Not according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Sam. In the past 12 months (5/03-5/04), non-farm jobs have increased by only 1.35 million. Hyperbole, much?
Of course, you do realize that these industries themselves have extremely wide range of jobs, from high-paying lawyer, analyst and engineering jobs, to lower paying mail room and janitorial jobs?
And of course the service sector also consists of avery high paying jobs such as doctors, lawyers and other specialists as well as the stereotyped burger-flippers. So what I am basically saying is that I can read nothing about the quality of the jobs from that ever so brief BLS snippet.
Here’s a better table, payroll employment increased 1.19 million in the last six months.
What did you propose we do with that surplus, rjung?
Would it have been a great idea for the government to hold onto those billions of dollars as we were sliding into recession? The economy really needed some liquidity at that point.
And spending us into an even larger debt is foresight exactly… how?
You may be right, but was that really a good time to launch an irrelevant and expensive war in Iraq? Did increasing liquidity in the economy also require reducing federal income, aka taxes?
I don’t know what were the right things to do; I’m simply unconvinced that Bush’s policies were it. And watching Sam Stone trumpet last month’s job rate while ignoring the losses from the previous three-and-a-half-years is… well, I suppose “expected” is a charitable response. 
You know, I’ve never really believed that this much-vaunted Clinton-era surplus was actually a surplus in any way but on paper. As far as I could tell, the surplus depended on an economy that obviously wasn’t going to continue, no matter who was in office (let’s face it, when millions are being put into companies where you can’t even explain what they do, much less really weird ideas like home-delievered groceries or whatever), no new overseas commitments, no major attacks on the United States, and so on. I didn’t really like the tax cuts, but that was because they were also built on the same assumptions of the surplus and the economy. Personally, I thought we should’ve put some of that money in paying down the national debt (if it is possible to do such a thing). The whole thing seemed to me like saying that a CEO is worth 50 million because that’s the amount he could get if he exercised all his stock options.
I’ll take a shot. How about paying off some of that debt that was left us from previous administrations, mostly Reagan’s? The debt whose nonnegotiable servicing took a third of the budget?
The government was not holding onto it. It was paying off bonds and other obligations with it. If that wasn’t putting money back into circulation, adding liquidity to the economy, what was? Now, the Republicans are back at sucking funds out of the economy by issuing more obligation instruments to pay off more debt that they’re increasing every year. The economy is paying for that the way it benefited from Clinton’s surpluses.
Actually, the idea isn’t that bad. You just can’t do it exclusively. From what I hear, many brick and mortar supermarkets are doing home delivery quite successfully. It is of great help, especially to the elderly, disabled, and urban areas where many people do not have cars and can’t carry all their groceries home (and delivery is simple). Most are even expanding their operations slowly and tentatively.
To answer the OP, Bush, like any capitalist, favors unemployment for obvious reasons. But he can only tolerate so much before it starts to hurt him politically. This is what prompted the Bush Administration’s Greatest Idea Ever: bringing in millions more unskilled workers from Mexico who aren’t allowed to vote! That way, he can force costs down for his cronies through an oversupply of labor, while at the same time diluting the political strength of the working class. And he’s protected from opposition from the left, because the limousine liberals will label anyone who opposes more Mexicans a racist.
Actually, cutting tax rates often spurs receipts, if economic growth can be achieved by doing so.
The reverse is true too, as many cities found out in the 1970’s. Jack up the property tax rates, chase businesses and residents out to the suburbs, and watch your revenues collapse.
We can’t ignore job losses from the previous three years. Nor can we ignore the fact that there had been a worldwide soft economy in that time, with nobody buying American exports in great numbers. The United States isn’t immune from these pressures, though we typically weather them better than many countries.
Let’s assign some blame where it’s really due, here.
This board does have bitter-enders of all stripes, be they Bolsheviks or supply-siders … that’s what makes it so great.
I don’t see where, or how, Bush *favors * unemployment. He’s just indifferent to it.
Except the economy wasn’t benefiting from the surplus. The second it popped onto the radar screen, the economy started to slide into recession.
And now, we’re running modest defecits again, negligible relative to GDP. And the economy hums right along.
If the Democrats had any qualms about such spending you think they would have raised them in the era of Clinton, or Carter, or Johnson, or Kennedy. Since they didn’t, doing so now would look nakedly self-serving.
I favor a smaller government, more within its means, for philosophical reasons. Smaller governments are less likely to become tyrannical. However, I’m realistic about deficits and surpluses, unlike some politicians I can name.
Of course he does. If everyone is employed, the labor market isn’t very good, now is it? There are more jobs than there are people, and labor costs go up. If there are more people than there are jobs, then labor costs go down. A vast oversimplification of the matter, but you get the idea. An unemployment rate of around 5% is healthy.
