[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.

[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.

[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.

[lelio]

She is still aligned with her private sector contacts in the transnational business community and has failed to assume the duties of a national strategist that should be a major part of her government portfolio.

She's just a "cheap labor" Republican.

In July 1982, the average person working in the private sector of the economy earned $271.77 in a week. In July, 2004 in real terms (1982 dollars), the average person earned $278.48 in a week. That´s not a real gain

Its a real gain --- of over $3000 (in 10 years)!

[LowCountryJoe]

...Material living standards have been improving not as the result of workers being better paid for their greater output, but because families have put more of their members into the workforce...

A fundamental error is made in that analysis right there. This ignores wealthy people who have amassed wealth and now drop out of the workforce to pursue a leisurely lifestyle.