PDA

View Full Version : Okay, if the economy is soooo bad, how come...



TheHumanAlphabet
3/20/2006, 07:14 AM
the two ship yards I have been to the last 2 weeks are building more ships and platforms than they ever have? Man the world economy is really churning. I counted at least 12 LNG ships in the quays at DSME and I can't count the ships and platforms at the 3 shipyards of Hyundai Heavy...

chriscappel
3/20/2006, 07:30 AM
OPSEC!!!!

sooner_born_1960
3/20/2006, 09:23 AM
Who said the economy is bad? Mine's doing fine.

OklahomaTuba
3/20/2006, 09:31 AM
Economies doing very well.

The reason is simple really, its called media bias.

Mjcpr
3/20/2006, 09:32 AM
Economies doing very well.

The reason is simple really, its called media bias.

What's it called when the media says the economy is booming?

OklahomaTuba
3/20/2006, 09:36 AM
What's it called when the media says the economy is booming?
Must mean a dim is in office. ;)

sooneron
3/20/2006, 09:47 AM
I'm sue there's a large sector of the country that you could ask about how they think the economy is going and they'd disagree strongly, regardless of their party affiliation.

OklahomaTuba
3/20/2006, 09:52 AM
I'm sue there's a large sector of the country that you could ask about how they think the economy is going and they'd disagree strongly, regardless of their party affiliation.

Unfortunatly, perception is reality for many people. Thus the power of the media and its bias.

I think way too many people see the bubble economy of the late 90's and expect the economy to always be like that. Reality is a bitch sometimes though, and many people will struggle no matter how well the economy is doing, especially the lower educated and those working in sectors that are going away. Still doesn't take away how well the economy is doing despite all the issues with energy and the war right now.

sooneron
3/20/2006, 10:05 AM
Unfortunatly, perception is reality for many people. Thus the power of the media and its bias.

I think way too many people see the bubble economy of the late 90's and expect the economy to always be like that. Reality is a bitch sometimes though, and many people will struggle no matter how well the economy is doing, especially the lower educated and those working in sectors that are going away. Still doesn't take away how well the economy is doing despite all the issues with energy and the war right now.
You people throw too much empahsis on the media. It's really comical.
I was referring to people that don't need the media to tell them they aren't so well off. I'm referring to out-sourcing, plant shut downs, etc...
Ask a Ford worker what they think of THEIR economy.

JohnnyMack
3/20/2006, 10:10 AM
I don't think the U.S. economy is "bad" right now, but I'm certainly being more cautious than in past years. Interest rates continue to march upward making it more and more expensive to carry debt. Credit card debt in this country is an epidemic and as rates climb to borrow money, people are still using available credit like crazy, sinking themselves further and further into debt. Mortgage rates are up, and housing sales are down. Some real big housing bubbles could be about to pop (not here in Oklahoma luckily) as home sales slide downward.

As far as energy prices and the war causing economic instability, I blame them both on poor planning.

jeremy885
3/20/2006, 10:10 AM
The economy today reminds me of the economy of 1995-1996. It seems to be going up but personally it hasn't made it to you yet.

BeetDigger
3/20/2006, 10:11 AM
Ask a Ford worker what they think of THEIR managment has responded to the thread of foreign competition and how 75 years of defined benefit retirement plans are bankrupting their company.


There, fixed it for ya.

TheHumanAlphabet
3/20/2006, 10:18 AM
Well, as Rush would say...[Fritz Hollings voice (I think)/]There's a whoooole lot of consuuuuming going on around here...[/Fritz Hollings voice]. There are more cars here in Korea than I have ever seen. News showing how people in China are buying cars that they have never been able to. Indians (dot, not feather) are buying cars they have never been able to. I hear you on Ford sooneron, we need to do everything to keep a manufacturing base because that keeps the economy humming. But the Big Car companies better figure out what people will buy, be more flexible in product and personnel or else, the others will.

