If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Duluth News Tribune)   Economists are puzzled about why the economy is recovering with no new jobs   (duluthsuperior.com) divider line 260
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

9665 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Jan 2004 at 9:35 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



260 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-01-07 11:17:59 PM  
Foreign Outsourcing is the answer.

Everyone I know working for a large technology company is either outsourcing a lot of formerly high-paying technology jobs overseas, or their company is soliciting bids for outsourcing high-paying tech jobs overseas.

And US politicians aren't doing a damn thing to stop it, likely because it is helping their benefactors, big US businesses.

But the cost will be very evident in a few years when the high paying, highly trained middle class sector is stuck doing a bunch of low-paying service sector jobs.

We've seen jobs outsourced before, but this time it's very different. The huge difference in the outsourcing of a decade ago in the manufacturing sector was that those were not highly trained technology positions. Manufacturing workers can typically be retrained for new, equivalent positions very quickly, in a matter of weeks or months. But the jobs being outsourced today require high levels of training, often years of school. And once these entire sectors have been outsourced, those skills become valueless.

So these highly trained workers can't simply step into a new job at their old level. They'll have to retrain for years and years just to get close to where they were before.

Foreign outsourcing is unfair trade tactic that attacks the foundation of the US economy, and I'm going to vote for whichever politico is serious about stopping it.
 
2004-01-07 11:19:13 PM  
Hmm.. 9000 maimed and wounded US soldiers, many Reservists and they wonder why? Hmm.. Also, Tax breaks, plus war, don't work to well together. His economists should him informed him.

- InfidelGuy.com

"Radio That Rocks Your Rational Mind"
 
2004-01-07 11:20:21 PM  
YahoKa said:

This really is obvious - because economists are always puzzled.

You win the thread.
 
2004-01-07 11:23:23 PM  
At only 6% unemployment, it gets difficult to find skilled people to fill any halfway technical position.
 
2004-01-07 11:25:07 PM  
I love Fark, and most Farkers, but after reading this thread? I see a shiatload of people who don't understand economics, but like to act as if they do. Only an idiot will find fault with a recovery, while most will encourage it, and enjoy the benefits.
 
2004-01-07 11:25:43 PM  
patssle2:
You'd probably see more tax cuts if you didn't live in Scotland.
 
2004-01-07 11:25:47 PM  
Wake_N_Bake


ZipBeep, yer funny, but I have to dispute some points with you:

ME: ...the stock market recovering to pre-IT Bubble and ... job creation and worker benefits rising all the time...

YOU: But the stock market isn't recovering to it's pre-IT Bubble levels (yet). The DJIA is doing well, but the Nasdaq and S&P 500 (haven't checked Russell) are only 2/3 of what they were. Job creation MAY be rising or THAT could be a lie as we don't really know how many people have given up. Total job creation over the last 3 years is negative 2.5 million jobs.

Yes it has. The Dow Jones is at 10 Thousand 500 for farks sake! You are correct abou the Nasdaq and the S&P 500. Jobs are certainly being created, and as you yourself admit, the market responding to the increased discretionary spending coupled with increased productivity to result in a even-more-lagging-than-usual employment economic indicator. And 3 years? The recession began under Clinton buddy.


You: The Dow Jones is at 10,500.
Me: BFD. The Dow Jones is NOT the market. This latest stock dive started in September of 2002. You going to blame that on Clinton, too? When does Bush II start taking some responsibility? Only when it goes up? That seems to be YOUR theory.

Jobs are being created only because so many people got laid off that the companies finally had to rehire some. It doesn't take a huge economic recovery to force companies to rehire people after having the lowest level of employment since Bush I. The economy over the last year has been worse than the any of Clinton's 8 years.

Again, by some counts, 3.3 million jobs have been lost since Bush II took office. I prefer to use the more conservative 2.5 million. How is that a good thing? I understand that Bush II and Karl Rove are trying to spin a small increase in jobs created into this great economic recovery, but it ain't yet!!
 
2004-01-07 11:30:15 PM  
AhGodUSmellThat:
I love Fark, and most Farkers, but after reading this thread? I see a shiatload of people who don't understand economics, but like to act as if they do. Only an idiot will find fault with a recovery, while most will encourage it, and enjoy the benefits.


Oh, I see. Everything is fine! Nothing to see here folks!

