# Vote for me: It's not my fault **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2004, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vote-for-me-its-not-my-fault/233519 "2004-03-10T18:11:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vote-for-me-its-not-my-fault/233519/21 "2004-03-14T01:56:49Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > I suspect you are drawing this association out of thin air. Please provide a cite that “many” of the 2.5 million jobs lost in the last four years are due to the 9/11 attacks, as opposed to runaway outsourcing and lackluster leadership from the White House. Well if we’re playing the cite game then you get to go first. Cite your source for “runaway outsourcing and lackluster leadership”. In fact, try to define the terms you used. I suspect you will find out it’s hard to explain adjectives because they exist only as modifiers. They do not convey specific information. And I never said many of the 2 million jobs lost were due to 9/11 attacks. I said many of the jobs lost were. You can’t use the entire unemployment number when discussing increases/decreases in unemployment because there is always a static number of unemployed. This is the number that represents jobs that are lost and regained in a short period of time. The best case scenario is usually considered to be close to 5%. When discussing unemployment it is also meaningless to use the number of jobs lost because the number by itself does not convey any information. You would also need the number of viable workers so that you can calculate the %. If after your research you would like to discuss layoffs related to 9/11 and what percentage that number represents out of the current 5.6% then I will be happy to surf the net. I’m associated with the airline industry so I have a pretty good idea of the numbers involved (pilots, flight attendants, mechanics). And those numbers are only the tip of the iceberg. From there I will look at support industries (groundhandling, fueling, catering). Then I will look at aircraft sales including the industries that supply secondary and tertiary parts for aircraft. After that I will look at the travel industry including hotels. That should be sufficient to explain how 1 industry effects many. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vote-for-me-its-not-my-fault/233519/22 "2004-03-14T05:27:58Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Well if we’re playing the cite game then you get to go first. Cite your source for “runaway outsourcing and lackluster leadership”. Here’s a pretty little graph that illustrates how manufacturing jobs, for example, have fled this country over the last three years. [Picture.](http://stats.bls.gov/iag/manufacturing.htm) In case you wonder, that graph shows the loss of 2.9 million jobs in this sector under Bush’s watch. > [@](#): > > You can’t use the entire unemployment number when discussing increases/decreases in unemployment because there is always a static number of unemployed. You must be confused. The structurally unemployed and discouraged workers are not reflected in the unemployment rate. [Cite.](http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm#Ques5) > [@](#): > > When discussing unemployment it is also meaningless to use the number of jobs lost because the number by itself does not convey any information. You would also need the number of viable workers so that you can calculate the %. A moment ago you say the unemployment rate is meaningless because it includes the structurally unemployed (which is false), now you say it’s important. But in any case, it’s meaningless doubletalk. It’s just more bickering about numbers when anyone who bothers to read the newspapers understands that the job market is stagnant. (I note that GWB gleefully proclaims that he does not read newspapers.) > [@](#): > > I’m associated with the airline industry so I have a pretty good idea of the numbers involved (pilots, flight attendants, mechanics). And those numbers are only the tip of the iceberg. From there I will look at support industries (groundhandling, fueling, catering). Then I will look at aircraft sales including the industries that supply secondary and tertiary parts for aircraft. Or, you could look at real [statistics](http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?&series_id=CEU4300000001) on the transportation sector, which shows that employment in that sector is the lowest since April 1998 – that’s right, even in the aftermath of 9-11, the number of jobs in that industry did not drop so low as they are now. Hope those tax cuts are helping all those unemployed folks. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vote-for-me-its-not-my-fault/233519/23 "2004-03-15T01:34:58Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Here’s a pretty little graph that illustrates how manufacturing jobs, for example, have fled this country over the last three years. [Picture.](http://stats.bls.gov/iag/manufacturing.htm) > > In case you wonder, that graph shows the loss of 2.9 million jobs in this sector under Bush’s watch. : \*\* Thank you for sharing your pretty little graph (is condescension necessary?). It would be a great cite if I was discussing manufacturing jobs as a subset of total jobs. However, I was talking about total jobs. That is what the unemployment rate of 5.6% represents. If you want to discuss the need for manufacturing jobs in a different post (as a percentage of total jobs) you will find my response insightful. \*\* > [@Ravenman](#): > > You