Redstate

Be more proactive in advertising the robust state of the labor market.

People are generally pretty aware of whether or not they are working, and if it is easy or not to get a good job.  If the labor market is really that robust, we should all just be able to see it -- frankly I had recruiters beating my door down in the years between '97 and '00.  I'm getting paid pretty well, and I feel relatively safe, but I'm not going to be fooled by people telling me things are going great guns when they're not.  I have and keep my job because the quality of my work is well above-average.  But my boss is still rebuffed at every turn when he says to his upper management that we need to get more people in to handle the work we have.

I don't know why the Bush Administration does not steal a page from their predecessors on this issue. For whatever reason, it almost seems as if they are spooked by the concept of going out and talking about the economy actually doing well--despite the fact that the statistics would seem to back them up.

Would these be the labor statistics from the years 2001-2004 that show the job market hemmoraging millions of jobs, and only in the last few months breaking the surface?  At the end of his first term, Reagan could point to eighteen million jobs created.  Our country is much more populous now, 20 years later, and the Bush Economy has just barely cracked a net gain in employment, after shedding jobs for most of its first three years in operation.  You can talk big when you've got some actual credible statistics that show "economy doing well."  Even the DJIA is just barely above where it was on the last day of Clinton's term.  A small group of people are making out like bandits under this economy.  The rest of us aren't stupid, ya know.

You can at least try pretending to be a Republican when posting on a Republican site.

We need another purge.

> At the end of his first term, Reagan could point to eighteen million jobs created.  Our country is much more populous now, 20 years later, and the Bush Economy has just barely cracked a net gain in employment, after shedding jobs for most of its first three years in operation.  You can talk big when you've got some actual credible statistics that show "economy doing well."

Your Reagan stat is pure bogus. Reagan had 18 M jobs after 2 terms. His 1st term was very much like Bush 43 with a recession that started on his watch and a slow recovery. Term 2 was a jobs bonanza.

Clinton had great timing. He came in exactly 2 years after the 1990-91 recession had ended in March 1991. Unemployment peaked in June 1992 and started heading down, too late to help Bush pere.Robust job growth began in Q4 1992.

Clinton left office in Jan 2001, the recession started in March 2001 and ended in Sept 2001. Unemployment peaked in June 2003 and began heading down. Robust job growth began in Q4 2003.

The cycle repeats again. Unemployment fell below 5% last month, 2 years after the unemployment peak, 4 years after the end of the recession.

In the 1990s, unemployment fell below 5% in 1997, 5 years after the unemployment peak and 6.5 years after the end of the recession. Unemployment fell below 4% in late 1999, 7 years after unemployment peak of June 1992 and nearly 8 years after the 1990-91 recession ended.

Bush will get to 4% unemployment far quicker than Clinton ever did.

Last time I checked, Republican's came in more than one stipe.  People like you who kick out, rather than embrace opposing viewpoints is what's leading to the GOP fracture.  Our party was once about fiscal responsibility and ethical behavior...what do we stand for recently?/  I dislike the religious fundamentlism cropping up in our party, but I still embrace the members.  Accept your fellows, disagreements and all, or lose everything.

Are you suggesting that high spending causes unemployment?

I know Keynes doesn't have much of a track record, but...

What the party stands for is power and clinging desperately onto it.  I remember voting for Dole and being so sad that our country could re-elect such a liar, but now I see DeLay and Frist, and I wonder, is it happening all over again?

House Republicans changed the rules to keep DeLay in power.  The rules they set up because of criminals like Rostenkowski.

Frist, a doctor, does a diagnosis via VHS.  It's infuriating.

Then the party tries to sack Specter and Chafee for showing any type of dissent.

I'm worried about 2006.  You can sit here and be in denial or you can realize that the rest of the country isn't going to go along with this and we can start to figure out how to fix the party.  Screaming 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 isn't going to work forever.

That was me sighting a disagreement without saying who I agreed with.  Just because I may disagree with a poster, doesn't mean I revert to calling him a "democrat."  Silly person.

This is a site for collective Republicanism, but generally accepts valid discussion on issues from democrats that is kept respectable.

This is a person who has repeatedly bashed Republicans and Republican ideals, and has even nearly professed a desire to have Daschle back in the Senate.  He does not warrant your defence nor Neil's support.