/sarcasm
 
2004-01-07 11:30:28 PM  
people, people. trust jeebus and all will be well
 
sp
2004-01-07 11:31:00 PM  
Economies are cyclical. Tax cuts and interest rate adjustments can lessen the severity of the downturns. The cycle killed Bush I and will probably help Bush II. That being said, had Bush I cut taxes instead of raising them, we would probably never have been cursed with a Clinton presidency.

I totally agree that Bush is spending way too much(although a lot of it can't be helped because of the terrorist threat, but some of it is excessive). If you pay close attention, the democrats are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. To one group they say Bush is spending too much. To other groups they say he is not spending enough.

Democrats, because of the nature of their principles and policies, are not the friends of a capitalist economy. That's just the way it is.
 
2004-01-07 11:31:20 PM  

America-hating hippies actually believe Krugman's bullshiat.

Here's a good graphic for dummies crying about people who "have given up looking for work":

Discouraged workers represent less than one third of one percent of the entire labor force (the sum of all employed, unemployed, and available workers). And that number is only five-one-hundredths of one percent higher than the historical average.
 
2004-01-07 11:36:47 PM  
"The USA has not always been the world's superpower, and it is unlikely it will remain so."

That'll come as a shock to the Chinese and the EU. Their whole gig for the past few decades has been to try to put something together that can, in several decades, be able to compete on at least one level (economically) with the United States. China (by its own estimation) is aiming to overtake Japan for the second largest economy by around 2050 and then settle in behind America for a long slog. But, golly, maybe those dumb Chinese aren't too good at long-term planning.


"The democrats made all this deficit dissappear during the 90's by raising taxes, increasing the social services budget, and catering to the enabling left"

Catering to the what? And sorry, sparky, but there was no "surplus". Clinton borrowed around 800 million in his first term, and we continued to borrow behind the scenes for debt servicing even during the surplus years.


As for the rest of the unadulterated idiots proclaiming doom and gloom: welcome to the late 1950s. And the late 60s. And the mid-to-late 70s. Then the mid-to-late 80s and the early 90s. Oh my god, consumer debt at record levels! That's never happened before! Government deficits, oh my!


And jobs? Face it, it's different this time around because things have changed. There has never been anything remotely approaching the offshoring process that's been taking place, nor have we ever had this sort of productivity. And yet for all this we're still sitting at a statistically rather good, maybe a bit high, unemployment level floating around the high 5 or low 6 percent. Prior to the days of venture capital permitting scads of companies to temporarily hire scads of people for which there was never any real work in the first place, an unemployment level in the 5 percent range was fairly well considered about as good as you could hope for on balance. And please don't bring up the fact that not all the unemployed are counted in the "official figure" - it's been that way for quite a while. The figure has lots of problems, one of which is that it can balloon regardless of increased job creation and disproportionate to the number of people actually out of work.

Manufacturing? Our manufacturing economy alone would be the fourth largest economy on the planet. We just don't need that many people to produce the stuff any more. See: trends.


"You mean giving away America's surplus to the rich doesn't make a recovery?"

Get an education, please.


"the dollar has lost 20% of its value against the euro in the last 8 months"

And more than that over a greater period of time. Guess what? It needed too. It's worse for the Euro than us. You may now continue your regularly scheduled freak-out over something you don't grasp.


"If you want a good sampling of the economy, just sit in a bar with a lot of traffic."

Yes, because sitting in a bar in City A will tell you all sorts of stuff about City B, especially in a nation the size of a continent.


"I think Dean could sign every spending bill sent to him if we didn't spend $400,000,000,000.00 every year trying to kill brown people."

Yes, it's all the military. All of the deficit is going to the military.


"military production part of the GDP? Then its possible a significant portion of that growth is from supplies being produced for soldiers in Iraq."

Oh my god, please make it stop. My head is hurting. Why? Why why why? Why are people so clueless? This stuff is not _that_ hard to grasp at the macro level. I don't expect people to understand the details, but for christ's sake people will spend more time trying to find something nefarious - or a 'black lining' - about something rather than actually figure out what's really going on. Is it because we're on Fark and you're just supposed to think that way here?


"I dunno, but discount retail sales were down this Christmas, while luxury sales were up."

Retail sales overall were up. The hand-wringing each year is over in-store retail sales. Guess where a lot of people do their shopping these days? On the innerweb. Guess what percent online retail sales in the pre-Christmas week grew from the previous year? That'd be 43%. They're up 30% for the full season versus the previous year. This is after the 20% increase last year that caused many an observer to point out that "disappointing retail sales figures" for Christmas were woefully inadequate because they were not taking online sales into account.


