Posted on 09/18/2003 4:03:48 PM PDT by Mini-14
It's almost impossible to compare unemployment statistics now with those pre-Great Society when all the many welfare programs began being put into place. Unemployment during the Great Depression was only something like 20% but there weren't people laying around collecting SSI, General Assistance, Food Stamps and all the many other programs that didn't exist. Now unemployment figures only show those unemployed who actually are looking for jobs ----- they don't count the total unemployed.
Tonight, UNSPUN with AnnaZ and Guest Hostess DIOTIMA!
TONIGHT @ 7pm Pacific/9pm Eastern!
with special guest
Attorney
Sharon Matthew
Of
Pacific Legal Foundation
Click HERE to LISTEN LIVE while you FReep!
Click HERE for the RadioFR Chat Room!
Miss a show?
Click HERE for the RadioFR Archives!
True, but the nature of most IT jobs produces dead-end specialists. The only way to keep from being pigeon-holed was to keep switching jobs and nobody can do that now.
Right now I may have a seemingly stable IT job, but I don't count on having it forever, especially since I am the only pale male left (with the commensurate salary.)
Everyone around me is fresh off the boat and works for magic beans.
This probably won't be an issue this election, but sooner or later the democrats are going to figure out this demographic and start making promises.
I suspect you are right. I am only half-time employed in IT, fortunately doing other things at the same time.
I disagree. I have had the same employer for 25 years, but my job keeps changing. In some cases, I took on a new job in addition to my regular tasks and waited for someone to notice. I still love learning new things and jump at the chance.
However, I have worked with many people (who didn't survive the environment) who would say "Hey I was hired to do one thing and only one thing for 40 hours a week. Don't even suggest I do anything else." If I had that attitude, I would still be coding cobol, instead I am coding PHP.
heh. I have done all those things, but I hate printers, especially Genicoms, they are evil incarnate.
Yes indeed it would be. Except anyone who hears that knows that it's not credible: presidents have nothing to do with the economy.
Point 2: Clinton did indeed profit greatly from companies which benefited from the tech bubble. So did conservatives and everybody in betweeen.
He knew that if he made deals, EO's and promoted legislation both here and abroad which would FURTHER profit these companies, he, Clinton, would profit even more from the donations of those grateful companies. This is realy silly: if economy goes up, most people benefit. That's what we are supposed to do. Except he has hardly anythig to do with that.
Clinton and his good pold boy network DID conciously meddle in the economy How? I'm surprised I had to explain that.
I am also suprised that you do not know that administration has not means of influencing economy.
I agree with what you said. Except presidents may initiate this legislation and nothing more: it becomes law only if it passes in Congress.
It is (i) Congress that influences the economy through expenditures and taxation (fiscal measures) and (ii) the Federal Reserve (monetary policy).
None of it belongs to presidents, whether Democratic of Republican.
No, it would not.
I'm perfectly willing to give Clinton the credit for what happened with the stock market You should not: he has nothing to do with that.
if he will admit that it was a very BAD, dishonest thing that was happening. How was it dishonest?
If I sell my neighbor a car knowing that it has a cracked head, and I don't tell him, and he goes away thinking he has a good car, I have stolen from him. When it breaks, he has a legitimate claim against me, and in a perfect world where things could be proven, I could go to jail. YOu are correct, of course, except this has nothing to do with the stock prices.
Stock prices reflect optimism of the public. The public felt very optimistic about the future. There were reasons for that: jobs were plentiful, and the American companies had huge profts for several years in arrow. They should've realized that this was abnormal and will not last long (this used to be taught by parents in this country and passed from generaton to generation -- until that "Greatest" generation that won WWII; since then an everage Joe and Jane jas no concept of yesterday and wants tomorrow today.)
This and purely human nature led peple to believe that the party will continue. If one believes that, it is indeed rational to buy stocks. Joe and Jane started to trade stocks via Internet --- and made a lot of money. Nobody complained. Then the realization hit that it's over, and some lost money. Now they were looking for guilty parties --- "the fat cats" on Wall Street, corporate management, president --- anybody but themselves.
Stock prices reflect the beliefs of the buyers and sellers about the future. Presidents have very little to do with that: YOUR view of the president contributes to YOUR optimism about the future and YOUR desire to buy stocks. But whether you have a job matters infinitely more.
And, you don't have to agree with me: "lying" CEOs cannot creaet a bubble. Period.
It is true that the morality in our culture has declined. But that has been happenning for many generations. CEOs rise from our midst, and it is natural that the level of their integrity has declined as well.
Until the turn of the XX century, a mere handshake between two brokers on NYSE was sufficient -- no records and yet nobody ever reneged. This no longer works on exchanges because the public no longer obides by Judeo-Christian values. In that sense, Europe is completely gone (they refuse even to acknowledge in their constitution the role of Christianity in the history of Europe). We are more healthy still but are moving in the same direction. Attributing this to Clinton is also false. In fact, one could argue that precisely because morals were no longer important for the public it elected and kept him in office.
Whatever you think of the second part, bubbles are created by the masses, not a few individuals.
LOL LOL LOL! Yeah, it's ridiculous. I got into the field on that kind of scam - got tired of working in slave pits but didn't have the patience for more school, so I bravo sierra'ed my way into IT. Now I've got a few years' real experience, and I'm sitting pretty at a consulting company that is actually expanding its market share.
Just goes to show that education is fine, but in Americs, Bravo Sierra can get you much, much farther.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.