UNEMPLOYMENT ISSUE DEFUSED

SELF

[vigilence]

Having grown weary of the Democratic drumbeat amplified by a sympathetic press of a "jobless recovery" I decided to check the figures myself. I found that since 1948 the average unemployment rate in America was 5.6%....exactly what it is today. Unfortunately, we allow the Dems to define the debate by transferring the percentage rate to individual job numbers making it seem that much worse to the casual listener. Dems will further charge that there aren't the same number of "good" jobs as in the past...that part time jobs at Mickey D's cannot be equated with good paying factory jobs. Well, in years gone by many of the jobs included in the employment rate were low paying agriculture jobs as well so you can defuse that arguement , too. Someone with influence needs to pick this up and torpedo this issue.

[rogers21774]

Not only that, but during the Clinton Administration the average jobless rate was an unthinkable 5.8%

[Thane_Banquo]

Dems will further charge that there aren't the same number of "good" jobs as in the past...that part time jobs at Mickey D's cannot be equated with good paying factory jobs. Well, in years gone by many of the jobs included in the employment rate were low paying agriculture jobs as well so you can defuse that arguement , too.

We could also point out that factory jobs have never been "good-paying."

Also, your point about agricultural jobs is particularly poignant: Milton Friedman, my favorite living economist, once stated that if we're really concerned only about quantity of jobs, we should outlaw farm equipment. I guarantee you everyone willing to work would be employed. But I also guarantee you a lot of people would starve, our economy would tumble, our standard of living would fall precipitously. But hey, according to liberals, the only thing that matters is the amount of jobs out there, not the quality of life.

[cake_crumb]

The new Democrat talking point is to compare the current unemployment rate to the Great Depression. Once again they skip over decades, from the Carter Misery Index and on up through Clinton.

Unemployment was highest under Carter. Surprisingly, they're forced to ignore the 7 percent unemployment rate during Reagan's first term in office...of course, they can't mention that because it ruins the fiction of this being the worst economy since the Great Depression.

[americanbychoice2]

Don't forget that we had an increase in population from 200 million to 300 million in the last 30 years.
Today more people are employed than at any time in our history.

[Crazieman]

Mainstream media won't touch this heretic fact with a 10 foot pole.

[Sacajaweau]

It's also the same as when Clinton took office. The difference is, Clinton got in on the computer "learning curve" where old jobs were still maintained. But the unfolding efficiency of computers (and robots) AND CLINTON's NAFTA has taken it's toll. Add to that, no drilling, no foresting, and 9-11. Guess what....lower employment figures but more work accomplished.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Facts like this don't matter. All that matters is that the President is an (R). Because of this, if unemployment is high, it's his fault. If it's average, then it's a "jobless recovery". If it's sinking, then the "job growth" is too "anemic".

If the President were a (D) then far different phrases would be used to describe all these same realities.

[snooker]

What are your sources. I think it gives credibility if you have a link to the data. It must come from the gov, they do the stats.

[Damagro]

that part time jobs at Mickey D's cannot be equated with good paying factory jobs. Well, in years gone by many of the jobs included in the employment rate were low paying agriculture jobs as well



Many of those lost jobs in the south are jobs such as textiles, shoe companies and other sweat shops with little or no pension plans or health insurance.We now are getting high tech auto manufacturing,from such companies as Toyota, Nissan, Saturn, Mercedes and others. The major problem here is that public education is hamstringing job applicants. The official unemployment rate is 5.6 just like the national rate, but the real rate is more like 1%. The remaining 4.6% is either unemployable or would not work for any wage, ever

[Your Nightmare]

Just for the record, Bush I signed the NAFTA treaty, Clinton signed the law ratifing it.

[Law is not justice but process]

You are absolutely right about our situation in the South. We stole our relatively low-paying textile and similar manufacturing jobs from the Northeast in the early and middle 20th century. We are now losing those to China, Mexico, and India because our wages here are finally starting to rise. Unfortunately, many in the South lack the education to move on to those higher-paying jobs that BMW and the like are bringing us. We are making progress in tackling that education gap, but what do you do with a 50 year-old mill worker who doesn't know how to do anything else?

By the way, I would distinguish the loss of these relatively low-paying factory jobs from the loss of higher-paying jobs such as programming jobs and X-Ray interpretation jobs going to India. This is a result of India whipping our sorry backsides in the education field. Didn't you ever wonder why all the T.A.s in the computer and chemistry and physics and engineering classes were all Indian? The Indian government filled the excess capacity of our universities with their citizens for 30 years. Now most of them are going home and taking our jobs with them. The answer to that is for Americans to get serious about getting an education (on a personal level, not a governmental level: remember, it was the U.S. and U.K educational system that by and large educated the people in India who are getting our jobs).