I'm in the middle of Hyundai town. These Koreans know how to work (and drink...). They will decide to do something and its like soldier ants. Masses of people get after it and it is done. This year my driver said Hyundai will produce 65 super tankers/cargo carriers, 5 more than last year and they know that China is building a ship yard bigger than Hyundai's. Gotta keep on their toes. Korea doesn't have to worry about a union and paying workers 100K per year to not work like Chevy does.

America better wake up to world economies...Old style thinking like France, Europe and the unions of the U.S. won't be getting it done. Economies of Asia will...Then the cycle will repeat...

OklahomaTuba
3/20/2006, 10:22 AM
I was referring to people that don't need the media to tell them they aren't so well off. I'm referring to out-sourcing, plant shut downs, etc...
Ask a Ford worker what they think of THEIR economy.
Like I said, just because the economy is booming doesn't mean everyone is going to be happy.

But I believe in creative destruction. For many of those people working under the BS their unions were feeding them all these years, this might the one thing that spurs them to re-train, upgrade their skills and be more productive.

Fortunatly, its about killed the labor union movement in this country, and thats the only thing thats going to save the manufacturing base in this country.

Tear Down This Wall
3/20/2006, 10:22 AM
Unions will continue to kill the American manufacturing base. However, we are living in an era of new computer-based technologies, so our economy will be fine in the long run.

OklahomaTuba
3/20/2006, 10:24 AM
I'm in the middle of Hyundai town. These Koreans know how to work (and drink...). They will decide to do something and its like soldier ants. Masses of people get after it and it is done.

Those companies like HHI are something else. Soldier ants is the perfect way to describe them.

And you aren't kidding about Koreans drinking (and smoking!). We took some Korean customers out on the town when I was in Tokyo. Holy**** we were out till 2am and they drank non-stop, and we had a meeting at 9am!

yermom
3/20/2006, 10:26 AM
so the economy is good for the rich people, gotcha

OklahomaTuba
3/20/2006, 10:28 AM
Unions will continue to kill the American manufacturing base. However, we are living in an era of new computer-based technologies, so our economy will be fine in the long run.
We still need to be making things though. We can't end up like Germany.

OklahomaTuba
3/20/2006, 10:29 AM
so the economy is good for the rich people, gotcha
And by rich you must mean the $30.00/hour all medical benefits/vacation/retirement paid union workers, right? Cause those guys seems to do very well.

yermom
3/20/2006, 10:32 AM
And by rich you must mean the $30.00/hour all medical benefits/vacation/retirement paid union workers, right? Cause those guys seems to do very well.

if they still have their jobs...

TheHumanAlphabet
3/20/2006, 10:39 AM
That's my point. Most people in the U.S. if they apply themselves and work hard and have some sort of education are basically wealthy or could be...Too many people in the U.S. have too much debt or are too busy with the Jones that it seems they have no money and are a heart beat from losing it all. Is that the fault of the economy or the people? Every economy will lose jobs as some one else figures out somewhere somebody can do the same thing with less cost. Gonna happen unless you have some sort of protectionism. Probably not a bad idea to identify key industries we want expertise and protect those, but the others will have to pruned as other countries come along. Soon enought the Koreans, Indians and Chinese will be wealthy and they won't want to work and those jobs will be shopped.

OklahomaTuba
3/20/2006, 10:41 AM
We all might as well face it. Chinese Robots will soon replace us all, forcing us into Wal-Mart slave labor camps where that yellow (fitting, huh?) smiley faced thing hovers around with a whip snapping it at us all into submission.

RedstickSooner
3/20/2006, 11:54 AM
the two ship yards I have been to the last 2 weeks are building more ships and platforms than they ever have? Man the world economy is really churning. I counted at least 12 LNG ships in the quays at DSME and I can't count the ships and platforms at the 3 shipyards of Hyundai Heavy...

Uhh... You're counting oil and natural gas related shipbuilding as "proof" that the economy is going great?

