new 7ob, right??

statistics can be incredibly deceiving if not put into a proper context.

Why on earth should good nation wide economic news be discounted based on my own personal experience?

For those with short memories, the number one criticism of Bush just 4 years ago was the UNEMPLOYMENT rate!

 

[nbcrusader]

Certainly not the Republican Party. They redefined everything from "inflation" to "unemployment" in the 1980s to create rosy numbers for themselves.

Melon

And Clinton made sure to change them back to "proper" context.

 

[melon]

And Clinton made sure to change them back to "proper" context.

Clinton didn't. He was a fool.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

There is no "value" in renting. You're literally throwing your money away, whereas home ownership allows you to put money in something that you can eventually sell.

Melon

That is a fairly narrow view. Considering the load of debt that comes with home ownership, there are plenty of benefits from renting - from flexibility in living to a lower debt load.

And knowing plenty of people with large mortgages, the stress added to life is another cost not included in your calculation.

 

[STING2]

You want to talk about "prior generations"?

1) My grandparents paid cash for their house in the 1950s.

2) My parents paid cash for new cars in the 1970s.

3) One of my doctors was able to work only over the summer to pay for an entire year for a private university.

So don't start jabbering about "prior generations." They went through life burning every bridge behind them.

If inflation was defined appropriately, rather than skewed against wages, we should be making, on average, millions of dollars a year just to have the same lifestyle as "prior generations."

So, yes, when WildHoneyAlways says you have a romanticized version of the past, I'd say that's right on the mark.

Melon

Once again, look at all the non-essential items your average household has today compared to 30 years ago. Look at the number of cars the average household owns compared to 30 years ago. Look at all the technological improvements in society that impact daily life here in the United States.

Tell you what, if you think the 1970s were so great, consider moving to Argentina. The AVERAGE person there currently enjoys the same standard of living that the average American did in 1975 according to the UN Human Development Index trend chart.

 

[Irvine511]

And have the luxury of complaining about life from the high speed internet connections.

oh, i am well aware of how lucky i am.

which makes it hard for me to turn around and sneer 'just work harder' at others.

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

Once again, look at all the non-essential items your average household has today compared to 30 years ago. Look at the number of cars the average household owns compared to 30 years ago. Look at all the technological improvements in society that impact daily life here in the United States.

What's your point? You could say the same thing about households in the 1920's.

 

[Irvine511]

^ yes, and what cost to the environment has all this extra, mostly unnecessary shit taken?

we're fatter, too.

 

[STING2]

What's your point? You could say the same thing about households in the 1920's.

The point is that there has been a substantial increase in the average standard of living of Americans over the past 30 years.

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

The point is that there has been a substantial increase in the average standard of living of Americans over the past 30 years.

But when has this not been true?

 

[Irvine511]

The point is that there has been a substantial increase in the average standard of living of Americans over the past 30 years.

and over 60% of the population is overweight -- are we healthier? are we better?

and who needs half the shit we buy anyway.

 

[STING2]

^ yes, and what cost to the environment has all this extra, mostly unnecessary shit taken?

we're fatter, too.

Most of these household items have probably had minimal effect on polution, in addition, when you add in all the recycling that occurs today that did not occur in the 1970s, Peoples household items have probably have less of an impact on the environment excluding the increase in the number of cars.

One of the most poluted countries in the world is China, and your average household in China has less items than the average USA household did in the 1970s, despite modern scenes from the big cities on the coast.

 

[STING2]

and over 60% of the population is overweight -- are we healthier? are we better?

and who needs half the shit we buy anyway.

Were also living longer. People could eliminate being overweight if they would just cut their calorie intake to the right level and exercise 30 minutes a day.

 

[STING2]

But when has this not been true?

The rate of increase in standard of living over the past 30 years has been faster than most other 30 years periods in USA history.

 

[Zoomerang96]

There is little, if any, politically motivated civil unrest in the United States. Even for the third anniversery of the start of the Iraq War, the number of people at protest in the major cities was tiny, often only in the hundreds. In a country of 300 million people, a protest of that size is not even a seriously reportable event.

People get laid off in countries all over the world. That does not change the fact that the average person in the United States enjoys a standard of living that is the 10th highest in the world. It does not change the fact that the median annual income in the United States is $49,000 dollars, one of the highest in the world as well. The unemployment rate while not the only factor is a significant one, and a 4.7% unemployment rate is one of the best in the world.

by civil unrest, i meant many things one of which are poll numbers which show the republicans on the way out. when's the last time any president of the united states has had THIS bad of a showing at this stage of a presidency?

the world will re7oice when he and his republican criminals are finally ushered out.

but before i dare to forget, your bit about "only a few hundred protestors" is patheticly short of the truth. why do you waste your time with that? why?

