"US Job Creation Finally Under Way"

[RedSkunk]

US job creation finally under way

"The US's 'jobless recovery' could be over after the economy added an extra 308,000 jobs in March - almost three times more than had been expected.

The rise is the highest monthly gain for four years and could help President George W Bush in an election year.

Most of the new positions were created in the service sector (230,000) followed by construction (71,000) and retail (47,000).

Manufacturing posted no change, but ended 43 months of layoffs in a row.
...
At the same time the US unemployment rate grew slightly to 5.7% from 5.6% in February."

Well? 300,000 new jobs, most in the service sector. Good or bad? Hate to say it, but a few more people earning minimum wage at McDonalds is not cause for celebration.

How will this effect the election? Will it? The midwest - including swing states like Ohio - lost manufacturing jobs - jobs which traditionally have been much better and higher paying than service jobs. Those decent manufactoring jobs are not going to come back.

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/2/04 04:23 PM, RoteStinktier wrote: Manufacturing posted no change, but ended 43 months of layoffs in a row.

If we can forgt about this month, and concentrate on the past 43, may I propose a question.

What is the point of having the best economy in the world if the people in the country are unemployed and badly-paid in their jobs?

[RedSkunk]

At 4/2/04 05:49 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: What is the point of having the best economy in the world if the people in the country are unemployed and badly-paid in their jobs?

Well, the large MNC's are profiting, to be sure.

unemployed

One thing to note is that the US has had a lower unemployment rate that most European countries, and it's still the case. HOWEVER - there are differences in how America and Europe calculate their unemployment statistics which could be the reason why:
US - 5.7%
Japan - 5.2%
France - 9.5%
Germany - 9.3%
Canada - 7.5%
Italy - 8.4%
UK - 4.9%

[BeFell]

Not all service jobs are minimum wage jobs at McDonalds. Service covers everything from the medical feilds to auto mechanics.

This will definately affect the election considering Kerry's entire platform consisted of blamming Bush for job loss.

[AbstractVagabond]

This news can indeed change the outlook a bit regardless on how many of those jobs are minimum wage jobs. Mainstream Americans are idiots who'll believe any soundbite as long as it's what they want to hear. Myself included from time to time. My hands aren't clean.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/2/04 06:22 PM, BeFell wrote: Not all service jobs are minimum wage jobs at McDonalds. Service covers everything from the medical feilds to auto mechanics.

I'll lay the burden of proof on you to show that these gains in the service field aren't low wage restaurant-esque jobs.

And I'm fairly certain that 'service' doesn't cover professions in the medical field - that's the... 'medical industry'.

At 4/2/04 06:33 PM, OSC wrote: This news can indeed change the outlook a bit regardless on how many of those jobs are minimum wage jobs. Mainstream Americans .. believe any soundbite

Yes, you have a point there.

[Madspeed]

At 4/2/04 06:47 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:

At 4/2/04 06:22 PM, BeFell wrote: Not all service jobs are minimum wage jobs at McDonalds. Service covers everything from the medical feilds to auto mechanics.

I'll lay the burden of proof on you to show that these gains in the service field aren't low wage restaurant-esque jobs.

Service really is a broad term though, RS. I'm a grocery store manager and my title falls under service, my boss makes about $50,000, his boss $75,000. We are all categorized as service.

Of course, McDonalds may be hiring more people as well. Everybody's lovin' it. But the fact is, "lower end" positions have already been filled with all of the other sectors who had layoffs. I had a guy working as a checker for me who used to make a pretty good salary at AMD. So if these lower positions are already filled, where are these new jobs being created?

I'm as curious as the rest.

[Jimsween]

At 4/2/04 05:49 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: What is the point of having the best economy in the world if the people in the country are unemployed and badly-paid in their jobs?

Well, it seemed to work for France. They lowered thier work week to 45 hours to save jobs. The problem is, there is only so much work out there, and only so much money, and not everyone can be getting a huge share of the money.

