RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


US unemployment(50 posts)

US unemploymentMJ
Jul 3, 2003 6:24 AM
just think about the whining and griping you'd hear if a Democrat were responsible for this - I think the last time the figues were this bad GW1 was to blame - the deficit's also creeping up - good to know sound conservative economic policy is working out so well for all you rabid US neocons

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3007-2003Jul3.html?nav=hptop_tb

Unemployment Rate Surges to 9-Year High

By LEIGH STROPE
The Associated Press
Thursday, July 3, 2003; 8:34 AM

The nation's unemployment rate shot up to 6.4 percent in June, the highest level in more than nine years, in an economic slump that has cost nearly a million jobs in the last three months.

Businesses slashed 30,000 jobs just last month, with cuts heavily concentrated on factory assembly lines, the Labor Department reported Thursday.

The 0.3 percentage point increase from May's 6.1 percent rate was the largest month-to-month rise since the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. That surprised analysts who predicted a smaller rise, to 6.2 percent. The last time the overall rate was higher was in March 1994.

While recent economic indicators point to an economy struggling toward recovery, the latest report demonstrated that America's job market was still very much in a state of recession last month.

Since March, unemployment has increased by 913,000. Two million people were unemployed for 27 weeks or more last month, an increase of 410,000 since the start of the year.

Another factor behind the increase in the overall civilian unemployment rate was the increase in the number of people seeking work in June. Optimism about an economy rebound led over 600,000 people to resume their search for work.

Because the government calculates the overall unemployment rate based on a survey of American households, and because the lackluster economy wasn't producing enough jobs to accommodate an increasing number of job-seekers, that rate increased significantly.

Manufacturing led in payroll cuts last month, with 56,000 jobs lost. Since July 2000, the nation's factories have cut 2.6 million jobs.

That sector has been the weakest link in the economy's ability to get back to full speed. Slack demand at home and abroad and competition from a flood of imports have throttled back production.

Construction jobs helped offset manufacturing losses somewhat last month, with the fourth straight gain in hiring. Construction has added 101,000 jobs since February, reflecting strength in residential building.

The mortgage boom, stoked by record low rates, has been the bright spot in the dismal economy. People are buying new homes and refinancing their old mortgages. The extra cash from refinancing combined with solid home-value appreciation have kept consumer spending afloat.

Other hiring gains last month were in health care, leisure and hospitality and temporary employment services.

In a separate report, new claims for jobless benefits rose last week to 430,000, an increase of a seasonally adjusted 21,000 from the previous week's revised 409,000 claims.

The more stable, four-week moving average of claims, which smooths out weekly fluctuations, dropped to 425,000. That was the lowest level since April 5.
so?DougSloan
Jul 3, 2003 6:41 AM
What are the Democrats doing or proposing to do to help? Stand in the way so that nothing gets done so they can use it against the Republicans in the next few elections?

Also, don't forget the economy was an out of control train wreck when passed off from Clinton, at least as reflected in the stock market.

Doug
Doug, I have water filters less selective than you are (nm)retro
Jul 3, 2003 7:50 AM
excuse my density, but I have no idea what you mean nmDougSloan
Jul 3, 2003 8:24 AM
Still significantly lower,TJeanloz
Jul 3, 2003 6:45 AM
Despite it all, the U.S. unemployment rate is significantly lower than it is in socially-leaning European economies. Besides, there's still a good year and a half before the elections.

BTW, the article clearly states that the last time unemployemnt was higher than this was in March 1994 - squarely in the middle of Clinton's first term.
WFT?Ridearound
Jul 3, 2003 6:57 AM
WTF is a "socially-leaning European economy"? Is that like where people in France exchange cards at Christmas with folk in Belgium?
Yeah, exactly like that (nm)TJeanloz
Jul 3, 2003 6:59 AM
Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting BushKristin
Jul 3, 2003 6:50 AM
But what's up with all moronic political commentary these days. Have we all forgetten that the World Trade Centers collapsed on September 11, 2001 during a terrorist attack? I doubt we could name more than 6 past presidents with the talent to turn around the economic crisis that followed the attacks. Lets put the blame where its due. We were attacked...it hurt the economy. If Bush isn't handling it as well as someone else could, then next term, lets elect president who can do it better. Regardless, it doesn't have a lot to do with what camp he's in.
good pointsDougSloan
Jul 3, 2003 7:02 AM
The feel good togetherness stuff following 9/11 lasted about 3 months, didn't it? I think we are mostly back to business as usual, whether right or wrong.

Doug
Beg to differ-filtersweep
Jul 3, 2003 7:44 AM
The so-called "war on terrorism" is crippling the US, not terrorism itself. With all the hand-wringing that has occurred, it isn't that unlike the 70s "hostage crisis" that paralyzed the Carter administration. Can Bush even open his mouth without mentioning the "war on terrorism" ??