Hate to break this to you, but oil's selling kinda high at the moment -- seems we're sorta short on supply, so there's this weird "economic incentive" to do more exploration (hence, more platforms).

Similarly, domestic supplies of natural gas are coming up short pretty much everywhere -- and tanker shipments of LNG are supposedly the way of the future. Building ships to transport LNG is a necessary component of the process, as is the construction of some LNG receiving ports to offload those tankers and evaporate the LNG to NG.

Provided you're in an oil-rich state (like Oklahoma, Texas or Louisiana) the economy should continue to be pretty decent for the forseeable future.

1stTimeCaller
3/20/2006, 12:01 PM
I wouldn't consider Oklahoma an 'oil rich state' anymore. Most of Oklahoma's wells are marginal wells in that most produce about 4 bbls of oil per day.

Natural Gas drilling is increasing though.

Scott D
3/20/2006, 12:06 PM
The problem with a subjective thing like the economy is it all depends on what perspective you look at it from. From a perspective of Oil people there's nothing wrong with the economy, because their business is booming. Meanwhile in other places where their particular workforce base is sliding out of traditional work roles, you'd be hard pressed to say that the economy is looking up in that area.

Taking things like that on a national perspective is dangerous because of how distorting factors can be that aren't always being accounted for properly.

sooneron
3/20/2006, 12:07 PM
Now why would a person that works for an oil company be all rosey about the economy when the adminstration in power had a big oil lobbyists in charge of environmental quality?

:rolleyes:

I just don't get it

1stTimeCaller
3/20/2006, 12:11 PM
When the economy sucks companies don't buy new construction. The Dallas market is hot right now, not white hot but going strong nonetheless. I'd say that commercial construction is a strong indicator of the overall health of the economy and around the country commercial construction is strong.

OklahomaTuba
3/20/2006, 12:21 PM
Now why would a person that works for an oil company be all rosey about the economy when the adminstration in power had a big oil lobbyists in charge of environmental quality?

:rolleyes:

I just don't get it

:confused:

OklahomaTuba
3/20/2006, 12:24 PM
thats great that contruction is strong.

I just saw this as well.


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. college graduates are facing the best job market since 2001, with business, computer, engineering, education and health care grads in highest demand, a report by an employment consulting firm showed on Monday.

"We are approaching full employment and some employers are already dreaming up perks to attract the best talent," said John Challenger, chief executive of Challenger, Gray & Christmas.http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-03-20T163503Z_01_N20258421_RTRUKOC_0_US-ECONOMY-JOBS.xml&rpc=22

Full employment huh?

I think the recovery is nearly complete. Hopefully no oil interruptions from our good friends in Iran cause everything to go south.

RedstickSooner
3/20/2006, 12:33 PM
Now why would a person that works for an oil company be all rosey about the economy when the adminstration in power had a big oil lobbyists in charge of environmental quality?

:rolleyes:

I just don't get it

Really doesn't matter -- it's oil prices that matter, not environmental regulations. Heck, half the time putting stricter regulations in place end up benefiting the industry in question, as it usually forces upgrades in equipment which pay off through increased efficiency and production.

The oil industry would be booming just as much were there a Democrat in the White House, IMHO. Supply and demand curves meeting are the sort of macro issue that no government -- not even ours -- could've done much to alter. Even had we instituted a draconian system of fuel efficiency improvements and such in, say, 2000, oil still would be hitting record highs right about now.

Whole damned planet is thirsty for the stuff -- and there ain't quite enough to go around.

Thing I'm curious about is the old forecasts about food production. When I was in college (early 90s) the supply and demand curves for food were supposed to meet in 2020, approximately. Anyone work in agriculture, know if they're still trying to predict such thigns? If so, when do the two meet?

Be sorta nice to get ahead of *that* particular market force, I'd say.

RedstickSooner
3/20/2006, 12:36 PM
thats great that contruction is strong.

I just saw this as well.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-03-20T163503Z_01_N20258421_RTRUKOC_0_US-ECONOMY-JOBS.xml&rpc=22

Full employment huh?