"I'm maintaining a 4.0 GPA in my accounting program with a good few years of money handling/check cashing/computer tech experience and I can't even get a job as a cashier at the farking supermarket, so don't talk to me about how the hoarding wealthy's recovering stock portfolios is helping the country. If their money actually circulated and benefited anyone,"

You're a 4.0 GPA accounting student, but you think the money in wealthy bastards' stock portfolios is idle and being hoarded?


"A trillion here, a trillion there, soon it adds up to real money. Want to know who finances most of the US right now? Try China."

Try understanding the article. For starters, it notes right off the bat that Japan is the chief foreign financer. Beyond that, the fact that China is a large purchased of government bonds hardly means they're "financing" everything. It simply means they're a large and important foreign buyer. Guess who buys the large majority of all such bonds? Hint: it's not people overseas. And do you know how China gets the money to buy those bonds? From our trade deficit with them - it's our money that we bought things with in the first place. That's how these things work. Guess what would happen if we had no trade with them? They'd lose a good portion of their economy, tumble into an economic depression and see unemployment go off the charts. So are they "financing" us, or are we "financing" them? The answer is "both". For a little more enlightmentment please revisit the 80s and early 90s, read the hyperbole and fretting about Japan, and then substitute "China" everywhere "Japan" is written. Yes, the two are different, but much of the fear-mongering is the same.
 
2004-01-07 11:40:21 PM  
Our country has been through a shiatload of recessions in the last 100 yrs. It has happened during both Democrat and Republican presidencies. The economy is cyclical, it will change no matter who is in office. A correction begets a recovery, and visa-versa. To make this political is ridiculous. People are saying Bush 11, and Clinton this. Look at history! It goes much further than the last two presidents. When our children are 70 yrs. old, they'll be biatching about the same thing.
 
2004-01-07 11:45:11 PM  
SANDRECKONER: Thanks for posting a message on FARK that makes sense. It's funny, when it comes to economics and the stock market "everybody is an expert!" (Note the sardonic tone). Do these people do their own open-heart surgeries too? Must assume so....

/Now feeling a little less depressed about the clueless state of society....
 
2004-01-07 11:45:41 PM  
because GDP doesn't take into account the wealth gap.
 
sp
2004-01-07 11:46:42 PM  
Employment statistics are sometimes difficult to analyze. Most economic philosophies, on both sides of the spectrum, consider 4-6% unemployment to be "full employment". And that's in a good economy. It's really almost a fluke when the rate is lower than 4-5%. Many times, employers over hire during booms and are then forced to cut jobs during downturns.
 
2004-01-07 11:49:00 PM  
No_One_Special

I just love how conservatives always act like the rich are only rich because they've "earned" it.

What, are we wrong to believe that those people who have built themselves some financial independence didn't work their asses off for it?

Truth be told, the vast majority of the upper class were born into the upper class. You didn't earn shiat- you had it given to you by a family who used their connections to get you into good schools and good jobs...

You have no idea what you're talking about.

...while those who aren't part of this bullshiat neoaristocracy get the shaft and are kept aiming for high heights like store manager at the local McD's or Walmart.

Who is forcing them to aim for managerial positions at McD's and Walmart? Don't even try to evade the question -- and Bush bashing doesn't count as a legitimate answer.

I'm maintaining a 4.0 GPA in my accounting program with a good few years of money handling/check cashing/computer tech experience...

w00t! ACCOUNTING! Now THERE'S a major that isn't completely impacted. I'm impressed with your decision as to your field of study. So you're going to be an accountant? Have fun, buddy. I hope you like filing and shuffling paperwork around.

...and I can't even get a job as a cashier at the farking supermarket, so don't talk to me about how the hoarding wealthy's recovering stock portfolios is helping the country.

First, how is your inability to get a grocery store job related at all to the performance of wealthy stockholders' portfolios? (it isn't) Second, the "hoarding wealthy" inject more rescources into the economy and into the government than any other demographic in the country; the top ten percent account for seventy percent of the federal government's yearly income, spend more, employ more people, etc etc etc. Hoarding? Please.

If their money actually circulated and benefited anyone, I'd be able to sell some damn labor. I have math skills that would make the IRS spray their shorts...

...maybe once you're a fully certified CPA or whatever, you'll be able to sell some labor. For now, you're just a stupid college kid who would be lucky to find an on-campus job. Get over yourself. And if your math skills are so goddamn good, go apply to work at the IRS.

...so if the this "recovery" is supposed to help anyone but the rich, where's MY damn job?

