OpieCunningham

The crux of your argument is that, as of Dec. 2003, some economists were claiming that the economy would surge before the end of Bush's first term and all of the job losses would be erased.

That didn't happen and it's not going to happen in the next 60 days.

Bush's fault? Well, yes.

smooth

OK, well here's a reality check for you:

That article was written in the first few days of December of last year.

It projected that more jobs would be gained in the coming year, and concluded from that such criticisms were premature.

However, we are only a few months away from the election and the end of this year. The situation has not picked up, as this article suggest it would. The conclusion is that their projection was wrong and Bush will, in fact, end his first term with an abysmal job record--the original critique was correct.

Edit: You'll also notice that unemployment essentially stays static for the months following the article. I don't have all the numbers, but I suspect that the differences are statistically insignificant, which means that unemployment hasn't decreased (although it hasn't increased, either).

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

onetime2

Some questions then:

How much impact do you believe the President exerts on the economy?

Can you give some examples of the actions/policies which Bush initiated between his election in November 2000 and the end of 2001 that caused unemployment to increase?

Assuming you believe the President can substantially impact the economy through his policies, how long do you think it takes for such policies to change economic indicators?

Do you know what productivity has been doing over the last decade or so?

Any thoughts on the relationship between productivity levels and employment levels?

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Pacifier

Statements like that are a primpe exaple why Schwarzeneggers speech was BS, he makes vague remarks about soviet troops to support the impression that he was living under soviet occupation.
Fact is that the Steiermark, where arnold was born, was under british occupation.

When Schwarzenegger left in 1968 Ausria was ruled by the ÖVP (Austrian People's Party) a coservative party:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_People%27s_Party

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

filtherton

I can give examples of bush attempting to take credit for the economy's rebound(heh.). Obviously, the president thinks he has some input in the health of the economy. Do you think that he has zero influence on the economy? Shit, our economy is so open to influence that the stock market falls if alan greenspan doesn't eat enough fiber.

As for productivity, it is an indicator of something, but productivity is only a small piece of the economic pie. Whether it is an indicator of a healthy economy depends on whether you factor in the health and well being of the average employee into your calculations. Higher productivity in this context means the employee is being asked to do more for the same amount of pay. Productivity usually increases as more people are layed off because those who aren't layed off are forced to fill the empty chairs of their excoworkers.

If you listen to the politicians talk, all of the positive trends in our economy are the result of their guy's policies and all of the negative trends are the result of the other guy's policies.

onetime2

This has been covered many times before. Every President is forced to take credit for the economy because those ignorant of these matters assign blame to him when it falters.

The stock market is not the economy. The economy is made up of millions of companies (from monsters like Wal Mart to the local newstand), thousands of industries, and billions of consumers. The economy is not easily influenced. The single person with any sort of control on the economy is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve (currently Alan Greenspan) and even his manipulation of interest rates (which immediately have a real effect on the economy) takes many months to significantly impact the flow of the economy.

Sustained productivity growth over the long term has a direct impact on employment. The more productive workers are the fewer workers required. 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 how do you reconcile the fact that productivity has been increasing significantly for about a decade? This obviously would include the "low" unemployment period under Clinton's tenure.

Politicians can talk all they want but the reality is the President has almost no influence on the economy in 99% of cases.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Stompy

Yeah, I've never been a firm believer in the thought that any ONE person can dictate and control the entire economy.. as if he's sitting behind a desk putting one of two buttons that read "Create more jobs" "Take more jobs".

It's the product of what every politician does, what laws they make and break, general state of the world, etc...

A lot of people say "Bush destroyed jobs" while others say "Bush got stuck with the after effects of Clinton" etc etc... it's all BS, because I'm sure EVERY President in history would LOVE to magically be able to create jobs for people. It's not like he's sitting back sayin, "Hehe, I just took a million jobs away! My plan succeeded!"

The thing is, it's not easy and it's most certainly not the work of ONE person.