I think the recovery is nearly complete. Hopefully no oil interruptions from our good friends in Iran cause everything to go south.

Yeah, full employment? Not so much:

"The U.S. unemployment rate rose to 4.8 percent in February from a 4-1/2-year low 4.7 percent in January, according to the U.S. Labor Department. Employers added 243,000 new payroll jobs in the month."

Would've helped if the article would've mentioned precisely which sector(s) Kris Kringle was referring to when he talked about full employment.

JohnnyMack
3/20/2006, 12:40 PM
Again, spend less. Pay cash. Pay down your mortgages. Shred your credit cards. YWIA.

OklahomaTuba
3/20/2006, 12:45 PM
Yeah, full employment? Not so much:

"The U.S. unemployment rate rose to 4.8 percent in February from a 4-1/2-year low 4.7 percent in January, according to the U.S. Labor Department. Employers added 243,000 new payroll jobs in the month."

Would've helped if the article would've mentioned precisely which sector(s) Kris Kringle was referring to when he talked about full employment.

I think that 4.5 is pretty much considered full employment.

OklahomaTuba
3/20/2006, 12:48 PM
Again, spend less. Pay cash. Pay down your mortgages. Shred your credit cards. YWIA.

Saving is the most important thing you left out in that. Otherwise, excellent advice!

RedstickSooner
3/20/2006, 12:48 PM
I think that 4.5 is pretty much considered full employment.

Well, used to be three percent -- but guess we're grading on the curve now? :D

OklahomaTuba
3/20/2006, 12:50 PM
Well, used to be three percent -- but guess we're grading on the curve now? :D

Was it? I am probably wrong then.

Still, <2% from full employment is pretty damn good IMO. I credit Bush for doing two things to allow this to happen:

1) No attacks
2) Tax cuts

Could always be better though, and could always be much much worse!

JohnnyMack
3/20/2006, 01:00 PM
Saving is the most important thing you left out in that. Otherwise, excellent advice!

I'm not trying to be all doom and gloom but I think now is not the time to be taking chances with ones money. For the next 12 - 24 months I'm planning on being very cautious. Bad time to get caught with ones pants down.

jeremy885
3/20/2006, 01:11 PM
Well, used to be three percent -- but guess we're grading on the curve now? :D

I've never heard of 3% being full employment. During 1999-2000 it never got below 4% and that was considered full employment at the time.

mdklatt
3/20/2006, 01:18 PM
Unemployment may be low, but high paying jobs (manufacturing, IT) are being replaced with ****ty Wal-Mart and call center jobs.

OklahomaTuba
3/20/2006, 02:21 PM
Unemployment may be low, but high paying jobs (manufacturing, IT) are being replaced with ****ty Wal-Mart and call center jobs.

That must be true, since income is still growing. :rolleyes:

yermom
3/20/2006, 02:23 PM
the average may be going up, that doesn't mean it's not top heavy

OklahomaTuba
3/20/2006, 02:31 PM
the average may be going up, that doesn't mean it's not top heavy
Actually, the median grew as well, which signals a very good recovery.

mdklatt
3/20/2006, 02:37 PM
That must be true, since income is still growing. :rolleyes:

Is GM hiring around here? Nope. But Wal-Mart and the Dell call center are. How fast is income growing compared to inflation? Who is that growing income going to? People like Bruce are getting richer, but is everybody at the bottom? Not so much.

1stTimeCaller
3/20/2006, 02:46 PM
What's the relief on the Chrysler building in New York say? Something like "God must love the common man, he made so many of them."?

SicEmBaylor
3/20/2006, 02:49 PM
Is GM hiring around here? Nope. But Wal-Mart and the Dell call center are. How fast is income growing compared to inflation? Who is that growing income going to? People like Bruce are getting richer, but is everybody at the bottom? Not so much.

That's the fault of the GM labor unions and the inability of GM to compete with foreign car companies on cost/quality. It's a free-market and nobody including GM is guranteed success.

