CNN - 5.6% Unemployment is 'low' (1996), 5.6% Unemlpoyment is high (Today)

CNN ^

[Qwinn]

"You mean other than the 1938 Fair Labor Act?"

What about it? How does that constitute proof of anything? Just citing it doesn't make your case.

Qwinn

[prairiebreeze]

Welcome to Free Republic. Great find!

Prairie

[Leroy S. Mort]

Different employment surveys paint contrasting pictures about the health of the economy, which has lost 2.2 million jobs since Bush took office three years ago.

Bureau of Labor statistics:

January 2001 Employment - 136.0 million

January 2004 Employment - 138.566 million

Looks like a gain of 2.566 million jobs on Bush's watch to me.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Just citing it doesn't make your case."

Just your saying that it doesn't make my case does not refute the point. What it does say, is that you lack a sufficient understanding of the history of the act, otherwise, you would understand that it is absolutely germane to the discussion.

[Luis Gonzalez]

(shhh...quiet, the media may find out)

[Qwinn]

It may be germane to the discussion, sure. The point is that if you're going to claim it is, it's your responsibility to point out how it does so. If I already knew all about it and believed that it justified your position, I'd be on your side!

Sheesh.

Qwinn

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...it's your responsibility to point out how it does so."

No it's not

It's your responsibility to show why it isn't, after all, it's you saying that it isn't germane, and simply arguing that you don't understand how it is germane, neither obligates me to educate you, nor does it refute my post.

I know it's germane because I took the time to research, if you want to refute it, then take the time to research the act, and refute me, otherwise, go away.

[Qwinn]

*laugh*

Listen, I've come to know you from your posts well enough that nothing would -ever- change your mind. I'm not having this debate to convince -you- of anything, because that's pretty much impossible.

I'm debating this for the sake of others reading this thread, because it would be an economic disaster if your policies were implemented, and that would require popular support, which I can currently envision coming only from welfare-liberals. Quite frankly, very very very few posters are going to know so much about the Labor Act of 1938 that they're going to say "Well, DUH! That settles it - it's a NO BRAINER that conservatives should support even more drastic societal engineering at a time when conservatives are sick to death of it, and cut -everyone's- hours by 25%! That's where we should spend all our political capital!"

So no, you're right, it's not your "responsibility"... but you're also not going to convince -anyone- of -anything- by citing a 66 year old Act as if everyone should just know exactly how YOU relate it to a -completely- different world of globalization and free trade, and what would seem to me to be an entirely different situation. And that's fine. That's your perogative. I just figured (apparently incorrectly) that you actually wanted to convince anyone of your view. I was suggesting a means by which you might actually accomplish that goal. Since you apparently show no interest in backing up your position beyond 5 words and an air of smug arrogant superiority, I guess I was wrong.

Oh, and by the way? The situation as it stands now is a 40 hour work week. I believe that the vast bulk of conservative opinion would be against you on this matter. I have no need to research or prove anything. Actually make an effort to convince people of your very unpopular (at least on FR) position, or don't. All the same to me. But if this is how tenacious you are at actually trying to bring people about to your point of view, I have no worries that you'll be converting anyone anytime soon.

Qwinn

[Luis Gonzalez]

That 66-year old act, which is still in effect today, was enacted to increase the number of people employed in the US by reducing the number of hours an employer could work someone before increasing their pay (overtime). Today, the White House is considering changing the standard work week from a 40 hour week, to a 80 hour two week, so changes in the standard are already being considered, and these changes will reduce, and in some instances eliminate, overtime pay.

Back in 1938, the Fair Labor Act was considered socialism by many, today, you stand defending that old socialist standard 40 hour work week with obligatory overtime pay.

Technology is reducing the number of workers needed to accomplish tasks, and as technology advances, the number of people physically needed to maintain elevated production levels, or even increase production, will continue to diminish...it's unavoidable, it's simply a fact.

So, where would we go as a people?

Our wages are quite high now, so much so, that coupled with the costs imposed on industry by government, our products are too expensive to compete in the world market. The answer cannot possibly be simply to ignore the continuing growth exhibited by the emerging industry in developing nations, as it may destroy the marketability of our goods, imploding our economy.

I envision a foreseeable future where technology allows us to work less hours and accomplish more, so, we can maintain a high standard of living, high wages, and more leisure hours.

Guess what?

That future is already here, I'm living proof of it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...and cut -everyone's- hours by 25%!"

Less hours, higher pay for more specialized workers.

Anyone can pick a tomato, but it takes training to run a harvester, it takes some training to weld a joint in a auto plant, it takes a great deal more training to run the programs, and maintain the production robots.

I don't know if it was on this thread, but I made mention of all the workers that lost their jobs assembling mechanical typewriters at the onset of the computer age, the response was "they got jobs assembling computers".

They did, and quite possibly at a higher pay.

[icwhatudo]

Bump for todays 5.2% unemployment.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

BUMP