I respect you're argument to accept all Republicans in order to change the party into a polarizing figure, which is what the moveon crowd is trying to do with the Democratic party, and we've all seen how that works out, most notably... 0-17.  But this guy is NOT a Republican, and if he claims to be, I'd urge him to not be, because while I agree with your argument, he deserves to belong to a party that represents his views, and that, from what I've seen, is not the Republican Party.

Supposing we were to believe you actually did vote for Dole, that wouldn't change the point that you're a moby, and not a very talented one at that. Return when you've grown some style.

How many Republicans do you know see any reason to say that President Bush's economic program is causing high unemployment?

All he's done is reduce taxes, ask for some money for the war, and let Congress spend at will.

What part of that program, in the eyes of any Republican, causes unemployment?

any criticism of Republicans and the commenter is lying. Because "real" Republicans like Leon H don't critisize Republicans they just blindly follow. Way to go dittohead.

you just couldn't take your previous warning very seriously and decided that tripe equated to insight.  So now we bid you a fond adieu.

The only reason the unemployment rate has stayed low is the large number of people who have dropped out of the job market.  Even in the best months, job growth is barely above the level necessary to keep up with the growing population.  Perhaps the reason the administration doesn't tout its economic news is that it realizes that very few people would actually believe it.

If you got out of your Republican echo chamber you would realize that people are very nervous about the economy.  They don't feel secure in their jobs.  Their pay has been flat for the last few years while they have watched their contribution to company sponsored healthcare plans go through the roof.  They may see that unemployment is 5% but to the average middle class person it sure doesn't feel like 5% unemployment felt in the sixties and early seventies.

And granted this is a Republican echo chamber, but bear with me, is this:

If, as you postulate:

If you got out of your Republican echo chamber you would realize that people are very nervous about the economy.  They don't feel secure in their jobs.  Their pay has been flat for the last few years while they have watched their contribution to company sponsored healthcare plans go through the roof.

Then why have people actually dropped out of the labor market? To-wit, if everything, including but not limited to health care, is more expensive, but wages are flat, then simple economic imperative would drive these folks to freaking McDonalds if nothing else in no time flat.

Indeed, unless you're positing that real wealth increased during this time period, we'd either have bread- and unemployment lines out the yin-yang or dead piling up in the streets, if people's costs of living were increasing but their wages were zero.

Now, the plural of anecdote is assuredly not data, but most of the middle class folks I know (of whom I'm one, by the way) have seen a significant salary increase the last four and change years. Granted, we're all 25-35, so we're in the prime of our earning capacities and realizations, but the number of times we've been on the dole has been surprisingly low for this 70s redux you seem to see.

and not seeing significant salary increases then you are in deep trouble--if it doesn't more than double in those years you are on the wrong career path.  I am talking about people in middle age who have passed that initial burst and are settling into that fat middle of there careers where annual raises are counted in single digit percentages and promotions are rare. Talk to people in their forties and fifties and I think you will hear a different story  than what you are hearing.  Look around your local retail stores and notice how many middle aged men and women are working there when five or ten years ago it would have been entirely high school and college age kids except for management.  That is where much of the gain in employment is.

That's a great photo.  I don't usually see something that funny outside fark.com.

To continue my completely off subject rant, here's my voting record:

President: Dole, Bush, Kerry

Governor:1998 (no vote), 2002 (no vote), 2003 Schwarzenegger

Congress:1996 Rohrabacher, 2000 Cunningham, 2004 (no vote)

There are good candidates and there are bad ones.  I personally thought Schwarzenegger did a fantastic job in his first six months then it was all downhill.  What was the difference?  He stopped listening to the people.  The same goes for Bush and congressional Republicans.  New leadership is needed to prevent huge slides on '06 and '08.  That's the way politics works.  Americans are fickle.

Of course, I must be trolling because no one is allowed to question the almighty Bush.

Back on subject: As someone pointed out people are pretty certain if they have a job or not.  Go to Athens, OH where all my in-laws are and ask them how good the economy is.  A lot of people there are out of work and the jobs they can find pay $10/hr if you're lucky.  A high school friend of my wife's is making $2.10/hr plus tips, and there ain't no tips coming in.  Contrastly, things are great in So.Cal.  I'm happily employed.  My wife chooses not to work but could get a job within a week if she wanted.  I know no one in my area who is out of work and is job searching.