 

[Zoomerang96]

Why on earth should good nation wide economic news be discounted based on my own personal experience?

it was an EXAMPLE. and it wasn't a personal one either, i was using you hypothetically. i have absolutely no idea what you do for a living, nor do i care.

how can you not see that? are you TRYING not to understand my point? it was so simple...

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

That is a fairly narrow view. Considering the load of debt that comes with home ownership, there are plenty of benefits from renting - from flexibility in living to a lower debt load.

And knowing plenty of people with large mortgages, the stress added to life is another cost not included in your calculation.

I don't buy this. You've given one psuedo-benefit of renting. What you've suggested is an oversimplification. Renting an apartment in Chicago, New York, Boston, even in Champaign, IL hardly allows for saving. I know plenty of renters stressed out b/c they are unable to save any money doing it.

 

[melon]

Once again, look at all the non-essential items your average household has today compared to 30 years ago. Look at the number of cars the average household owns compared to 30 years ago. Look at all the technological improvements in society that impact daily life here in the United States.

Excuse me? We don't *own* any cars at my home. They're leases, because cars are too expensive. In terms of the "non-essential" items, I guess if you consider microwaves, dryers, and dishwashers "non-essential," we don't have those either.

Tell you what, if you think the 1970s were so great, consider moving to Argentina. The AVERAGE person there currently enjoys the same standard of living that the average American did in 1975 according to the UN Human Development Index trend chart.

Fuck 1975. 1972 was, apparently, the apex of American wage power, when adjusted for inflation. We're now somewhere between 1929 and 1950, if I remember right.

But that's right. All of our statistics are skewed towards how wealthy the top 1% is. And the wealthy weren't "wealthy enough" in 1972, so we had to change that! And as long as they live nice and fat, the rest of America can fuck off.

Melon

 

[melon]

That is a fairly narrow view. Considering the load of debt that comes with home ownership, there are plenty of benefits from renting - from flexibility in living to a lower debt load.

And knowing plenty of people with large mortgages, the stress added to life is another cost not included in your calculation.

Words spoken by someone who hasn't rented an apartment in the last decade.

Rental costs on the coasts surpass mortgage payments in the Midwest. Yet the wages certainly don't keep up.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

i think we can all agree that when unemployment is down, this is a good thing (especially in a country with very few social safety nets for the unemployed).

however, unemployment numbers in and of themselves aren't comprehensive enough to offer a true measure of economic health.

still, the homeless guy who got pissed at me yesterday for not giving him any money and then asked me what i would have done if he'd had his gun with him really doesn't care about 4.7% vs 6.5%.

 

[STING2]

by civil unrest, i meant many things one of which are poll numbers which show the republicans on the way out. when's the last time any president of the united states has had THIS bad of a showing at this stage of a presidency?

the world will re7oice when he and his republican criminals are finally ushered out.

but before i dare to forget, your bit about "only a few hundred protestors" is patheticly short of the truth. why do you waste your time with that? why?

Nice to see your still enjoying this "lame thread".

Republicans on the way out? I don't think so. The Republicans have control of the White House for another 3 years with Bush. If McCain runs, he will be the President for the following 8 years. As for the Senate, only 33 seats are up for election this year. The Republicans may loose a few, but they will still keep the majority. In the House, this the only area where the Democrats even have a shot at taking control and considering that Republican base typically turns out in higher numbers during mid-term elections, I'd say the Republicans have a good shot at maintaining control of the House.

Truman had far worse poll ratings than Bush at this point of his Presidency at 22%

Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Bush Sr. all poll ratings as bad as or worse than Bush Jr. at this point.

No one is going to usher Bush out of office. The American public had that choice in 2004 and their choice was to keep him in office. Because of term limits, Bush cannot run for re-election in 2008. For those who say it would be impossible for him to win in 2008, many people said the same thing in 2004.

As for the protestors for the 3rd anniversy of the Iraq war, it was widely reported by CNN, FOX, MSNBC and other news outlets that turn out for the protest was very low, and many big cities only saw few hundred protestors. If thats incorrect, please present some numbers yourself. I'm not wasting any time by simply listing what was widely reported by the major news outlets.

 

[STING2]

Excuse me? We don't *own* any cars at my home. They're leases, because cars are too expensive. In terms of the "non-essential" items, I guess if you consider microwaves, dryers, and dishwashers "non-essential," we don't have those either.



Fuck 1975. 1972 was, apparently, the apex of American wage power, when adjusted for inflation. We're now somewhere between 1929 and 1950, if I remember right.