OklahomaTuba
3/20/2006, 02:50 PM
Is GM hiring around here? Nope. But Wal-Mart and the Dell call center are. How fast is income growing compared to inflation? Who is that growing income going to? People like Bruce are getting richer, but is everybody at the bottom? Not so much.

Ahh, since GM is in a world of hurt, that means the economy must be in the ****ter then huh? Of course. Never mind the non-union car companies making cars in the US are doing very well. Ironic, don't ya think?

And why is Wal-Mart and Dell hiring? Just maybe could it be that people are actually buying more of their stuff and they are growing?

I think the fallacy of your argument is that you are trying to match Oklahoma's economic performance with the nations. Oklahoma is too *** backwardz to do that IMO.

mdklatt
3/20/2006, 02:57 PM
That's the fault of the GM labor unions and the inability of GM to compete with foreign car companies on cost/quality. It's a free-market and nobody including GM is guranteed success.

Which doesn't change the fact that $50k/year GM jobs are being replace with $25k/year Dell jobs in Oklahoma City. That's not a political statement, just an observation.

OklahomaTuba
3/20/2006, 03:02 PM
Which doesn't change the fact that $50k/year GM jobs are being replace with $25k/year Dell jobs in Oklahoma City. That's not a political statement, just an observation.

Gm was paying people $50,000 a year? For what?

Also, you are assuming that those same people are moving from the auto plant to the call center. I doubt that happens that much really, since there is a shortage for certain skilled labor like welders and such.

OU Adonis
3/20/2006, 03:04 PM
Yeah, full employment? Not so much:

"The U.S. unemployment rate rose to 4.8 percent in February from a 4-1/2-year low 4.7 percent in January, according to the U.S. Labor Department. Employers added 243,000 new payroll jobs in the month."

Would've helped if the article would've mentioned precisely which sector(s) Kris Kringle was referring to when he talked about full employment.

As wierd as this sounds, just because unemployement is up, doesn't mean that means there are actually more people unemployed. That just means more people are actually looking for work.

mdklatt
3/20/2006, 03:04 PM
And why is Wal-Mart and Dell hiring? Just maybe could it be that people are actually buying more of their stuff and they are growing?


Discount retailers (Wal-Mart, Dell) are growing at the expense of middle-market retailers (Albertson's for example). Why have many Americans become more value-conscious? High-end retailers are also growing, because incomes are increasing more rapidly at the top than in the middle and at the bottom. Again, this is not a political comment, just an observation.

mdklatt
3/20/2006, 03:10 PM
Gm was paying people $50,000 a year? For what?

What do you think all those union workers were making?




Also, you are assuming that those same people are moving from the auto plant to the call center. I doubt that happens that much really, since there is a shortage for certain skilled labor like welders and such.

It's doubtful that all of those GM workers will find a new job making what they were making before. Most of the new jobs being created in central Oklahoma pay a lot less, so the average income around here is going to drop in the short term (at least).

JohnnyMack
3/20/2006, 03:10 PM
Wal-Mart is growing because people want to spend less on cheap **** because they've racked up too much credit card debt whilst trying to keep up with the Joneses and think that by saving .08 cents on pickles that they are somehow getting over on the man when actually "the man" is sticking it to them by sending all the manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China and importing the **** cheaper than can be imagined thus eliminating a large chunk of the U.S.'s manufacturing sector leading to lower paying jobs, leading to less income, leading to more of a need to shop at Wal-Mart.