Some areas of this country are dying.  Why is that?  Is it natural evolution?  Is it our economic policies?  Is it foreign trade pressures?  It's very hard to say.  All of those factors probably play a role.  But what shouldn't be under debate is people without work and without opportunities start to blame the people in charge, both at the state and federal level.

A strong economy must be strong at all levels.  Right now we have a weak job market, a strong housing market, and a huge trade deficit.  We create around 150K jobs a month.  Guess what, that's the amount needed to keep up with the US population growth.  And those jobs aren't evenly distributed.  Places like Ohio are losing tons of jobs.

With regards to housing, I'm really worried that we're near the top and it isn't going to take a dip in prices to kill the economy.  Consumer spending from refinancing is fueling a large part of the GDP.  That isn't going to last forever.  I've shifted a lot of my holdings to safer investments.  Then again, I'm a bit conservative.

So what will happen areas start to die?  Not everyone can just pick up and leave.  That's unreasonable to ask.  The people who stay will become bitter.  Many poor people write the government completely, assuming no matter who is in charge they will suffer.  But others will get angry, very angry, and that's what we have to fear.

So to create 1950s style "the economy is great" ads will convince those who are doing well, but I'm not sure they'll have the effect you are hoping for.

Or answers it.

Either these folks are streaming into "lower quality" jobs -- something I seem to remember happening during the recovery of the early 1990s, now that we mention it -- and have not "dropped out of the labor market," or there are hundreds of thousands of dead lying around somewhere.

By the way, on the anecdote bit:

(1) I conceded the uselessness of discussing my age group for anything but discussing them;

(2) The 40- and 50- year olds I know are either doing as well as before, slightly worse, or better;

and

(3) Having been without work and having to support others, and having been the one supported while the breadwinners were without work, I'll tell you that the drop down is accepted for as long as needed to put food on the table, and when you can move up, you do. That point usually comes along shortly.

Criticizing Bush isn't trolling, idiot. What you're doing now is.

One more of these, and we send a friendly note to your ISP. It gets uglier from there.

The reason that the Bush adminstration does not talk about the labor market is because it is much worse than the numbers they publicize. For example, the reason the unemployment rate dropped from 5.1 to 4.9 in the last six months is NOT because of new jobs, but actually because of 1.1 million people who stopped being counted  due to ceasing looking for employment. Also, this much-touted unemployment number in the press is actually not used by itself by the Federal Reserve; they use five different metrics to gauge employment, of which 4 of them right now are not positive. And most people don't know that 1.7 million jobs have to be created each year just to keep pace with population growth, so anything near this number is actually considered stagnant growth. Everyone should do some research on these monthly new jobs numbers since the actual number is not important, but what makes up the number is the important part. For example, if 300,000 jobs are stated by the Bush Adminstration as being created in a month and 90% of those jobs are WMJ's (Wal-Mart Jobs), is that really good for the economy, especially if those taking these jobs gave up on finding a 'career-type' job. If you really want to gauge the strength of a job market, look at the metric for the nominal yearly wage increase/decrease for the average employee. If the yearly salary increase is greater than the inflation rate, that almost always means the job market is good (i.e. 1990's). But, since 2001, the salary for most Americans actually went DOWN (when adjusted for inflation), which means most Americans are making far less now than just 4 or 5 years ago. One of the little-known facts this administration has been hiding (or avoiding) is that this is a very week job market based on the facts. Just because Wal-Mart is hiring like mad, doesn't mean that American's are finding jobs that are rewarding, good paying and beneficial.

overall improvement in the National economic picture.  

The blame for that lies squarely with the exceptionally poor performance of Ohio's state government.

Businesses have been leaving Ohio in droves for years, going back to the bad old days of Dick Celeste's governorship.  The reason is because even though we've elected two Republican governors since then (Voinovich and the hapless Taft), neither has ACTED like a Republican.

Taxes and spending in this state have SOARED, to the point that we are now in the top five most highly taxed states.  Worse still, besides having its assets ineptly managed, our Workers Comp system is absolutely penal to businesses in this state (and isn't exactly wonderful for the workers, either).  

The problems facing the state of Ohio, with regards to unemployment, CANNOT be fixed by federal economic policy alone.  Even in a strong economy, locating a business here provides few advantages, since our neighbors in Indiana and Kentucky are much less hostile to businesses.