We need to compete, not whine.

[Your Nightmare]

I thought the average unemployment rate under Clinton was 5.2%.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. It was 4.2 percent when Bush took office and it's 5.6 percent now. That's the only historical number that matters to voters. There will more than likely be a net loss of job for Bush's term - the first time in 60+ years. If Bush wants to run on jobs, he better start creating some...quick.

[cake_crumb]

Yep. My point was that the Democrats are blatantly lying, and you don't have to be an economist to bust their fantasies in 30 seconds or less. It's really getting on my nerves.

[Sacajaweau]

oops

[Republican Red]

Here’s CNN in July 1996, as the Clinton-Dole election approached:

Economists didn't expect June's unemployment rate to be much different from May's, which was an already-low 5.6 percent. But in fact, it did fall -- to 5.3 percent. The unemployment rate hasn't been that low since June 1990. So 5.6 percent is “already-low”.

Now here’s CNN in December 2001:

The U.S. unemployment rate jumped to 5.7 percent in November - the highest in six years - as employers cut hundreds of thousands more jobs in response to the first recession in a decade in the world's largest economy.

CNN Feb. 2004:

The unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent, the lowest level since January 2002, from 5.7 percent in December. A weak job market could prove tough for President Bush as the November election approaches.

[chimera]

Didn't you ever wonder why all the T.A.s in the computer and chemistry and physics and engineering classes were all Indian?

It's a recent-generation phenomenon. When I was a grad student in physics back in the early '70s, there was one foreign student TA in the whole department (about 30 grad students). The rest were American. Now when I teach grad-level engineering courses, about 70-80% of the students are foreign nationals. What few American students there are tend to be rather marginal.

The Indian government filled the excess capacity of our universities with their citizens for 30 years. Now most of them are going home and taking our jobs with them. The answer to that is for Americans to get serious about getting an education (on a personal level, not a governmental level: remember, it was the U.S. and U.K educational system that by and large educated the people in India who are getting our jobs).

I talk to students all the time at various levels, from middle school up through graduate school, and there is a common thread I hear: if they invest a large amount of time and money getting an advanced education, they seem to want some reasonable assurance that they'll be able to have a stable career in their chosen field of endeavor. When we had a broad-based economy that featured healthy levels of innovation, spending on R&D, manufacturing, education, and service jobs, that was not all that unreasonable of an expectation. Now, with the fear that yours may be the next career lost to offshoring, students have no interest in moving further along the educational ladder. They'll either quit after high school and get a service or trade job (thinking they'll be forced to do that eventually anyway), go into the military, or look to get married and raise a family. Those that do go on to college look at majors like marketing, pre-law, and business. The more capable ones are looking at pre-vet or pre-med (although the radiology offshoring is starting to rattle a few rafters there). In the sciences and engineering disciplines, the ranks are being filled out by, you guessed it, foreign nationals.

[Law is not justice but process]

A good reply. I personally believe we can be competitive enough to get some of these jobs back and to create even more. We may have to change that expectation of career stability to do so, but it is worth the effort. I am in law, one of the stability havens you mentioned, and I can assure you that with only a few exceptions, lawyers have to change jobs and even fields with a frequency that matches or exceeds that seen in science and engineering. I have several undergraduate classmate from Clemson who are engineers and most have the same employer they had in 1990 when they entered the job market. None of my classmates from Duke Law can say the same. (In the interest of full disclosure, probably 40% of my Clemson engineer friends have changed jobs one to several times, but the corresponding percentage for law school is close to 100%)

What is your idea of a solution to the training deficit in the U.S.?

[chimera]

We have to be careful not to blur the distinction between changing jobs and being forced, against one's will, to change careers. Voluntary job changes happen all the time, and there is usually a positive result in doing so, if it is voluntary (although not always, sometimes things don't work out when it looked like they might). I think what discourages a lot of young people today from considering a technical career is the perception that their time and effort will be wasted. These are not easy fields to master and one must be motivated to learn as well as have some innate ability. If they perceive that they take four or six or eight years to get a decent education, then be forced to drive a truck or work at WalMart or Mac's to make ends meet when their job is outsourced, it tends to be discouraging. There are some (here on FR and elsewhere) who cheer such outcomes. "Good for them", they say, or, "the market told you where you should be, so suck it up", or, "screw 'em, if they can't adapt". But that is one attitude we should change. Losing the talents and abilities of good people is not a positive outcome, either for them, business, or the country.