[QUOTE=rjung]
In essence, salaries have not been growing at a healthy rate since Bush took office, and are barely keeping up with cost-of-living increases. Some folks even contend that the 2003 numbers are the lowest in 30 years.QUOTE]Interesting that you take the quote of “lowest in 30 years” without taking anything else out of that article. Such as paragraphs 2 and 3 where inflation is mentioned
From these numbers, I see over and over again about a 1-2% increase in real buying power. With an average inflation rate in 2003 of 2.3%, a salary increase of 3.4-3.7% results in a 1-1.5% increase in real spending power, which doesn’t exactly look too far out of line, does it?
From your chart, it looks like the lowest earners are getting significantly less increase year to year than the highest earners. It’s not really the ideal result, but you would expect it if the minimum wage doesn’t change much year to year. The lowest earners will be around MW, and therefore won’t get much in the form of a raise.
I’m not sure if the current job creation is super duper or not, but when this “Job growth in May again was widespread, as increases continued in construction, manufacturing, and several service-providing industries” gets interpreted as “getting shitty jobs” I’m not inclined to believe the negative argument.
Overall, creating jobs is a good thing, and the numbers don’t support saying that we’ve only lost high paying jobs and gained low paying jobs. Average wages are still going up from a real earnings standpoint. We lost a bunch of jobs a few years ago, and are starting to hire a bunch of people back now.
As to whether the president likes unemployment. An unemployed populace won’t vote for the incumbent, period.
In a system modeled as closed, as used to be the common practice, perhaps. People would move from job to job, within the country, at about the same pay level, or higher. But that concept is outdated, and so is the “5% = full employment” number, I would suggest. With globalization and NAFTA and outsourcing and all that, the labor market is worldwide. Globally, there *are * more people than jobs. If American workers get “underbid” by Mexicans or Chinese or Poles, so what? The MNC’s are better off financially, and the resulting unemployment in the US is something Bush is indifferent to - as I said.
WTF? The surpluses had been running for several years before the “recession”, which lasted only 3 quarters by official reckoning anyway. Yet there are still millions out of work under Bush’s policies who, very strongly arguably, would not have been had the previous administration’s policies been continued.
The Bush deficits are the largest in history, in both absolute and percentage terms. “Negligible”, you say?
Gawdamighty. What President has submitted the only balanced, much less surplused, budgets in the last half-century? Wasn’t Ronnie, for all his talk.
[Cough cough sputter]Negligible? Huh? The current budget deficit is 4.2 percent of GDP. So, if I were to claim that last quarter’s GDP growth of 4.1 percent was acutally negligible, you would have no cause to disagree with me, eh?
And Democrats are expressing their qualms about the budget deficit, not the level of spending. Don’t put words in people’s mouths. If Bush hadn’t lied back in 2001 that he could pass $1.7 trillion in tax cuts, and keep a budget surplus, and pay down the debt, and save Social Security, we’d be in a lot better position today. Can’t blame spending for Bush’s irresponsible budgeting.
You’ve said something like this more than once, Sam. I’m going to have to call you on it, because it’s very insulting to me.
I never made $70,000/year, and I was not a “6-month MCSE”. I had 18 years of experience in data processing and analysis, TSO/ISPF and JCL. I had about 8 years of experience using a programming language called Easytrieve Plus (similar to COBOL) and had some COBOL and FORTRAN experience. I made $45,000/year, or only 3/5 of your figure.
I am not compaining about not getting a $70,000/year job. I’m complaining that my job – for which I was well-trained and highly experienced – was taken from me and sent to an Indian company. I’m complaining because the process I spent a year busting my balls on (as did the other members of my department) was suddenly yanked from under me.
I’d be ecstatic to make $70,000/year; but I would be well-satisfied just to make what I was making before. You try to make it on ten bucks an hour, less than 40 hours per week after you lose your job, and with no benefits. As I said, a job is not a job. In order for job figures to be meaningful, the jobs have to be equivalent.
As far as I know we have not quarreled except in economics threads. I don’t want to quarrel now, but I resent the implication that I’m a spoiled 24-year-old who isn’t making the big bucks. Please consider that not everyone who has lost his job under this administration does not fit your “6-months’ training, $70,000/year” scenario. That is a canard.
Don’t mean to be insulting. I’m in the same industry, btw.
Then my comments do not apply to you. The fact is, there WERE people with those kinds of educations getting salaries like that. And more. During the peak of the dot-com boom, there were people with IT diplomas and a couple of years experience pulling down over $100,000 a year.
I understand where you’re coming from, but unfortunately, you had a set of skills that are getting increasingly hard to market. There is still a need for COBOL and FORTRAN programmers, but those jobs are getting harder to find. I think you might find that if you upgraded your skills to Java, C++, SQL Server, ASP, .NET, and other popular technologies, you might have more luck. I’ve had to upgrade mine more than once to stay current, but in the end it’s just what you have to do.