[JMHX]

This brings the total from negative 3 million to negative 2.3 million.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/2/04 06:59 PM, Madspeed wrote: Service really is a broad term though, RS

True.

Of course, McDonalds may be hiring more people as well.

Meh, they open two thousand new ones every year - probably the case.

I realize that the 'service industry' is a broad term (albiet not one that includes healthcare workers >:( ), but I don't think it's a good trend - the average salaries of those in manufacturing jobs (in the US) are higher paying and provide more benefits / etc, than your average service job. But it's a trend that will continue - 90% of the nation's new jobs are in the service industry (Schlosser)

[JMHX]

I like how George wants to classify McDonalds as a manufacturing job so the job reports on that hard-hit sector seem a bit brighter.

[Jlop985]

The president has very little actual control over the economy, so this should not really matter, but it does. People look for a scapegoat for the natural occurences of the economic cycle, and that scapegoat is always the president. Has been since Hoover.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/2/04 10:04 PM, Jlop985 wrote: The president has very little actual control over the economy, so this should not really matter, but it does.

There are things that the president can do to affect the economy, however. Don't play dumb. Things like cutting taxes affect the economy.

[GooieGreen]

At 4/2/04 11:15 PM, RoteStinktier wrote: Things like cutting taxes affect the economy.

It makes it better for the poor, right? =P

For the sake of argument, what has Bush done that has affected the economy in anyway and the effect that it has had.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/2/04 11:21 PM, G00i3_7h3_3lf wrote: For the sake of argument, what has Bush done that has affected the economy in anyway and the effect that it has had.

The moves open to a president can effect the economy in numerous ways - I'm not an economist, so I don't know all of them. But it's just silly to say he has 'no control or input' into the economy.

Cutting taxes while going through a recession would seemingly simply prolong the recession, as trickle-down economics are rather silly in their own right.
"This is typical post-recession stuff, it's just delayed by about a year beyond normal."

Why was it delayed about a year beyond 'normal'? What's this guy saying? Who knows!

[JMHX]

George H.W. Bush's and George W. Bush's presidencies combined have failed to create even ONE new net job, in nearly eight years of presidency. That is a record. Father and son, over EIGHT YEARS, have failed to create ONE net job, but have succeeded in losing millions.

[Slizor]

The president has very little actual control over the economy, so this should not really matter, but it does. People look for a scapegoat for the natural occurences of the economic cycle, and that scapegoat is always the president. Has been since Hoover.

The President can and does effect the economy in a number of ways such as tax cuts, wars (which means increased spending), changing of interest rates, trade deals, etc. Basically your argument is one of an apologist, if the economywas doing well you would thank Bush, but because it's not doing well you place the blame on natural economic cycles (which is partial bullshit in itself.)

[pierrot-le-fou]

At 4/2/04 06:22 PM, BeFell wrote: Not all service jobs are minimum wage jobs at McDonalds. Service covers everything from the medical feilds to auto mechanics.

This will definately affect the election considering Kerry's entire platform consisted of blamming Bush for job loss.

THERE HAVE BEEN JOB LOSSES!!!!!! (enough caps) there have definately been job losses. Between outsourcing, union crumbles, and business collapses, a good amount of the decent jobs here in america are gone.

With outsourcing, alot of the good american jobs are going to the chinese and the indians. Like the clothing companies, i gaurantee that something your wearing right now came from china or taiwan. Or anothee example, the welfare telephone lines, when you talk to someone about getting money, it'll be some indian guy.

With the crumbling of the unions we see the devaluing of jobs. Once decent jobs like the food workers union (Vons, Albertsons, Stater Bros.) have been defiled by the two teered system, recently added when the workers went on strike, in the settlement the union got f-ed. The two-teered system means that if your a produce manager, you are supposed to do the job of the meat guy as well as your own if he doesn't show up. All for the same pay. Recently, at my fathers workplace, the dairy manager quit because he was tired of doing other guys work. This resulted in the hiring of two different people who can't do as good of a job.