Your damn job is waiting for you, you just have to get over yourself and go find it. Maybe once you improve your personality you'll be able to find some work,but with an attitude like yours, I wouldn't hire you either.
 
2004-01-07 11:53:18 PM  
sandreckoner has said what my drunk ass could not say with his amount of eloquence.
 
m00
2004-01-07 11:54:48 PM  
AhGodUSmellThat

While the economy *is* cyclical it's just wrong to think the sitting president makes no difference.

You can certainly do things to make the inevitable recessions very small and painless, and sustain the highs as long as possible.

Sinking 180Billion to Iraq (I looked this figure up 2-3 weeks ago) and cutting taxes is just making things worse.

You can't spend your way out of a deficit. Just like you can't eat your way out of being fat. Or drink yourself sober.
 
2004-01-07 11:55:20 PM  
I have not read anything from this thread. That being said, Im sure it has turned into inane Bush-bashing and even more inane dean-loving. For the somewhat intelectually-honest libs (I dont hate you too, youre just wrong)...

"His new reticence came as a CNN/USA Today poll published Wednesday showed a slide in Dr. Dean's support among Democrats nationally, with his lead over General Clark shrinking to 4 points within the margin of error from 21 in the same poll a month ago."

and...

"Dr. Dean, who has spent two years campaigning as the candidate willing to say what he thinks, initially told reporters that he would be "happy" to discuss his tax policy. Then, as aides glared at him, he immediately said that a senior adviser had "veto power" over what he would say."

Veto power??? An adviser??? This man is a joke. This is from tomorrows NYT.

If I am wrong about the Bush-bashing and the dean-loving, I apologize for nothing. It will get there sooner or later. LMAO!
 
2004-01-07 11:55:44 PM  
Tinian

America-hating hippies actually believe Krugman's bullshiat.

Discouraged workers represent less than one third of one percent of the entire labor force (the sum of all employed, unemployed, and available workers). And that number is only five-one-hundredths of one percent higher than the historical average.


Can one of you America-hating NeoCons explain, on that chart, why the lines are practically running in lockstep and then they diverge just after Bush II takes over?
 
2004-01-07 11:57:19 PM  
batchild -
You're kind of right. Government unemployment statistics are very misleading: If you lose your job but never apply for unemployment, you're NOT unemployed. If your unemployment benefits expire but you haven't found a job, you're NOT unemployed. If you're a college student entering the workforce and can't find a job, you're NOT unemployed. The Department of Labor simply refuses to count these people. This also does not take into account those who took lower-paying or part-time jobs just to get by.

mangomango -
#3 should be : Record trade deficit. A country can get away with two out of the three but not all three. The bill WILL come due.

DrToast - It's interesting that amongst all of those rosy indicators you listed that corporate insiders are currently SELLING 8 TIMES as much stock as they are buying.

MegaDethHead - You never saw Taft.

undflickertail - And pretty soon they will tire of doing and won't need to anyhow.
 
sp
2004-01-07 11:57:39 PM  
SANDRECKONER makes a good point about the manufacturing sector not needing as many people to produce the products anymore. When sector2 creates products that make sector1 more productive, sector2 grows and sector1 shrinks.
 
2004-01-07 11:57:49 PM  
Sod A Dog Said it much better than I could also. If I was sober.....
 
2004-01-08 12:02:13 AM  
If I had a trillion dollars.....
 
sp
2004-01-08 12:04:43 AM  
While some of the comments about the way the unemployed are counted are true, the fact that the statistics have been calculated that way for a long time makes comparisons of the historical figures consistant.
 
2004-01-08 12:06:26 AM  
m00
You can certainly do things to make the inevitable recessions very small and painless, and sustain the highs as long as possible.

That was the point I was trying to make; a recession is inevitable. A sitting president can help us out of it, but the market will correct on its own eventually.
 
2004-01-08 12:06:49 AM  
sandreckoner - Re: "doom and gloom", things ARE different. Prior to 1982 we ALWAYS had a trade surplus and could get away with a budget deficit, sometimes a big one. But you can't run a trade deficit AND a budget deficit forever.
 
2004-01-08 12:07:21 AM  
lone_marauder

3. Tax cuts for wealthy


Uh, the wealthy ARE the economy, you stupid fark. Get this through your thick liberal skull:


THE ECONOMY != THE GOVERNMENT


How very socalist of you, next you will be telling us to seize control of the industrial infrastructure. We can Nationalize the Dow Jones, it will then alway say what the Administration wants it to.