must be confused. The structurally unemployed and discouraged workers are not reflected in the unemployment rate. [Cite.](http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm#Ques5) > > A moment ago you say the unemployment rate is meaningless because it includes the structurally unemployed (which is false), now you say it’s important. > > But in any case, it’s meaningless doubletalk. It’s just more bickering about numbers when anyone who bothers to read the newspapers understands that the job market is stagnant. (I note that GWB gleefully proclaims that he does not read newspapers.) \*\* There is no confusion on my part and I did not say the unemployment rate was meaningless. If English is a 2nd language to you them my apologies. I try to take that into consideration with my posts because there are people from all over the world who post on this site. When using the term “rate” you have to have 2 numbers to calculate it. Using a reference to a single number means nothing. The “rate” of unemployment is the yardstick of measurement. It’s not a complicated number and it is not doubletalk. \*\* > [@Ravenman](#): > > Or, you could look at real [statistics](http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?&series_id=CEU4300000001) on the transportation sector, which shows that employment in that sector is the lowest since April 1998 – that’s right, even in the aftermath of 9-11, the number of jobs in that industry did not drop so low as they are now. > > Hope those tax cuts are helping all those unemployed folks. :rolleyes \*\* ???, I said transportation jobs were down and your cite shows that. Thank you? There has been in increase in unemployment since the beginning of President Bush’s term. It went from 5% to 5.6 percent. It occurred both as natural result of a recession and also 9/11. I’ve never attempted to politicize this most basic of information. I never blamed President Clinton for causing the recession because it was a predictable event. I also didn’t expect him to respond to it because it would have been too soon. It was up to the incoming President (and Congress) to deal with the situation. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vote-for-me-its-not-my-fault/233519/24 "2004-03-15T01:40:01Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Here’s a pretty little graph that illustrates how manufacturing jobs, for example, have fled this country over the last three years. [Picture.](http://stats.bls.gov/iag/manufacturing.htm) > > In case you wonder, that graph shows the loss of 2.9 million jobs in this sector under Bush’s watch. : \*\* Thank you for sharing your pretty little graph (is condescension necessary?). It would be a great cite if I was discussing manufacturing jobs as a subset of total jobs. However, I was talking about total jobs. That is what the unemployment rate of 5.6% represents. If you want to discuss the need for manufacturing jobs in a different post (as a percentage of total jobs) you will find my response insightful. \*\* > [@Ravenman](#): > > You must be confused. The structurally unemployed and discouraged workers are not reflected in the unemployment rate. [Cite.](http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm#Ques5) > > A moment ago you say the unemployment rate is meaningless because it includes the structurally unemployed (which is false), now you say it’s important. > > But in any case, it’s meaningless doubletalk. It’s just more bickering about numbers when anyone who bothers to read the newspapers understands that the job market is stagnant. (I note that GWB gleefully proclaims that he does not read newspapers.) \*\* There is no confusion on my part and I did not say the unemployment rate was meaningless. If English is a 2nd language to you them my apologies. I try to take that into consideration with my posts because there are people from all over the world who post on this site. When using the term “rate” you have to have 2 numbers to calculate it. Using a reference to a single number means nothing. The “rate” of unemployment is the yardstick of measurement. It’s not a complicated number and it is not doubletalk. \*\* > [@Ravenman](#): > > Or, you could look at real [statistics](http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?&series_id=CEU4300000001) on the transportation sector, which shows that employment in that sector is the lowest since April 1998 – that’s right, even in the aftermath of 9-11, the number of jobs in that industry did not drop so low as they are now. > > Hope those tax cuts are helping all those unemployed folks. :rolleyes \*\* ???, I said transportation jobs were down and your cite shows that. Thank you? There has been in increase in unemployment since the beginning of President Bush’s term. It went from 5% to 5.6 percent. It occurred both as natural result of a recession and also 9/11. I’ve never attempted to politicize this most basic of information. I never blamed President Clinton for causing the recession because it was a predictable event. I also didn’t expect him to respond to it because it would have been too soon. It was up to the incoming President (and Congress) to deal with the situation. