New Labor Department Report Reflects Bush Administration's Lack of Seriousness...

AmericanEconomicAlert.org ^ | Monday, September 20, 2004 | William R. Hawkins

[Willie Green]

Bush's "Ownership Society" Already Doomed by his Trade Policies

[Willie Green]

William Hawkins ping.

[Always Right]

"...it was clearly produced as a campaign document meant to boost the re-election efforts of President George W. Bush and not as a serious assessment of the challenges facing the American economy.

.....And in the matter of job opportunities, President Bush will be going into the election as the first president since Herbert Hoover at the onset of the Great Depression to see the number of Americans working actually decline during his term in office.

Pot, meet the kettle.

[oblomov]

>.....And in the matter of job opportunities, President Bush will be going into the election as the first president
>since Herbert Hoover at the onset of the Great Depression to see the number of Americans working actually decline during his term in office.

Not true.

[steve8714]

It is if you go solely by payroll jobs...

[oblomov]

By that measure, my fiance, who started her own business in May, is unemployed. Never mind that her busienss is already doing well, and she will likely hire 1 or 2 people by the end of the year. More "illusory progress" according to the Dems at CrAP, I suppose.

[LowCountryJoe]

From the article: ...Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao opens the report by proclaiming, “America´s workers are the most dynamic and productive in the world. They are the backbone of the American economy, which is constantly evolving and producing new jobs and new opportunities.” This tribute to the American worker sounds good, but has not been matched by policy. Indeed, the Bush Administration in general and Secretary Chao in particular have shown no interest in advancing the living standards of employees. And in the matter of job opportunities, President Bush will be going into the election as the first president since Herbert Hoover at the onset of the Great Depression to see the number of Americans working actually decline during his term in office.

Secretary Chao´s background may have suited her to manage a large organization like the DoL, but not to make policy...

So Willie; set me straight over here. It's policy that creates jobs? Also, just where does a 5.4% unemployment rate fit in with the historical unemployment rate?

It's funny, but I'm not hearing that "giant sucking sound" that the protectionist talks about...well that's not quite true, I do sort of hear those last gasps of restricted breath that you (and other like you) let out in that "race to the bottom" of your barrel-scrapping arguments.

[ninenot]

Ping for Later.

[radicalamericannationalist]

Policy can effect the creation of jobs. If you do not believe that is true, then you are denying the underlying premise of supply side economics.

And if you do not hear a giant sucking sound, I take it you have not recently spoken with a customer service or technical support operator recently.

[ex-snook]

Thanks for the ping.

Along the same lines of Bush's 'seriesness' - anyone hear how his Manufacture Czar is doing these days?

[Willie Green]

It is if you go solely by payroll jobs...

Dubya's drones like to overhype the household data which includes struggling self-employed Americans working for lower pay and fewer (if any) benefits.

[Willie Green]

I think he's laying low, hoping not to get outsourced to China.

[q_an_a]

but if you add government jobs I bet the number is different. It would be interesting to do a Pajama survey of all the jobs created by HIPPA.

[sinkspur]

Dubya's drones like to overhype the household data which includes struggling self-employed Americans working for lower pay and fewer (if any) benefits.

Willie, it's a shame that you've become totally irrelevant to the current campaign.

[raybbr]

Society has been paying a heavy price for the failure of business firms to pass down to workers the value of their greater productivity so that they can afford to improve their living standards without placing the integrity of their families at risk.

This means absolutely nothing to a super-capitalist. It doesn't affect his stock value so therefore it is meaningless.

[Willie Green]

Willie, it's a shame that you've become totally irrelevant to the current campaign.

I agree. The same corrupt cabal that killed the Contract with America has made this election a total farce.

[LowCountryJoe]

I wrote: So Willie; set me straight over here. It's policy that creates jobs?

Your response: Policy can effect the creation of jobs. If you do not believe that is true, then you are denying the underlying premise of supply side economics.

Yeah, I can see that you didn't take any liberties with my statement (LOL). I will not deny that policy can - and to be sure, does - affect the creation of jobs. But, I will deny that in a free society it is the policies that are the underlying premise of supply side economics. No, it is the entrepreneurial nature of risk takers that bring their goods and services to market to meet a consumer demand (perceived or not) that creates the jobs.

