Quote:
|
Originally Posted by onetime2
And nowhere did I say that you did. You implied that it was a primary driver of it since you pointed to it alone.
|
yep.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by onetime2
If, as you state, productivity has increased primarily from the fact that people have been laid off and workers are being forced to do more...
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by onetime2
Technology is absolutely the primary driver in the productivity gains. The "offshoring" has virtually no impact whatsoever (the primary reason being the phenomenon is ridiculously overstated) and secondary reasons include the fact that those jobs are no longer counted in the figures and when they're shipped overseas they typically see productivity decline. The productivity decline doesn't matter so much because the labor is relatively cheap and you can afford to pay more workers while still making it "profitable".
The reason that productivity is relevant (as outlined above) is the fact that higher productivity means fewer jobs. I am not pointing to high productivity as evidence of an economic upswing but of a primary driver of "high" unemployment rates. Pointing to slow job creation as evidence of economic distress is partisanship at its worst since no single indicator is sufficient to describe the health of the economy.
*"profitable" in quotes because corporations may be starting to learn the administration of overseas workers and lower quality work may mean the profits generated aren't worth it
"high" in quotes because current unemployment levels are within the realm of the traditional definition of full employment.
And as far as Bush claiming credit, again, he has little choice since the Kerry campaign (and every other Presidential campaign before it) wants to blame the current administration for economic suffering.
|
Higher productivity means fewer jobs. Ok, but which is the cause and which is the effect?
You cannot claim that technology is
absolutely the primary driver in productivity gains because there is no way to prove it. That's the itchy thing about economics, you(the general you, not onetime2) can make a whole bootyload of assertions based on ceteris paribus and the laws of supply and demand, but when it comes down to it you're nothing more than an educated guesser with an inherent tendency to back up your own preconcieved notions.
How is slow job creation not a sign of economic distress? I think if you didn't have a job you'd be pretty fucking distressed. I'm talking about economics here as they effect actual living americans who have to pay rent and buy groceries and feed children, not some abstract indicator that looks good on paper and means a lot to econ majors. We're talking about the economy in action as it effects real people. Claiming slow job creation isn't a sign of distress is a reflection of the sociopathic economics that care only for numbers on a page.
Bush deserves some of the blame for economic hardship because he has done nothing to allieve it. Cutting taxes disproportionately for the wealthy does nothing timely to help anyone who currently can't find a job. They can wait, probably for a very long time, for the money to trickle down but in the end it probably won't amount to much.
Unemployment is normal in any economy, especially when it is changing direction. The problem lies in how you deal with that unemployment. I've heard you often refer to the need for the retraining of the workforce to take advantage of changes in the economy's direction. What exactly has the president done to make that period of unemployment and retraining easier on the average american (the person the economy should be serving)?