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vote-for-me-its-not-my-fault/233519/25 "2004-03-15T09:12:39Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > \*\* Thank you for sharing your pretty little graph (is condescension necessary?). It would be a great cite if I was discussing manufacturing jobs as a subset of total jobs. However, I was talking about total jobs. That is what the unemployment rate of 5.6% represents. If you want to discuss the need for manufacturing jobs in a different post (as a percentage of total jobs) you will find my response insightful. \*\* > > \*\* There is no confusion on my part and I did not say the unemployment rate was meaningless. If English is a 2nd language to you them my apologies. I try to take that into consideration with my posts because there are people from all over the world who post on this site. When using the term “rate” you have to have 2 numbers to calculate it. Using a reference to a single number means nothing. The “rate” of unemployment is the yardstick of measurement. It’s not a complicated number and it is not doubletalk. > \*\* > > \*\* ???, I said transportation jobs were down and your cite shows that. Thank you? > > There has been in increase in unemployment since the beginning of President Bush’s term. It went from 5% to 5.6 percent. It occurred both as natural result of a recession and also 9/11. I’ve never attempted to politicize this most basic of information. I never blamed President Clinton for causing the recession because it was a predictable event. I also didn’t expect him to respond to it because it would have been too soon. It was up to the incoming President (and Congress) to deal with the situation. \*\* You’re far off base Magiver. Quoting statistics you don’t fully understand doesn’t help your case very much. The 5.6% unemployment number is a highly manipulated and massaged number. It does not represent the real count of people who are unemployed. BLS doesn’t count people who are judged to not be actively looking for work as unemployed. A lot of people have been removed form the unemployed count by this little trick. Also, anyone over 16 who works, even part-time is counted as employed. Work just 1 hour in a week and you are counted as fully employed! I have seen estimates that the real unemployment rate in the USA is between 10-11%. And the BLS does not address job quality. People who are forced to take a job at 50% of their former salary or work two or three jobs to get by are counted as fully employed. This subject has been heavily discussed in [US Economy and Permanent Job Losses](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=244066). While 9-11 and the recession have contributed to the job losses, according to Businessweek, the real culprit is the ever increasing productivity numbers. Outsourcing also has had a hand in the job loss. Suggest you read the following: There are about 7 articles here (look at the sidebar):[Where are the jobs](http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_12/b3875601.htm)? [The unemployment quandary](http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_04/mauldin020904.html) ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vote-for-me-its-not-my-fault/233519/26 "2004-03-15T12:15:50Z")
To be fair, Arnold did just what I predicted: he lied shamelessly about the size of the problem he would inherit during the campaign, and then downgraded his estimates once elected. Instant success! ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vote-for-me-its-not-my-fault/233519/27 "2004-03-15T16:09:39Z")
> [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > _I_ blame Bush, at least partly, for the recession. If that means I’m one of the economic illiterati, then so be it; now show me how the recession began before Bush took office. No problem, fighting ignorance is what we do here at the Straight Dope Message Board. This cite states that the group of economists that dates recessions believes that the recession started in November 2000, three months before Bush took office and lasted until November of 2001. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38826-2004Jan22?language=printer](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38826-2004Jan22?language=printer) ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vote-for-me-its-not-my-fault/233519/28 "2004-03-15T16:28:00Z")
> [@iamme99](#): > > You’re far off base Magiver. Quoting statistics you don’t fully understand doesn’t help your case very much. The 5.6% unemployment number is a highly manipulated and massaged number. It does not represent the real count of people who are unemployed. BLS doesn’t count people who are judged to not be actively looking for work as unemployed. A lot of people have been removed form the unemployed count by this little trick. Also, anyone over 16 who works, even part-time is counted as employed. Work just 1 hour in a week and you are counted as fully employed! I have seen estimates that the real unemployment rate in the USA is between 10-11%. And the BLS does not address job quality. People who are forced to take a job at 50% of their former salary or work two or three jobs to get by are counted as fully employed. > > This subject has been heavily discussed in [US Economy and Permanent Job Losses](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=244066). While 9-11 and the recession have contributed to the job losses, according to Businessweek, the real culprit is the ever increasing productivity numbers. Outsourcing also has had a hand in the job loss. > > Suggest you read the following: > > There are about 7 articles here (look at the sidebar):[Where are the jobs](http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_12/b3875601.htm)? > > [The unemployment quandary](http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_04/mauldin020904.html) I am aware of your point but