__________________
I love lamp.

filtherton

If president bush was actually the "no bullshit common man" that his supporters like to paint him to be than he wouldn't pretend to have a say in the economy.

I didn't say layoffs were the only reason that productivity has increased. Offshoring and technology no boubt help too. What i meant was that i think they are probably a factor in the productivity increases that you're seemingly try to pawn off as a sign of a rebounding economy. If they have indeed been increasing for the past decade than why are they even relevant in a discussion about any kind of current economic upswing?

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.

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.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

roachboy

taking in aggregate terms about the impact of rationalization (technology-driven standardization of tasks) make little sense. the implementation and impact of these processes vary wildly by sector. textiles differ from clothing differs from x differs from y differs from z.

outsourcing impact is problematic in terms of measurement at another level as well: because of how american production levels have been altered (at the level of definition)--this is written into tarrif definitions, which enables you to decode place of origin for transport, which is the basis for stats on the matter---so you cant know too much from the official numbers--saying that it has been overstated is arbitrary. if assembly operations are understood as elements of domestic production, and much assembly is offshore, then how would an aggregate number tell you anything about what is going on? the examples can be multiplied here....

your "learning curve" for corporations is meaningless in the abstract--same logic applies here. what sectors are you talking about? do you think there is some zietgeist that organizes corporate behaviours such that everyone recognizes the same thing at the same time? then you are dreaming....

unemployment figures are also suspect in that people unemployed more than 6 months are not counted--it is a reagan-style way of addressing structural unemployment--pretend it is not there---the claim that the american is a full-employment economy seems to fly in the face of reason--you have to be totally uncritical about the definition of the statistical category "unemployed" to believe anything like that.

this all seems like conservative pollyanna stuff to me--nothing is wrong, dont worry, every critique is generated by handwringing naysayers as a function of some emotional problem they share, not to take it seriously, see eveyrhtying can be explained away----if you assume an adequately credulous audience---which this line seems to be able to find.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

smooth

I believe that the current president has control over public perception of the economy's well-being. His policies encourage or discourage people to have faith in the long-term health of an economy and encourage or discourage spending/consuming/production/etc.

That's at least one direct effect I would attribute to the sitting president.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

filtherton

yep.




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)?

onetime2

You appear to be confused about the words "primarily" and "sole". The main reason you pointed to for rising productivity was fewer workers being forced to do more that would imply that is what you believe to be the primary driver. Sole driver would mean it and it alone. Reread what I posted and perhaps you will recognize I never intended (nor said) sole.

Feel free to explain how the rising productivity occured during times of historically low unemployment. Certainly unemployment could not cause increased productivity before there is unemployment.

Slow job growth when the economy is near full employment is a sign of distress now? The general concensus is that full employment is in the 5 to 6% range. Where are we now?

You claim that Bush bears some blame but you've never offered one example of what he's done to hamper the economy or an example of what he could have done to make it better. That was, after all, my initial challenge in the thread. If you have no belief or interest in economic theory and reality then why bother to post about economic indicators, the state of the economy, and the President's responsibility for current economic conditions?

I will take educated guesses backed up by years of economic analysis, in depth understanding of economic indicators, and historical truths over finger pointing with absolutely no presented facts any day.

I speak of his goal of financing retraining of workers in industries which are dying out or becoming less labor intensive as examples of good programs. I do not point to them as being the end all be all of economic fixes.

They have zero chance of stopping displaced employees. It is simply a resource to help ease the transition.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

smooth

Ah, yes, filtherton, you're 'confused,' kindly go home and lick your nuts now

onetime seems to be hiding up his sleeve whether those magical growth spurts in yonder years were actually less steep than the current, which would support your assertion over his.

Check out the numbers and see if it's not the case that productivity increases more rapidly during times of economic downturns than when it slowly churns like it should.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Strange Famous

Erm... maybe his family feared the Soviets because his father was a Nazi Stormtrooper?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

ubertuber

Yes - this is a great distinction. I agree 100%. The question is which effect Bush has had - many clearly believe that we are in economic trouble, but others believe just as clearly that their experience contradicts the numbers (and some even have numbers on their side as well). It is hard to say what the "consensus" is. My experience has shown me that the country does not reflect TFP's or NYC's demographics, so I truly have no idea. The election will tell...