Tinian


http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/truthsquad200401061232.asp


Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, 14% of people know that. Your using the nationalist review?? Tisk Tisk.

 
2004-01-08 12:09:32 AM  
I'm a fisical conservative/social moderate (no abortion/no legal herion and coke/legalize just about everything else/pro-death penalty for violent crime) and here's my take on economics from 76 on

Carter, screwed by Nixon's stupid price controls/oil shortages, but didn't do anything to help himself either

Regan, screwed by a democrat congress that wouldn't cut social spending to allow for destroying the USSR and pay for the tax cuts

Bush I, Turned a market correction into a clusterfark by raising taxes in '90 at behest of democrat congress

Clinton, continued Bush I's fark up until 94 republican takeover of congress, they kept him on his toes (welfare reform, no new taxes post 93, no socialized medicine) until the end of his term.

Bush I, stepped on landmine of market correction + 9/11, I'm not happy with some of the domestic crap he is letting go by, but he's trying to get reelected, we might get to test supply-side for real from '05 on if congress stays with the GOP (and it should, the republican hell year in the senate was 2002)
 
2004-01-08 12:10:52 AM  
Wake_N_Bake

YOU: I thought it was SAINT Reagan now. :D

But again, the Reagan economy leaped over Bush I's administration to help Bill Clinton and now will leap over Bush II's administration to help the next President. Why does the Reagan economy hate the Bush boys? Was it because of that whole Bush I "voodoo economy" thing?

Okay, out of this semi-coherent rambing I am able to discern three things:
1) By 'leaping over' I assume you mean that subsequent Presidents are subject to the results of previous Presidents' economic policies (i.e. you admit the potency of the so-called 'trickle-down effect'), but only so long as they are the President two in front of them.
2) You are a jackass who is willing to pretend to believe that the Presidents have a leap-frog effect instead of just affecting the whole community. By all means, admit that Regan economics helped Clinton, just don't think Bush I's policies resulted in the wreck of an economy Bush II inherited.
3) You are a jackass.


First, nice name-calling. You NeoCons sure do like to call names and accuse other people of rambling when you don't have an actual point to make. Or is it you Dittoheads? Maybe it's Dittoheads, because that seems to be a Rush tactic.

If you don't understand, just ask. If Reagan's economy was so great, why was there so much trouble during Bush I's administration? Or, are you forgetting "It's the economy, stupid"????

I don't believe in any kind of 'trickle down' effect and never said anything like that. Reagan's economy went straight into the crapper during Bush I's administration is what I'm saying and that's what Clinton inherited - Bush I's crappy economy.

It sounds to me like YOU want to blame Clinton for the early part of Bush II's administration and then give credit to Bush II for this latest small boost.

Yet, on the other hand, you want to give Reagan credit for the Clinton economy and you just want to skip right over the Bush I debacle. WTF kind of spin is that?

How did the Reagan economy do that?

BTW, Bush I, during his run for the nomination AGAINST Reagan in 1984, called Reagan's economic plan "voodoo economics". Maybe you weren't alive then, or in college or high school or just not paying attention. It is my fault
for assuming that everyone knew that. Sorry.
 
2004-01-08 12:11:11 AM  
The "Jobless Recovery" is a myth.

So, for that matter, is the idea that there are more "discouraged" worker now than ever before.

Recessions hurt. The recession that we've already come out of, however, was nothing compared to the "stagflation" of the Carter years, when unemployment was nearly twice what it was during the depths of the most recent mild recession. Remember the "Misery Index" (unemployment + inflation)? It's just a couple of points above historic lows, which is why you never hear liberals talk about it. On the other hand, they do still talk about how budget deficits lead to higher interest rates, even though that's been amply disproven over the last decade. (Not that budget deficits are good; after all, they let the government spend more money...)

I know, I know: never confuse liberals with facts.
 
sp
2004-01-08 12:11:54 AM  
2004-01-08 12:02:13 AM Halitosis


If I had a trillion dollars.....

That is a great hypothetical. If all of you had a trillion dollars, do you think paying, say, 10 million of it in local, state, and federal taxes would be your "fair share". I do.
 
2004-01-08 12:14:00 AM  
HOLY BEJEEZUS!!!!
bofkentucky, that was the most senseadaisical post ive read on fark in 2 months. KUDOS(whatever those are)
 
2004-01-08 12:14:34 AM  
lone_marauder

3. Tax cuts for wealthy

Uh, the wealthy ARE the economy, you stupid fark. Get this through your thick liberal skull:

THE ECONOMY != THE GOVERNMENT


Uh, the average salary is $28,000. That means half of the money earned in the US is from people making under $28,000.