As far as customer service:
I bought a Dell laptop two years ago for $1200 and spoke to an American voice when I ordered it. Six months later - when my motherboard fried because I spilled wine on it - I spoke to someone who was probably from India...there was a language barrier to overcome, that's for certain, and I was a little disappointed.

Today, I couldn't even purchase that same Dell laptop if I wanted to. Why? Well, it's because they do not make newer laptop computers with processors that slow any longer (MHz) and and with so little RAM. I also probably couldn't get one with just a DVD player that wasn't also a combo CD Writer either. And you know what, the price for one of these better computers is much lower now then when I forked over my twelve hundred bucks.

I'm sorry that the the consumer's search for better value and product has put an American out of his/her phone answering job. Perhaps with the right drive and determination they can do something even more meaningful. But I guess that's just too much to ask of someone. After all unemployment "benefits" don't last nearly long enough, huh?

[radicalamericannationalist]

You wrote: So Willie; set me straight over here. It's policy that creates jobs?

I wrote: Policy can effect the creation of jobs. If you do not believe that is true, then you are denying the underlying premise of supply side economics.

You wrote: will not deny that policy can - and to be sure, does - affect the creation of jobs. But, I will deny that in a free society it is the policies that are the underlying premise of supply side economics. No, it is the entrepreneurial nature of risk takers that bring their goods and services to market to meet a consumer demand (perceived or not) that creates the jobs.

While I agree that in the end, it is ultimately the entrepreneur that creates the job, government policies do have an effect on the job creation environment.

I think of it like farming. Soil conditions (or policy) greatly influence what can be grown and the bounty of the yield. Can a fart mer go against bad soil conditions and grow things in bad conditions? Of course. But more likely, that farmer will simply abandon the bad soil and put his efforts elsewhere. Thus, the policies enacted by the government are quite important for the "farming" of jobs.

One wonders if you would be minimizing the role of policy if we were discussing tort reform, environmental regulation or tax policy. It is only with free trade that policy seems to become irrelevant.

And as to the loss of phone answering jobs, which you seem to deem inconsequential, these are the type of entry level positions that once taught teens the first principles of a work ethic, allowed folks to work their way through school or allowed folks on welfare to transition into productivity.

The results of those jobs vanishing, either through out-sourcing or the in-sourcing of foreign laborers, is apparent today. Teens now turn their noses up at jobs that have had their wages pushed to an artificial low. Students get government subsidized loans. People do stay on unemployment longer. None of these results are good for fostering a strong work ethic in those who most need to learn it but instead show government as being the source of support. Support for such results is an odd form of conservatism.

[LowCountryJoe]

This means absolutely nothing to a super-capitalist. It doesn't affect his stock value so therefore it is meaningless.

Spoken like I true "have-not"!!!

[LowCountryJoe]

While I agree that in the end, it is ultimately the entrepreneur that creates the job, government policies do have an effect on the job creation environment.

And we're disagreeing where on this one?

I think of it like farming. Soil conditions (or policy) greatly influence what can be grown and the bounty of the yield. Can a fart mer go against bad soil conditions and grow things in bad conditions? Of course. But more likely, that farmer will simply abandon the bad soil and put his efforts elsewhere. Thus, the policies enacted by the government are quite important for the "farming" of jobs.

I thought that when the farmer's soil is bad that they just ask for subsidies and protections...oops, silly me, you were making an analogy.

And as to the loss of phone answering jobs, which you seem to deem inconsequential, these are the type of entry level positions that once taught teens the first principles of a work ethic, allowed folks to work their way through school or allowed folks on welfare to transition into productivity.

I'd like to see some empirical evidence of "phone jobs" being staffed traditionally by teenagers. I don't buy this! Typically "phone jobs" were used to make sales or to answer questions (of varying complexities) about their firms products or services. This skills are not typically possessed by teens.

Teens now turn their noses up at jobs that have had their wages pushed to an artificial low.

If so, the market for labor would correct and wages would increase to attract new labor. Maybe it's older, retired Americans who are willing to perform these jobs while the youth aims a little higher by acquiring some human capital - stuff that will pay off for society down the road (as long as we don't remain so shortsighted).