unless the methodology is changed repeatedly the unemployment rate is the only thing that can be used to judge unemployment consistently. I’m aware of how it is constructed and I disagree with using 16 year olds because they are irrelevant to the equation. I’ve always felt that they skew the number up (over time) because of changing work habits in that demographic group (I haven’t seen anything to judge this either way so it is a wag). I’ve run into this problem often, even at work. If you don’t like a number change the way it’s calculated. I’ve been shot down for pointing this fact out when decisions are made based on revised methodology. I understand your point that the number is skewed but it is consistently skewed. To say the number is off 100% due to people who stopped seeking work implies these people are either homeless or don’t need to work (people close to retirement who just coast along). Just as a practical matter it can’t be the homeless (at least not in my area) because that would mean 50,000 per 1 million people. It also can’t mean people close to retirement because there is an endless supply of pocket-change jobs (fast food jobs that kids work at for spending money). And as far as I can tell, there is a labor shortage in basic-skill jobs. I had a hell of a time finding a roofer. Unless there has been some wild changes to the method of calculating unemployment the rate is still the gauge by which it is measured. The rate of unemployment has changed by only 1 point during the crisis of 9/11 (from a low of 5% in the previous 8 years). It has since gone down to 5.6% and appears that it will continue to fall. It would have been lower (IMO) but we literally can’t produce steel fast enough to keep up with production. Despite a removal of steel tariffs there is a shortage of the product. Given the circumstances of a recession and a war, we are in great financial shape. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vote-for-me-its-not-my-fault/233519/29 "2004-03-15T17:00:35Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > No problem, fighting ignorance is what we do here at the Straight Dope Message Board. Tee hee. You should brush up yourself. > [@](#): > > This cite states that the group of economists that dates recessions believes that the recession started in November 2000, three months before Bush took office and lasted until November of 2001. > [http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38826-2004Jan22?language=printer](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38826-2004Jan22?language=printer) I’m glad you regard them as the arbiters of date-setting on this matter, because they believe that the recession started in March, 2001. See, your reference doesn’t say what you said it says. It states that one member of the panel said that the group was considering it. See here: [Business News | Today's International Headlines | Reuters](http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=economicNews&storyID=4492615) > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON, March 3 (Reuters) - While the White House insists President George W. Bush took the helm of a U.S. economy already in recession, those with the power to change the date of the slump may be losing their appetite to do so. > Members of the panel deemed the arbiter of U.S. business cycles said on Wednesday no final decision on whether to push back the March 2001 recession start date had been made, but that momentum for a rollback had waned. > The White House has argued revisions last year to economic data meant the fourth quarter of 2000 would be more accurate, a change that would shift the start of the downturn from the presidency of Bush to that of his predecessor Bill Clinton. > > While the National Bureau of Economic Research’s business cycle panel suggested in December it could consider altering the date, a committee member says now that may not happen – in part because the issue had become such a political hot potato. > > Another said the committee was simply divided over whether the new data justified a revision. Perhaps they will change it. Perhaps they won’t. Perhaps this little bit of ignorance will persist among conservatives until whatever blogger is fronting that old WP article actually chooses to update their stuff. ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2004, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vote-for-me-its-not-my-fault/233519/30 "2004-03-15T22:57:48Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > To say the number is off 100% due to people who stopped seeking work implies these people are either homeless or don’t need to work (people close to retirement who just coast along). Just as a practical matter it can’t be the homeless (at least not in my area) because that would mean 50,000 per 1 million people. It also can’t mean people close to retirement because there is an endless supply of pocket-change jobs (fast food jobs that kids work at for spending money). And as far as I can tell, there is a labor shortage in basic-skill jobs. I had a hell of a time finding a roofer. > > Unless there has been some wild changes to the method of calculating unemployment the rate is still the gauge by which it is measured. The rate of unemployment has changed by only 1 point during the crisis of 9/11 (from a low of 5% in the previous 8 years). It has since gone down to 5.6% and appears that it will continue to fall. It would have been lower (IMO) but we literally can’t produce steel fast enough to keep up with