I fu*king hate Wal-Mart.

yermom
3/20/2006, 03:27 PM
if there was another place that was open 24 hours that sold me tools, DVDs, food and underwear i'd be all for it

KABOOKIE
3/20/2006, 03:28 PM
Why exactly JM! Pickle farming used to be such a lucrative business here in the US. Why I can remember the day when most brain dead high school dropouts would rather farm pickles for dollars than work those union wrench turning jobs at $50,000/year. ;)

mdklatt
3/20/2006, 03:28 PM
if there was another place that was open 24 hours that sold me tools, DVDs, food and underwear i'd be all for it

http://www.nelsonelectric.com/graphics/sm_target.jpg

jeremy885
3/20/2006, 03:29 PM
Wal-Mart is growing because people want to spend less on cheap **** because they've racked up too much credit card debt whilst trying to keep up with the Joneses and think that by saving .08 cents on pickles that they are somehow getting over on the man when actually "the man" is sticking it to them by sending all the manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China and importing the **** cheaper than can be imagined thus eliminating a large chunk of the U.S.'s manufacturing sector leading to lower paying jobs, leading to less income, leading to more of a need to shop at Wal-Mart.

I fu*king hate Wal-Mart.

That must be it :rolleyes:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Banking/creditcardsmarts/P74808.asp

yermom
3/20/2006, 03:31 PM
http://www.nelsonelectric.com/graphics/sm_target.jpg

it has to be close too, sorry ;)

if they put one in SE Norman, i might never go to Wal-Mart again

KABOOKIE
3/20/2006, 03:32 PM
http://www.nelsonelectric.com/graphics/sm_target.jpg

Except at Tarshey, your tools are by Martha Stewart, the DVD collection is flooded with teeny bop, your food is marked up, and the underwear has pink hearts on it! ;)

sooneron
3/20/2006, 03:33 PM
Except at Tarshey, your tools are by Martha Stewart, the DVD collection is flooded with teeny bop, your food is marked up, and the underwear has pink hearts on it! ;)
Martha Stewart is KMart

OU Adonis
3/20/2006, 03:34 PM
Except at Tarshey, your tools are by Martha Stewart, the DVD collection is flooded with teeny bop, your food is marked up, and the underwear has pink hearts on it! ;)

Whats wrong with that?

JohnnyMack
3/20/2006, 03:36 PM
Why exactly JM! Pickle farming used to be such a lucrative business here in the US. Why I can remember the day when most brain dead high school dropouts would rather farm pickles for dollars than work those union wrench turning jobs at $50,000/year. ;)

:mad:

JohnnyMack
3/20/2006, 03:39 PM
That must be it :rolleyes:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Banking/creditcardsmarts/P74808.asp

Who leads the nation in importing goods from China? Those fuc*ing skanks have gone from "Buy America" to, "We just imported $18 Billion from China".

Yeah, Wal-Mart is good for America. :rolleyes:

KABOOKIE
3/20/2006, 03:44 PM
Martha Stewart is KMart


Thanks Rainman. ;)

jeremy885
3/20/2006, 03:46 PM
Wal-Mart is good for some Americans.

What about people who live in poverty (before Wal-Mart came)?

What about people on a fixed income?

With Wal-Mart coming in to their areas, they are able to buy more of the items they use or spend money on things they were not able to afford before because of the lower prices at Wal-Mart.

RedstickSooner
3/20/2006, 04:18 PM
I've never heard of 3% being full employment. During 1999-2000 it never got below 4% and that was considered full employment at the time.

I still say they're grading on the curve. I always heard 3% as full employment, and changing it to 4% strikes me as being remarkably similar to those athletic geniuses who always give 110%.

The U.S. economy sustained 3% unemployment for about three years in 1951, 1952, and 1953. It dipped as low as 2.6 and 2.5 repeatedly in 1953. THAT, mi amigos, is full employment.

The "full employment" of the dot-com boom wasn't full, and demonstrated pricing pressures mostly in the form of astronomical salaries for IT professionals (and anyone who issued stock). Drone salaries have remained stagnant for decades, and really don't respond to much of anything aside from raises to the minimum wage. Fact is, there have always been (and it would appear there will always be) plenty of unskilled laborers in this country.