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

hunnychile

.....and yet none of the Republicans who spoke at the RNC have ever uttered a word about Aids.

Too busy making funny jokes, I guess.

__________________
"I need compassion, understanding and chocolate." - NJB

filtherton

On productivity and confusion:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/4964147.html
It seems that our productivity is more a function of the crass amount of overtime we put in, not a more effiecient work force. I like the phrase "Squandering of human capital". That's what getting paid 1/400 of what you ceo makes is all about, and how is that efficient?

smooth

*pindrop*

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

pedro padilla

the best part was the tanks. those ghost tanks in austria that only arnolds super terminator eyes saw. his handlers helped clarify things when they said he was "speaking not as a historian but a politician"
any truth to this republican proposal to change the constitution in order to allow foreign born citizens to serve as president? oh yeah, that would really be hella cool dood!! president ahnold will kick some ass. maybe he could run with bruce willis. or van damme. god help us all.

hunnychile

[QUOTE=pedro padilla]the best part was the tanks. those ghost tanks in austria that only arnolds super terminator eyes saw. his handlers helped clarify things when they said he was "speaking not as a historian but a politician"
QUOTE]

Excellant observation. My Austrian friends (Arnold's same age) said "Nope, they never ever saw tanks in their country during this time in history." Hmmmmmm?

__________________
"I need compassion, understanding and chocolate." - NJB

onetime2

Ummm, no. The article is discussing US productivity versus other countries not about the growing trend in productivity within the US.

Productivity has been growing by leaps and bounds for the last decade in the US.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

filtherton

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...12-2002_pg5_18

I don't know anything about the pakistan daily times so i don't know how accurate their info is, but seeing as how i how you haven't provided any proof for your assertions it should probably be just fine, right.

followed shortly by:

No likey?

Maybe you like bloomberg better.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...iho&refer=home

Highlights:
Productivity increases are somewhat tapering off because employers are starting to reach the limits of their employee squeezing abilities.


Technology probably was the primary driver before the recession, but i think that you'd be hard pressed to prove that it has been the primary driver during the late economic unpleasantness, especially without being industry specific. If you're going to try please provide something more than conjecture.

Some industries have no doubt benefitted from technology, but some more than others. I bet a great deal more have benefitted from layoffs and the squeezing of the worker.

onetime2

Productivity gains were at staggering levels BEFORE unemployment grew (that's why I pointed out that it's been going on for the better part of a decade).

By your logic productivity should have been very low when the economy was at it's absolute fullest employment yet that's not what we saw.

The incredible gains in productivity over the last decade equates to fewer people needed to produce the same level of goods, hence lower employment.

But I know there's no use in trying to convince you otherwise so I'll stop now. It's much easier to believe it's the big bad corporation "squeezing every last drop from employees".

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

filtherton

Whatever captain, you're not convincing me because your not making a very persuasive argument, big bad corporation or not(your phrase, not mine). Let me paraphrase you: Productivity is always primarily caused by technology. Laying people off never has anything to do with increased productivity. That's what you seem to be implying. You delude yourself by pretending that i am the only one here with a closed mind.

onetime2

Umm yeah. You point to an article that discusses the perceived productivity edge of America versus the rest of the world and doesn't, in the least, discuss the growing trend in US productivity, disregard the fact that the productivity gains over the last decade occurred during a period of full employment, and then claim that the gains in the last year are all due to forcing more out of the few still employed and it's me that doesn't make a persuasive argument. Do you have any concept of the fact that current unemployment levels are nowhere near bad? That historically full employment has been defined as being in the 5% unemployment range? Nevermind, I already know the answers.

Respectfully,

Captain onetime

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

filtherton

Not worth it.