production. Despite a removal of steel tariffs there is a shortage of the product. Given the circumstances of a recession and a war, we are in great financial shape. When the numbers don’t match the reality that many are seeing, then the numbers have to be questioned. I have nothing to do with how the numbers are calculated, I’m just reporting the information. Every administration, not just the current one, wants the number of unemployed to appear low. But it appears, based on a large number of reports and articles in the last year, that this administration is going out of its way to reclassify as many people as possible to the status of “not looking” and thereby eliminate them from being counted. That isn’t kosher. Whether or not you agree with counting 16 year old’s, that is the way it is. This is done to make the employed numbers look better. Don’t forget that part-timers are also counted as fully employed, again helping to make the numbers look better. I don’t understand how you can say “Given the circumstances of a recession and a war, we are in great financial shape”. First, we aren’t in a recession any longer, it officially ended in November 2001. Two, job growth is FAR below historical norms for where we are vis-à-vis past recessions. This war was undertaken illegally and we should not be there. But the war did spike the defense industry. Without, we would be in deeper doo-doo. But then, why worry about 560+ American dead and 4000+ injuries in the quest to keep the economy afloat… 😕 Some unemployment statistics: [Link](http://www.unemployedworkers.org/helpful_statistics/national_statistics/index.cfm) And direct from the U.S. Government at [Total un/under employed](http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm) Excerpt from “Alternative measures of labor underutilization” U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers ===\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\> … 10.3% (Feb 2004) _NOTE: Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. For further information, see “BLS introduces new range of alternative unemployment measures,” in the October 1995 issue of the Monthly Labor Review. Beginning in January 2004, data reflect revised population controls used in the household survey._ ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2004, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vote-for-me-its-not-my-fault/233519/31 "2004-03-16T05:19:34Z")
Originally Posted by iamme99 When the numbers don’t match the reality that many are seeing, then the numbers have to be questioned. I have nothing to do with how the numbers are calculated, I’m just reporting the information. Every administration, not just the current one, wants the number of unemployed to appear low. But it appears, based on a large number of reports and articles in the last year, that this administration is going out of its way to reclassify as many people as possible to the status of “not looking” and thereby eliminate them from being counted. That isn’t kosher. Whether or not you agree with counting 16 year old’s, that is the way it is. This is done to make the employed numbers look better. Don’t forget that part-timers are also counted as fully employed, again helping to make the numbers look better. I agree that the number is what it is. I was trying to make that point. Ggood reference site by the way. My land line is down to 22 k so if you have a link that uses the same criteria and goes back 20 years I would love to see it. Quote: Originally Posted by iamme99 I don’t understand how you can say “Given the circumstances of a recession and a war, we are in great financial shape”. First, we aren’t in a recession any longer, it officially ended in November 2001. Two, job growth is FAR below historical norms for where we are vis-à-vis past recessions. This war was undertaken illegally and we should not be there. But the war did spike the defense industry. Without, we would be in deeper doo-doo. But then, why worry about 560+ American dead and 4000+ injuries in the quest to keep the economy afloat… My logic is that we took a ding from the recession and 9/11. Jobs go away a lot quicker than they come back. That’s just the way it is. Very similar to buildings. They come down faster than they go back up. Despite what you say, the war was not prosecuted illegally. The reason the US fought for specific wording in resolution 1441 was to do what it did. If you hold Blix’s opinion that “ownership” of the resolutions did not reside with individual states then that would make an interesting point. He believes it would require a 2nd resolution in connection with 1441. I hold the position that Saddam was never going to change and the US was being used by the UN to keep him in place (with no exit strategy). Because of our role in the region we have become the focal point of terrorists for years. The fact that the UN ran at the first sign of trouble does not give me hope they will ever be of any use in solving the problem. I saw all this coming when the elder Bush stopped short of Baghdad in GW-1. We should have removed him from power when we had the opportunity as well as the backing of the Shia and the Kurds. Water under the bridge. IMO, Saddam needed to go. The region needs a democratic government, and the research/weapons of a nuclear program need to be found. I don’t give a rat’s ass if Bush is defeated if it means we accomplish this task. My worst fear that Pakistan would proliferate nuclear weapons has come to pass. Iraq, Iran, and Libya were all working on