Concerning business collapses, i'm talking the complete fallout of businesses. Like the factory jobs in Michigan and Utah, factories are going out everywhere. Not to mention the corporate businesses that are going out because of internal fraud's.

All in all, there has been a major job loss, and a huge devalue of jobs. Jobs are not on the rise considering all new jobs are working at the new wal mart that moved in where the old machine factory was.

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/2/04 09:41 PM, JMHX_DeLux wrote: I like how George wants to classify McDonalds as a manufacturing job so the job reports on that hard-hit sector seem a bit brighter.

Yeah, being blatantly lied to is alwasys great isn't it?

[JMHX]

At 4/4/04 04:13 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/2/04 09:41 PM, JMHX_DeLux wrote:

Yeah, being blatantly lied to is alwasys great isn't it?

War is Peace.

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/4/04 04:42 AM, JMHX_DeLux wrote: War is Peace.

In the same way that jumping off buildings is good for your health :P

[Proteas]

At 4/2/04 06:22 PM, BeFell wrote: This will definately affect the election considering Kerry's entire platform consisted of blamming Bush for job loss.

I really hate to say this, but it's not the president who decides where the jobs are coming from, it's the american businessman/woman. They will always go and look for the cheapest labor they can find, all the President can do is effect trade.

[Jlop985]

At 4/3/04 10:05 AM, Slizor wrote:

:Basically your argument is one of an apologist

I'm no Bush apologist, trust me ;-)

[AbstractVagabond]

At 4/2/04 04:23 PM, RoteStinktier wrote: "The US's 'jobless recovery' could be over after the economy added an extra 308,000 jobs in March - almost three times more than had been expected.

Most of the new positions were created in the service sector (230,000) followed by construction (71,000) and retail (47,000).

You know, I used this link as a basis for my argument on a another board and the first reply I get totally bashes me on it. For reasons we all missed. Look carefully at the numbers.

308,000 total it stated, however, add the three numbers below.

230,000
+ 71,000
+ 47,000
------------
348,000

So which is it? 308,000 or 348,000? This point brought up to me made me look like a complete jackass and I had to send this info back here. So, I'm making a request to defend yourself.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/5/04 03:11 PM, OSC wrote: So which is it? 308,000 or 348,000? This point brought up to me made me look like a complete jackass and I had to send this info back here. So, I'm making a request to defend yourself.

There were other industries which had a net loss of jobs.

308,000 is the net gain, and those three industries gained the most. But other industries continued to lose jobs. Manufacturing apparently 'leveled off' after acouple years of consecutive losses.

[AbstractVagabond]

At 4/5/04 03:28 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:

At 4/5/04 03:11 PM, OSC wrote: So which is it? 308,000 or 348,000? This point brought up to me made me look like a complete jackass and I had to send this info back here. So, I'm making a request to defend yourself.

There were other industries which had a net loss of jobs.

308,000 is the net gain, and those three industries gained the most. But other industries continued to lose jobs. Manufacturing apparently 'leveled off' after acouple years of consecutive losses.

Thank you. I'll need to read the article again to make sure it said "net gain". Otherwise, I can't use a rebuttal.

[JMHX]

Subtract any "gain" from the two to three million lost over these four years, and you still run up negative.

[RedSkunk]

At 4/5/04 06:26 PM, JMHX_DeLux wrote: Subtract any "gain" from the two to three million lost over these four years, and you still run up negative.

That's a given.

[JMHX]

At 4/5/04 06:33 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:

At 4/5/04 06:26 PM, JMHX_DeLux wrote: Subtract any "gain" from the two to three million lost over these four years, and you still run up negative.

That's a given.

You'd be amazed how many Republicans refuse to admit that there was a massive recession and borderline employment depression before these jobs came about.

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/5/04 07:38 PM, JMHX_DeLux wrote: You'd be amazed how many Republicans refuse to admit that there was a massive recession and borderline employment depression before these jobs came about.

Maybe they refuse to BELIEVE, Judge...