If this were 1998, the band would have played on, and we would have barely noticed "nine-eleven" (I hate that phrase).
It's really crippled the domestic agendaTJeanloz
Jul 3, 2003 7:47 AM
Yeah, this Administration hasn't been able to do anything except focus on the War on Terror. I wish they would follow up on the campaign pledges to pass a tax cut and a medicare prescription drug benefit.
Well I guess we'll never know, will weKristin
Jul 3, 2003 7:50 AM
Its easy to make a claim like that, since the towers didn't come down during Clinton's administration--we'll never really know how he would have handled it or how it would have effected the economy. One second thought, I'm more inclined to agree with Mohair's assessment though. I think the trade centers had an impact, but they are only part of the whole problem.

One thing is evident, though. The economic crisis is not the fault of any single man, or administration or political party. If you can't see that, you're blind.
Beg to differ-Live Steam
Jul 3, 2003 8:48 AM
"If this were 1998, the band would have played on, and we would have barely noticed "nine-eleven"

What does this say about the mind-set of people? Lacking in moral direction? Only caring about what has effected their immediate existence? Is this the attitude we want? I hated it when they were playing the collapse of the towers over and over again soon after the event. It was doen for commercial gain and not because of any outrage on the part of these news agencies. I think they need to start doing it again, but you know that won't happen. The liberal media want everyone to forget why we are doing what we are doing. The sorrow and disgust lasted just long enough to clear everyone's conscience and free them from the harsh realities of the world we live in. I guess it will take another catastrophic event to shake up everyone and make them understand that this is a battle worth fighting.
you're like the Energiser bunny - ignorant and doomedMJ
Jul 3, 2003 8:58 AM
I'll type slowly so as not to confuse you

what liberal media? who are you talking about - name one

whate are 'we' fighting for? (this thread is about employment)

how does 9/11 relate to Clinton's alleged lack of moral compass? or GW's poor record on employment?

what is a greater loss of moral compass a lie that justifies a war or a lie that justifies a blowjob?

it's amazing that everyone here topday has kicked your arse and you don't appear to even realise it - you should hate that too

symptomatic rather than causal slightly possible - causal? certainly not
MJ, not to burst your bubblehead, but ....Live Steam
Jul 3, 2003 9:20 AM
this is not a contest. It is even less of one than the war on terrorism is, where there are winners and losers. Your believing it is proves you are very much the flee-brained moron I thought you were. Why don't you make yourself useful and do some anti-personnel "mind" testing! I am sure you will come through with flying colors!
MJ, not to burst your bubblehead, but ....MJ
Jul 3, 2003 9:39 AM
with your poor comprehension skills it's not surprising that drafting is difficult for you - what's not a contest?

'flee-brained' is spelled with an 'a'
"Whate" you say?SteveS
Jul 3, 2003 11:27 AM
"Posted by: MJ Jul-03-03, 09:58 AM


I'll type slowly so as not to confuse you
what liberal media? who are you talking about - name one

whate are 'we' fighting for? (this thread is about employment)..."

MJ must have skipped the reading comprehension himself as 'what' does not commonly use an 'e' as the last letter. MJ must have pulled it out of his 'arse.'

What one should realize is that MJ is a rabid anti-American on foreign soil. He tends to repeatedly print this kind of stuff and when he fails in argument, he tries the arrogant route. Don't sweat it. Also, he is a great fan of Communism, as his previous posts have frequently shown.

BULLETIN: As of today, July 3, 2003, the German Wehrmacht has still lost the Battle of Stalingrad. The battle ended almost 60 years ago, but MJ recently discovered a book the impressed him mightily. It was tremendously old news to most people, but the book, no matter how well written, did not change the winners and losers of the battle. It did make MJ an unabashed fan of Stalinist forces and Communism.

They are the one who lost the Cold War. MJ is still pissed about that one too.