nukes. Libya has claimed they are out of the business and Iran just told the UN inspectors to pound salt. When I saw the UN inspector video of mobile calutrons the hair stood up on the back of my neck. They admitted to constructing these for enrichment back in 1991 and were destroyed by bombs in the first war but here were pictures of mobile units on TV. [http://www.antenna.nl/wise/terrorism/iraq/07271991ns.html](http://www.antenna.nl/wise/terrorism/iraq/07271991ns.html) Where the hell are they? These things keep me awake at night. Quote: Originally Posted by iamme99 Excerpt from “Alternative measures of labor underutilization” U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers ===\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\> … 10.3% (Feb 2004) You can use this number as a rate of inflation as long as you compare it to earlier numbers calculated the same way. It would not be appropriate to compare a rate of 5% 6 years ago to the 10.3% that you quoted above. It’s Apples to Oranges. ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2004, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vote-for-me-its-not-my-fault/233519/32 "2004-03-16T07:12:45Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by iamme99 > > Excerpt from “Alternative measures of labor underutilization” > U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers > ===\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\> … 10.3% (Feb 2004) > > You can use this number as a rate of inflation as long as you compare it to earlier numbers calculated the same way. It would not be appropriate to compare a rate of 5% 6 years ago to the 10.3% that you quoted above. It’s Apples to Oranges. I don’t understand what you are saying here. 5.6% is the current official adjusted unemployment rate. 10.3% is the current official unadjusted unemployment rate including counting the above noted segments (and I still believe this number is unreliable and understated). I don’t have data for prior years and didn’t try to compare or extrapolate to today from the past. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2004, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vote-for-me-its-not-my-fault/233519/33 "2004-03-16T16:28:46Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Thank you for sharing your pretty little graph (is condescension necessary?). I apologize if that came across as insulting. I was punchy when I wrote that, and just being silly. I honestly meant no offense. > [@](#): > > If you want to discuss the need for manufacturing jobs in a different post (as a percentage of total jobs) you will find my response insightful. You had specifically asked for a cite about runaway outsourcing. The loss of manufacturing jobs is just one point that outsourcing is a serious problem. I stand by my post as an on-point reply to your query. > [@](#): > > If English is a 2nd language to you them my apologies… When using the term “rate” you have to have 2 numbers to calculate it. Using a reference to a single number means nothing. [Al Gore ON] No need to get snippy! [Al Gore OFF] English is, indeed, my first language, and it has served me very well, thank you. It is your argument – not your syntax – that makes no sense to me. But to your point, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has numbers readily available on the size of the labor force, the number and percentage of those who are employed, and the number of Americans who are not part of the labor force. Discussing what the term “rate” means is a red herring because all the information one needs to get a picture of the job market is available at [one’s fingertips.](http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm) > [@](#): > > The reason the US fought for specific wording in resolution 1441 was to do what it did. Sorry for continuing this hijack, but this is completely wrong. “As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.” – US Ambassador to the UN John Negroponte, 11/8/02, upon passage of 1441. [Full text.](http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2002/1108usstat.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2004, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vote-for-me-its-not-my-fault/233519/34 "2004-03-16T16:43:39Z")
Here’s a comparison of underemployed data for the years 1994 through 2002. See page three. If I recall correctly, the definition of underemployed changed in 1995, so I think there may be problems in the 1994 and 1995 data. Nevertheless, the underemployment rate has gone up by more than two full points during Bush’s term. That’s a lot of people. [Warning, PDF](http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/Documents/Reports/MEMJuly02.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vote-for-me-its-not-my-fault/233519/35 "2004-03-16T18:18:15Z")