And, yeah, I'll admit there are a few sectors where there may be exceptions to this rule. Some unskilled positions suck so hard even high school dropouts don't want 'em. But isn't that why we invented prison labor? :D

Also, to get the figures I'm using, go here:

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab7.htm

It's a neat tool. Just click on "unemployment rates, total, 16 years and over", and then when the results come up, change the dates you're spanning. It goes all the way back to 1948 (which is too bad, I'd love to see what the rates were during WWII -- since, after all, that is *true* full employment, as practically every able-bodied person was working for the war effort one way or another)

Four percent isn't full employment -- it's employment high enough that we see some wage increases, and folks begin to deliberately return to the labor pool. Also, someone mentioned that the jobless rate could reflect more people entering the pool -- yeah, that's true, but it usually works the other way. Unemployment rates begin to drop after sustained highs because discouraged workers give up on finding jobs.

I know it's hip to bash union workers, but wealthy Americans are a good thing, honest. The biggest problem for most automakers wasn't that they paid too much in salary (as highly skilled workers made themselves *worth* those salaries in improved productivity) but that they guaranteed benefits. Specifically, medical benefits, and increases in health care expenses completely crippled their ability to manufacture vehicles for an affordable amount of money.

I don't know the figure, maybe someone else does, but the health care expense of every Chevy was (supposedly) three or four grand, if I'm remembering right. And that was a decade ago -- I can only assume it's gone up since then. So, you look at a European automaker with government-sponsored socialized medicine, and they basically get a three or four grand subsidy on every car -- because that expense is shifted to their workers, in the form of taxes those workers pay. (I'm leaving, for the moment, the issue of efficiency -- our system has a lot of hidden costs European systems don't have to carry)

Short version of all of this is that our economic and political system doesn't allow for us to plan very well for the future. If there's a buck to be made in it *now*, someone will agitate for it, and political clout will coalesce around it. But if nobody makes a dime, or if the money doesn't show up for twenty years, well, it basically gets relegated to some starry-eyed dreamer. And those idealists don't last long in Washington. In fact, the only idealists that seem to survive our system of government for long are the ones who take their marching orders from God.

The only way anything without a profit attached to it will ever be accomplished by our government is if we, the people, insist on it. Frankly, I don't think we have it in us. We're too easily distracted by the political horse and pony shows politicians put on for us. Like flag burning in the late 80s and early 90s. Or gay marriage. Or abortion. Things which matter very much to us - but which have little importance from an economic (and therefore, to Washington, power) standpoint.

The only good thing about our system of government is that it's fairly ponderous. Therefore, it takes it a while to really screw something up -- and for that, we can all be thankful. Imagine our government if it were *nimble* and this incompetent. We'd all be up the creek without a paddle ;)

jeremy885
3/20/2006, 04:25 PM
I still say they're grading on the curve. I always heard 3% as full employment, and changing it to 4% strikes me as being remarkably similar to those athletic geniuses who always give 110%.

The U.S. economy sustained 3% unemployment for about three years in 1951, 1952, and 1953. It dipped as low as 2.6 and 2.5 repeatedly in 1953. THAT, mi amigos, is full employment.

Didn't we have something called the Korean War going on at this time?

RedstickSooner
3/20/2006, 05:04 PM
Didn't we have something called the Korean War going on at this time?

Good point, can't overlook the importance of war. What was our mobilization for the Korean War? I can find our casualty figures on Wikipedia, but not our mobilization numbers. MacArthur's UN forces were numbered at 365,000 but I dunno how many of those were ours, and how many were our allies.

Point being, I'm trying to compare mobilization for the Korean war as compared to that of the Vietnam war. We had low unemployment in 1967-70, but it's still about 1 point higher than what we had during Korea. I suspect our mobilization figures were fairly similar to what we had for Korea during that time, though, so it seems to me the early 1950s still represented something else -- and are probably pretty close to true "full employment".

Also, I checked on Wikipedia, and we're *all* correct. Apparently, economists believe full employment can mean pretty much anything:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment

OklahomaTuba
3/20/2006, 05:18 PM
Also, to get the figures I'm using, go here:

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab7.htm


Thats cool.