Peace
Is the govt puttingRidearound
Jul 4, 2003 1:11 AM
something in the water now (aside from arsenic)? Why is everyone suddenly full of dumb-arse half-brain sh1t? Jeez, what a bunch of cretins.
Understand fully now :O)Live Steam
Jul 4, 2003 3:37 AM
So he, a commie foreigner, is trying to impose his view of the World upon us, hey? If this were a Yahoo board he would have been put on ignore just because he is so annoying! :O) I really hate misspellings myself, but pointing them out does not make an argument. Have a great 4th! I am heading out early to ride!!!!
Just a temporary blipRidearound
Jul 3, 2003 6:55 AM
Once the US gets into screwing up some more countries a la Iraq, the need for more body bag candidates will take up the slack - just leave it to "President" George....
Please define "screwing up some more countries a la Iraq"94Nole
Jul 3, 2003 7:15 AM
How was Iraq "screwed up"? Please list positives and negatives and I am sure you will find that the positives will far exceed the negatives. And don't think about Saddam and his family, think about the citizens of IRAQ.
There is no point trying to ratinalize with ....Live Steam
Jul 3, 2003 7:19 AM
I better not :O)
Which ones?Ridearound
Jul 3, 2003 7:22 AM
The ones firing Rockets at the Marines, the onesslaughtering the Brits who are trying to train a police force, the ones putting up the "job done, go home" slogans, or the really happy ones that no one seems to be able to find?
A Dumocrat is responsibleLive Steam
Jul 3, 2003 6:59 AM
The collapse of the economy was foretold back in 1999 and possible earlier. The events that lead up to it happened on your boy Clinton's watch. You need to get a better perspective on the workings of economics. Enron, WorldCom et al happen under Clinton's watch. There is no disputing that.
the biggest idiocymohair_chair
Jul 3, 2003 7:22 AM
The biggest idiocy is blaming this on the Democrats or the Republicans. That's beyond stupid. What a bunch of polarized political hacks you all are!

The economy collapsed because mainly because of two things. First, the Internet bubble burst. Second, a lot of shady and fraudulent accounting practices falsely inflated the economy, and that bubble also burst, leading to near total mistrust of all public accounting.

How you can pin that a politcal party is beyond me, but go ahead and amuse yourselves. Fact is, it's your (all of you) fault for not pointing this all out while it was happening. A lot of you profited from it. I certainly did, and I was smart enough to see that most of the Internet stuff had no viable business model, despite three-digit share prices. But then everyone is a genius after the fact, including me. And nobody will ever take the blame anymore. It's too easy to blame it on someone else, especially a nebulous entity like George Bush or Bill Clinton. Better him than me.

I blame it all on Grover Cleveland.
the biggest idiocyLive Steam
Jul 3, 2003 7:29 AM
"Second, a lot of shady and fraudulent accounting practices falsely inflated the economy, and that bubble also burst, leading to near total mistrust of all public accounting"

This happened because the President at the time, Billybob Clinton, lacked a moral compass. Many viewed it as a base from which to operate. He lied and cheated, so can we. The subliminal effect he had on this country was devastating.
and now you're ashamed?mohair_chair
Jul 3, 2003 7:40 AM
Okay, maybe there's a bigger idiocy: Bill made me do it.

Give me a break. Just because you were in a drunk stupor during Clinton's reign doesn't mean the rest of us were. I'm no angel, but one thing I know for sure is that Bill Clinton had no effect on my moral compass.
and now you're ashamed?Live Steam
Jul 3, 2003 7:54 AM
Why don't you, MJ and ReRun or whom ever go screw yourselves. I am sorry, but I have had enough of you BS and theirs too. If your intelligence quotient does not allow you to comprehend something, you and the other dummies resort to name calling and attacking the character of those you disagree with.

I will do you the favor of not posting a response to your puerile posts. Please extend that same favor to me. This is what makes the left a reprehensible lot - the duplicitous, hypocritical, ranting and attacks. Clinton sucked and that is a fact. He provided no moral leadership and the leaders of industry took advantage of the fact that he and his administration were too preoccupied in protecting the emperor than actually doing their jobs. If you cannot comprehend that then I have no use for you. Go play in traffic son!
one more thing...mohair_chair
Jul 3, 2003 7:57 AM
That last flat you got? Yep, Bill Clinton's fault.
Oooooh - get you, Einstien....(nm)Ridearound
Jul 3, 2003 7:59 AM
PuleeeezeKristin
Jul 3, 2003 7:44 AM
You think that there was no corporate foul play before Clinton was in office? Perhaps the blame lies with 1980's acedemia. Clinton was groomed at the same time as the Enron execs and by some of the same mentors. What were they taught? Power, greed, how to spin an annual report?
moral compass??filtersweep
Jul 3, 2003 7:55 AM
Like right-wing radical holy-roller Ashcroft or coke-snorting born-again GW has one??

Subliminal effect?? Steam usually has at least a somewhat compelling point to make... it isn't like the Reps have been without scandals.