[QUOTE=Ravenman] But to your point, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has numbers readily available on the size of the labor force, the number and percentage of those who are employed, and the number of Americans who are not part of the labor force. [Teal’C]Indeed.[/Teal’C], and the numbers are remarkably enlightening. I decided to see what my own analysis might produce. Fascinating, quite fascinating. Instead of using “labor force” as my yardstick, I chose total population. The reason for this is that American jobs to not just support the “labor force”. The reality is that the US population _as a whole_ (in the main) is supported by US jobs. Either directly through spending wages or indirectly through extort-and-redistribute/common-good (take your pick of how to describe them) government programs. From a moral perspective, I don’t just get a job for me, but for my children–so the impact on their lives deserves to be counted. People who consider children to be utterly disposable would not like using the total population as a basis. In addition, the more commonly used “labor force” is subject to a great deal of diddling. If there are only nine jobs in the entire USA, and all but ten people have given up on the hope of getting work, our labor force is “ten” and unemployment is 10%, even though at least a hundred million people capable of work aren’t in the “labor force” because there is no hope of getting a job. Thus, since it is so prone to political diddling, I’m using total population as a more empirical measure of “distribution of work vs. everybody it benefits”. Now, just to make sure the most recent two months are added in without too much seasonal effect, I adjusted start-and-end dates for “years” so that a “year” began on March 1 for my analysis. However, I repeated the analysis with a year beginning on January 1, and the trends were identical, if thousandths of a percent might vary. So, when I say “1993”, I actually mean “beginning of March 1993 to end of February 1994”. So, what have I found? From 1993 to 1996, total percent population employed rose from 61.86% to 63.28%. From 1997 to 2000, total employment rose from 63.88% to 64.36%. What is very interesting is when I break this down into full time vs. part-time jobs. Anyone with the tiniest lick of common sense will agree that full time work is more lucrative for the worker (and thus better for the overall health of the US economy) than is part time work. McJobs stink on ice when it comes to paying your bills. When the figures are broken down into part time vs. full time work, it gets, as I said, interesting. From 1993 to 1996, full-time work went from 50.64% to 52.23% of the total population. Conversely, part-time work FELL from 11.23% to 11.05% of total population. This meant that part-time (crappy) jobs fell as a proportion of total jobs from 18.15% to 17.46%. In other words, from 1993 to 1996, total jobs were climbing, and of those new jobs, the majority of them were full-time work. From 1997 to 2000, full-time work went from 52.96% to 54.00% of the total population. Conversely, part-time work FELL from 10.92% to 10.36% of total population. This meant that part-time (crappy) jobs fell as a proportion of total jobs from 17.10% to 16.10%. In other words, from 1997 to 2000, total jobs were climbing, and of those new jobs, the majority of them were full-time work. Now, let’s look at 2000 to 2003. Total jobs fell from 64.36% to 62.24% of total population. When one looks at full-time vs part-time, eyes should open. Full time jobs fell from 54.00% to 51.54% of total population and part time jobs ROSE from 10.36% to 10.70% of total population. As a portion of total jobs, part time ROSE from 16.10% to 17.20%. In essence, the last three years have ERASED all positive job change of the preceding four years. Not only have total jobs fallen, but the portion of jobs that are part-time (and thus pay less) has risen. Make of that what you will. Just remember who said that overseas outsourcing is good for America. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2004, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vote-for-me-its-not-my-fault/233519/36 "2004-03-17T01:03:29Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Raven[Al Gore ON] No need to get snippy! [Al Gore OFF] English is, indeed, my first language, and it has served me very well, thank you. It is your argument – not your syntax – that makes no sense to me. Sometimes you have to laugh at yourself for stepping in your own pile. Yah, that was definitely snippy. Sorry. I really hate how these debates can turn us into monkeys flinging our own crap. I understand your point about built in triggers in the resolution. I believe it was specifically written as an excuse to take Saddam down. I’ve story-boarded the situation in my head over and over and the outcome is ugly no matter what action is taken (or avoided). The situation in the Mid-East is so complicated that no single event can come close to correcting it. I think Saddam needed to go and what is being done now is pretty close to how I would handle it. I don’t see the Iraqi war as an end to the problem but only the begining of a long process. **Dogface** , interesting perspective. It’s close to how I would have guessed. I don’t care about outsourcing specifically because it has traditionally added to our standard of living (at least for the last 100 years). However, I don’t think we are replacing industrial jobs (not just factory jobs) at the same rate they are disappearing and yes that is disturbing. I have had a feeling that the US economy is becoming a cash cow for China. Traditionally, products were invented and developed in industrialized nations and then eventually given over to cheaper labor. I don’t see this happening now. Development is being translated directly to China. This is an advantage to countries like Russia. They still have vast untapped resources and will benefit from a relationship with China. In effect, Russia will be able to bankroll its way back to prosperity and become a world economic power. They already have a technical background that rivals the US. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vote-for-me-its-not-my-fault/233519.md?page=1)