THE ECONOMY != THE WEALTHY
 
2004-01-08 12:15:36 AM  
The rich people are making more money, because, as mentioned above, they've cut costs by shipping the jobs overseas. That's where your increase came from.
 
2004-01-08 12:17:15 AM  
If you don't understand, just ask. If Reagan's economy was so great, why was there so much trouble during Bush I's administration? Or, are you forgetting "It's the economy, stupid"????

wasnt that a quote from back when a man won a presidency insisting we were in a recession that we were well out of?
just a little TRUTH(like the tobacco ads, but true)
 
m00
2004-01-08 12:17:42 AM  
AhGodUSmellThat

And my point was while I cut bush slack for getting handed a raw deal on the economy... his policies turn an inevitable recession into a nightmare.
 
2004-01-08 12:18:12 AM  
If I had a trillion dollars, I'd pay off lots of debt somewhere or another. Of course, my trillion dollars would greatly devalue the dollar, but maybe I could buy a bunch of stuff before anybody caught a whiff of my newfound wealth.

If only we all had a trillion dollars!
 
sp
2004-01-08 12:19:58 AM  
Any of you gotten a job from a poor dude lately?
 
m00
2004-01-08 12:20:13 AM  
If I had a trillion dollars I'd take everything but 100 million and set up a ton of non-profit social programs...

And purchase exactly ONE WMD and claim its my 2nd amendment right.
 
2004-01-08 12:20:43 AM  
if i had a trillion dollars i would hold my pink to my lip and belt out an evil laugh
 
2004-01-08 12:21:22 AM  
that should be pinky, not pink
 
2004-01-08 12:22:09 AM  
inexplicable

If you don't understand, just ask. If Reagan's economy was so great, why was there so much trouble during Bush I's administration? Or, are you forgetting "It's the economy, stupid"????

wasnt that a quote from back when a man won a presidency insisting we were in a recession that we were well out of?
just a little TRUTH(like the tobacco ads, but true)


Right, we had Karl Rove working for the Democrats at that time. :P

Pretty much everybody agreed that economy sucked during the Bush I administration. I don't really think that's a question. And to say that somehow Reagan's economic plans jumped right over the Bush I administration to help Clinton's economy is called lying (just like the tobacco COMPANIES lies)
 
2004-01-08 12:22:44 AM  
ZipBeep

Uh, the average salary is $28,000. That means half of the money earned in the US is from people making under $28,000.

I suggest you try using terms like mean and median. Not that that'll stop you from continually making an ass of yourself, though.
 
2004-01-08 12:22:59 AM  
I think the real stoey is this...

"London has one pub for every 30 citizens."

Im voting for Blair in November.
 
sp
2004-01-08 12:23:59 AM  
Bush I was the victim of a cyclical recession that he made worse by raising taxes. Had he cut taxes, he'd have won a second term. There would never have been a Clinton in the White House.
 
2004-01-08 12:24:23 AM  
I'm a little late but here goes nothing...

/clears throat

"Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail in '04"
 
2004-01-08 12:24:57 AM  
LawrencePerson

The "Jobless Recovery" is a myth.

So, for that matter, is the idea that there are more "discouraged" worker now than ever before.

Recessions hurt. The recession that we've already come out of, however, was nothing compared to the "stagflation" of the Carter years, when unemployment was nearly twice what it was during the depths of the most recent mild recession. Remember the "Misery Index" (unemployment + inflation)? It's just a couple of points above historic lows, which is why you never hear liberals talk about it. On the other hand, they do still talk about how budget deficits lead to higher interest rates, even though that's been amply disproven over the last decade. (Not that budget deficits are good; after all, they let the government spend more money...)

I know, I know: never confuse liberals with facts.


I guess if you think the National Review, one of the most conservative publications in the country, puts out facts that don't support the conservative of point of view....

Never confuse conservatives by having them hear anything but what they want to hear, I guess.
 
2004-01-08 12:27:06 AM  
Tinian

Uh, the average salary is $28,000. That means half of the money earned in the US is from people making under $28,000.

I suggest you try using terms like mean and median. Not that that'll stop you from continually making an ass of yourself, though.


I'm sorry, everybody. I seem to have fed the troll again.

Have you explained the divergence on your little chart yet?
 
Displayed 50 of 260 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report