It is far more morally reprehensible to declare war under false pretenses, to "illegally" detain war participants by splitting hairs over Geneva Convention definitions, etc. etc... if the crazy Reps would have left the actions of two consenting adults alone, Clinton would never have been in a situation where he would have done as any normal person would have... and in your "ends justify the means" world, why was "the principle" of Clinton's actions so important? No one seems to care about the principles (or lack thereof) involved in today's fiasco.
oh please!rufus
Jul 3, 2003 8:01 AM
what did bill clinton have to do with michael milken? charles keating? or the s&l scandals that included one neil bush?

saying that business leaders and others lie and cheat simply because their president did is facetious at best. coporate malfeasance is as old as business itself. i'd say it has more to do with a corporate culture that has winning and profits as its goal no matter what the costs.
oh please!Jon Billheimer
Jul 3, 2003 8:16 AM
Both corporate malfeasance and presidential dishonesty is symptomatic of moral decline in society, not the cause of it.
oh please!Live Steam
Jul 3, 2003 8:34 AM
http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/12/16/p11s1.htm
The source may be conservative, but those polled reached across a broad spectrum of our society.
Right..Ridearound
Jul 3, 2003 8:40 AM
but the Guardian, a major national newspaper in the UK, is a "rag", whilst this, which happens to support your argument, is a credible source then?
Right..Live Steam
Jul 3, 2003 8:52 AM
First I stated that it was a "conservative" source and second the guy who penned it, signed his name to it. That is more than the coward did that wrote the Guardian article. If you use the provided link to the Guardian article you will not find a "by line" - if you know what that is.
You don't understandRidearound
Jul 3, 2003 8:55 AM
British newspapers do you?

Do you collect these junior high insults to use as and when, or do you think them as you go along?
You're an idiot and I won't respond to your posts!!!!!!!!!!Live Steam
Jul 3, 2003 9:04 AM
you just did respond to RR - who's the idiot now? - nmMJ
Jul 3, 2003 9:40 AM
What a great loss to us all.Ridearound
Jul 4, 2003 5:41 AM
I think I can cover the vacated intellectual ground myself actually:-

"you're an idiot"
"you're a Commie pinko"
"you're a lefty stupidy"
"you're intellectually weak coz you read British newspapers"
"My Pa is bigger than your Pa".

I think that pretty much covers your contribution.
you forgotMJ
Jul 4, 2003 8:29 AM
"Bush is great"
"Bush is great"
"liberal media blah blah blah"
"Bush is infallible, omnipotent and omniscient"
etc.
Actually I only wrote the first quote, but ...Live Steam
Jul 4, 2003 10:36 AM
if the shoe fits I'll back up the rest of them for you! Have yourself a fine weekend my friend.
big surprise. :(rufus
Jul 3, 2003 8:53 AM
but are lying presidents and corporate criminals the cause of this decay, or simply the result?

likewise, are movies, tv, and music causing this decay in society, or just reflecting it?

a poll of 800 people isn't going to provide any answers.
big surprise. :(Live Steam
Jul 3, 2003 9:03 AM
You may be right. The chicken and the egg theory. But, many admit to looking to our leaders to provide leadership and a good example. Chris Matthews had a show where he questioned whether our society is in moral decline. They polled high school and college kids and found an astonishing amount of kids admitting to cheating and sex with multiple partners. An unusual amount of kids cited Clinton in their responses. I wanted to post a copy of the transcript from that show, but it is no longer available on the MSNBC site. Were these kids being truthful or were they just searching for an excuse for their actions? Again it's not scientific, but it does tell us something.
handy scapegoat.rufus
Jul 3, 2003 9:38 AM
they know what they do is wrong, but rather than take any personal responsibility for it, they seek out any and all excuses to justify why they did it. kinda like how when your parents catch you playing with matches or whatever as a kid, and you say, "well, billy did it too!"
it doesMJ
Jul 3, 2003 9:42 AM
that you consider a 'talk show' a source

frightening...
the biggest idiocyJon Billheimer
Jul 3, 2003 7:44 AM
Thanks Mohair. You saved me from saying it. The political invective here is getting too absurd for words!

Macro for dummies: Unemployment happens because companies lay workers off. They lay workers off because they can't sell the stuff they make. They can't sell the stuff they make because consumers are tapped out and don't have any more money. This has little to nothing to do with whether Slick Willie or Dubya's in the White House. The inevitable response on the part of the Central Bank is to lower interest rates, and on the part of Congress and the Administration (regardless of political affiliation) is in one way or another to dish out tax relief. Neither the current Elmer Fudd Prez nor Slick Willie "caused" the current round of unemployment.
agreed - Grover Cleveland did itMJ
Jul 3, 2003 7:44 AM
but it sure did get a rise out of some people...

I agree with your analysis - internet bubble and corporate malfeasance are really to blame

it's not a political issue - more of a cyclical economic issue IMO - but that's not how it's gonna be played in the election
Blame it all on "Evil" Bill..MR_GRUMPY
Jul 3, 2003 7:32 AM
That's right, all the good things that happened under Clinton (no, I don't mean you-know-what), we can credit to George I. Face it, George is a mope, and things won't get better until he is replaced by somebody (Anybody), who has half a brain. Yes, Sept 11 cost us Billions of dollars, but how many billions of dollars have we spent on the wild goose chase, looking for WMD. How many billions have we spent on tax rebates to people who really don't need them. Looking at polls, it looks like the American public has started to ask some serious questions about Bush and his cronies.