Interesting that we sit at 4.7% now, which is <1% higher of Clinton's lowest ever.

Also, its a lower unemployment rate than Reagan EVER had.

Yet somehow I doubt Bush will ever be given credit for keeping things stable enough for this to happen. An amazing feat I think given the world right now.

1stTimeCaller
3/20/2006, 05:21 PM
not to rain on anyone's parade here and it probably won't because it's not really what we're talking about but didn't I read somewhere a year or so ago that the Dept of Labor was trying to include fast food workers in the manufacturing employment category? That wouldn't affect the unemployment rate anyways. Sorry bout the interruption, carry on.

OklahomaTuba
3/20/2006, 05:23 PM
Oh well thats just great. Now people are going to want to join a union just to manufacture a taco?

jeremy885
3/20/2006, 05:25 PM
Oh well thats just great. Now people are going to want to join a union just to manufacture a taco?


Why not, all of Kroger's workers are unionized for some damn reason.

1stTimeCaller
3/20/2006, 05:26 PM
UTW, United Taco Workers Local 437 :D

OklahomaTuba
3/20/2006, 05:31 PM
Why not, all of Kroger's workers are unionized for some damn reason.
Heh.

I had to join a union in highschool/college when I worked as a projectionist in a movie theater.

I was so ****ed I had to pay dues, and didn't really get anything back in return.

TheHumanAlphabet
3/21/2006, 07:41 AM
Who leads the nation in importing goods from China? Those fuc*ing skanks have gone from "Buy America" to, "We just imported $18 Billion from China".

Yeah, Wal-Mart is good for America. :rolleyes:

That's why I DON'T shop there...I hate Wal-Mart and will never darken the door there. I shop the local hardware store or the local HEB...

OklahomaTuba
3/21/2006, 09:30 AM
So I guess Target and the local hardware stores don't sell stuff made from China then, huh?

Never knew that.

TheHumanAlphabet
3/21/2006, 10:44 AM
So I guess Target and the local hardware stores don't sell stuff made from China then, huh?

Never knew that.

No, but they never advertise the Made in 'Merica like Wal-Mart and at least I am giving my money to a local franchisee or a local company...

Vaevictis
3/21/2006, 10:48 AM
For everyone ragging on the unions, I agree that there are some companies getting crippled for them, but do keep in mind that most workers wouldn't bother with the unions if they trusted management to treat them fairly. (Of course, that's with the exception of shops with already established unions -- I'm talking new unionizations, which don't happen often.) Industry brought the unions on themselves by abusing the workers, and now they're reaping what the sowed... and if the unions continue on the path they're on, it will continue to turn around and bite them too. I guess my main point is that it takes two to tango :/

As far as the economy being booming is concerned, I do wonder how much of that boom is related to the additional federal spending. Keep in mind that since 2001, the federal annual outlay has increased by about $850 billion (est. 2006 numbers, from 2708677 million to 1863190 million per year). It's a no-brainer that the economy will appear to improve if you dump nearly a trillion dollars a year into it.

EPI (admittedly a somewhat left group) suggests that *all* jobs created since 2001 derive from this spending. While I don't exactly trust them to be unbiased, do keep in mind that $850 billion will create 17 million middle class jobs (@$50k/yr). Obviously, not all of that (not even most of it) goes to creating jobs, but even a *small* percentage nets a huge number of middle class jobs. I don't see 100% of new jobs being created deriving from the new federal spending as being a reasonable number, but I would not be suprised if it was in the 50% range, +/- 15%. It may very well be that the only reason we're seeing net job creation is because the government is making a new job (or more!) for every job lost, in addition to whatever private industry creates.

All that said, Bush doesn't have much control of the economy (nobody does), so I'm not trying to attack him on it, but I disagree with the statement that the economy is "booming," partially for the reason above (among others).

OklahomaTuba
3/21/2006, 10:49 AM
No, but they never advertise the Made in 'Merica like Wal-Mart and at least I am giving my money to a local franchisee or a local company...
;)