But that's right. All of our statistics are skewed towards how wealthy the top 1% is. And the wealthy weren't "wealthy enough" in 1972, so we had to change that! And as long as they live nice and fat, the rest of America can fuck off.

Melon

The average American wage earner is light years away from the 1930s and 1940s. The United Nations Human Development Index is designed to look at the average living conditions in all countries around the world. Its not skewed towards the top 1% in any country.

I don't have the Human Development Index number for 1972, but its likely that Argentina current index number is higher than the USA's Human Development Index number for 1972.

 

[STING2]

i think we can all agree that when unemployment is down, this is a good thing (especially in a country with very few social safety nets for the unemployed).

however, unemployment numbers in and of themselves aren't comprehensive enough to offer a true measure of economic health.

still, the homeless guy who got pissed at me yesterday for not giving him any money and then asked me what i would have done if he'd had his gun with him really doesn't care about 4.7% vs 6.5%.

Thats why we have the annual United Nations Human Development Report to give an accurate picture of the standard of living for nearly all countries around the world.

 

[melon]

Republicans on the way out? I don't think so. The Republicans have control of the White House for another 3 years with Bush. If McCain runs, he will be the President for the following 8 years.

I grudgingly agree with this statement, and I find that more to be a testament to the stupidity of the American public, coupled with the stupidity of those running the Democratic Party.

All in all, it does a good job of showing how relevant postmodernism is after nearly 40 years. Substance clearly means absolutely nothing when compared to image.

Melon

 

[STING2]

I grudgingly agree with this statement, and I find that more to be a testament to the stupidity of the American public, coupled with the stupidity of those running the Democratic Party.

All in all, it does a good job of showing how relevant postmodernism is after nearly 40 years. Substance clearly means absolutely nothing when compared to image.

Melon

If the Democrats want to be competitive for the White House in 2008, they need Wesley Clark or a southern Governor to run for the Presidency. Running to the left won't help their chances. A southern, christian, somewhat conservative, white, male, with some military or foreign policy credentials, who is a Democrat and would struggle to win his parties nomination would have the best chance against a McCain run in 2008.

There is still enough racism and sexism in this country that being a white Male in a Presidential race does have benefits.

 

[deep]

There is still enough racism and sexism in this country that being a white Male in a Presidential race does have benefits.

This is true

and the party that best
panders to get that vote
will win the electoral college.


That is Rove and Bush's strategy
pandering to bigots.

 

[melon]

If the Democrats want to be competitive for the White House in 2008, they need Wesley Clark or a southern Governor to run for the Presidency. Running to the left won't help their chances. A southern, christian, somewhat conservative, white, male, with some military or foreign policy credentials, who is a Democrat and would struggle to win his parties nomination would have the best chance against a McCain run in 2008.

Why vote Republican lite when you can get the real thing?

The trouble is that every time Democrats try to create an alternative, they sound like a bunch of whiny people who don't know what they're talking about. I'm not sure it's "liberalism" that's the problem here, as much as they fixate on stupid things. Whining about how Bush lied to start a war is old news, and nobody but a bunch of Green Party acolytes care anymore. Most of all, when it comes to the problems that are left unsaid, the Democrats have all but assured that they remain unsaid. They're a pathetic excuse for an opposition party, and the American public have taken notice.

There is still enough racism and sexism in this country that being a white Male in a Presidential race does have benefits.

Not that we've ever had anything other than that. But if you're hinting what I think you're hinting, I don't want Hillary Clinton either. She lacks believability.

Melon

 

[anitram]

There is still enough racism and sexism in this country that being a white Male in a Presidential race does have benefits.

That's why I always thought people who felt Condoleezza Rice had a chance were totally deluded.

 

[najeena]

Every new Republican scandal increases the possibility of Democratic success. How many are yet to come to light? Refusing to see the reality of what's going on in Iraq isn't going to help the Bush machine's popularity, nor will trying start yet another fruitless war that we can't afford, let alone win. Bush is the face of the Republican party, and as much as they might try to distance themselves from him now, their rubber-stamp voting records can't be erased.

 

[STING2]

That's why I always thought people who felt Condoleezza Rice had a chance were totally deluded.

Its not that its impossible for a women to win, its just that being a women is at least a slight disadvantage in the current climate. But, such a slight disadvantage can be removed if the person holds political views aligned with the those likely to exhibit some level of racism or sexism. Condoleezza Rice is more like Margaret Thatcher, whom the Soviets referred to as the "Iron Lady". Margaret Thatcher had a very successful political career, but she came from the right rather than the left.