Slashdot Mirror

Clinton: 10 trillion dollar surplus (over 10 years)
Bush: 5 trillion dollar deficit (over 10 years)

I think you ment to say a $10 trillion dollar budget surplus, which most certainly did not translate into a real surplus. Why else would the national debt go up from $4.4 Trillion to $5.8 Trillion during the Clinton years, and never go down from year to year?

Clinton: War in Bosnia/Serbia WITH UN backing
Bush: War in Iraq with NO international support

Um, the Bosnia/Serbia conflict never had UN backing, and the war with Iraq had 17 UN resolutions authorizing it (in fact, requiring it from the UN Charter).

Clinton: Longest growth/expansion in US history
Bush: Most job losses since great depression

Just like the fabled Clinton Budget Surplus, the so-called economic growth and expansion of the late '90s was FAKE. If you will recall, we had company after company finally admit that they actually had not been making money during the late '90s. Economic growth and expansion isn't measured by astronomically high PE ratios on stocks, you know.

Also, Here is the national employment summary for March 2004. Compare to the national emploment summary of Jan. 2001, when Bush took office. Current civilian employment is 138,298,000, which is 2,200,000 more than Jan 2001 (135,999,000). How is this the biggest job loss since the depression when we have 2.2 million more jobs now than we did when he took office?

Clinton: 10 trillion dollar surplus (over 10 years)
Bush: 5 trillion dollar deficit (over 10 years)

I think you ment to say a $10 trillion dollar budget surplus, which most certainly did not translate into a real surplus. Why else would the national debt go up from $4.4 Trillion to $5.8 Trillion during the Clinton years, and never go down from year to year?

Clinton: War in Bosnia/Serbia WITH UN backing
Bush: War in Iraq with NO international support

Um, the Bosnia/Serbia conflict never had UN backing, and the war with Iraq had 17 UN resolutions authorizing it (in fact, requiring it from the UN Charter).

Clinton: Longest growth/expansion in US history
Bush: Most job losses since great depression

Just like the fabled Clinton Budget Surplus, the so-called economic growth and expansion of the late '90s was FAKE. If you will recall, we had company after company finally admit that they actually had not been making money during the late '90s. Economic growth and expansion isn't measured by astronomically high PE ratios on stocks, you know.

Also, Here is the national employment summary for March 2004. Compare to the national emploment summary of Jan. 2001, when Bush took office. Current civilian employment is 138,298,000, which is 2,200,000 more than Jan 2001 (135,999,000). How is this the biggest job loss since the depression when we have 2.2 million more jobs now than we did when he took office?

No, the monthly statistics are useful because they show where the economy is headed. The unemployment rate has been dropping since June 2003.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt

The problem with unemployment stats is that they only tell the story of how many people applied and how many are still on unemployment rolls. The do not reflect those who have run out of unemployment, or took shit jobs asking if you want fries with that.

The BLS also tracks "Discouraged Workers" (defined as workers who are "Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking"). In other words, people who are unemployed and have given up looking for a job. You can access the data here by checking the "Discouraged Workers" checkbox and generating the report (no hard linking available).

The actual numbers do not back up this oft-repeated claim. In both December 1996 and December 2003, there was an unemployment rate of 5.6%. The number of discouraged workers is only marginally different (334,000 in '96, 433,000 in '03), and produces a "real" unemployment rate that is still well under 6%.

I would also point out that wages and average weekly earnings have outpaced inflation at 9% higher since Bush took office ($524/week now compared to $480/wk in 2001), contradicting the theory that people are accepting low paying jobs because they can't find anything else (December 2001 Data, February 2004 Data).

It's also interesting to point out that the number of people employed in the civilian labor force has actually gone up by 2,300,000 since Bush took office (138,301,000 now compared to 135,999,000 in Dec 2001), contradicting John Kerry's claim that 3,000,000 jobs have been lost since Bush took office.

The problem with unemployment stats is that they only tell the story of how many people applied and how many are still on unemployment rolls. The do not reflect those who have run out of unemployment, or took shit jobs asking if you want fries with that.

The BLS also tracks "Discouraged Workers" (defined as workers who are "Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking"). In other words, people who are unemployed and have given up looking for a job. You can access the data here by checking the "Discouraged Workers" checkbox and generating the report (no hard linking available).

The actual numbers do not back up this oft-repeated claim. In both December 1996 and December 2003, there was an unemployment rate of 5.6%. The number of discouraged workers is only marginally different (334,000 in '96, 433,000 in '03), and produces a "real" unemployment rate that is still well under 6%.

I would also point out that wages and average weekly earnings have outpaced inflation at 9% higher since Bush took office ($524/week now compared to $480/wk in 2001), contradicting the theory that people are accepting low paying jobs because they can't find anything else (December 2001 Data, February 2004 Data).

It's also interesting to point out that the number of people employed in the civilian labor force has actually gone up by 2,300,000 since Bush took office (138,301,000 now compared to 135,999,000 in Dec 2001), contradicting John Kerry's claim that 3,000,000 jobs have been lost since Bush took office.

The problem with unemployment stats is that they only tell the story of how many people applied and how many are still on unemployment rolls. The do not reflect those who have run out of unemployment, or took shit jobs asking if you want fries with that.

The BLS also tracks "Discouraged Workers" (defined as workers who are "Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking"). In other words, people who are unemployed and have given up looking for a job. You can access the data here by checking the "Discouraged Workers" checkbox and generating the report (no hard linking available).

The actual numbers do not back up this oft-repeated claim. In both December 1996 and December 2003, there was an unemployment rate of 5.6%. The number of discouraged workers is only marginally different (334,000 in '96, 433,000 in '03), and produces a "real" unemployment rate that is still well under 6%.

I would also point out that wages and average weekly earnings have outpaced inflation at 9% higher since Bush took office ($524/week now compared to $480/wk in 2001), contradicting the theory that people are accepting low paying jobs because they can't find anything else (December 2001 Data, February 2004 Data).

It's also interesting to point out that the number of people employed in the civilian labor force has actually gone up by 2,300,000 since Bush took office (138,301,000 now compared to 135,999,000 in Dec 2001), contradicting John Kerry's claim that 3,000,000 jobs have been lost since Bush took office.

Actually, the latest statistics don't agree with you. It is 5.6%.

Job creation is running at a tenth of what it needs to keep up with population growth. The unemployment rate is dropping because they don't count people who have fallen off the unemployment insurance dole; they "are no longer looking for work" because they have given up and taken crap jobs. Hardly counts as a true decrease in unemployment.

Wrong. The BLS tracks unemployment as well as "Discouraged Workers" (workers who are "Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking"). The left always claims that the dropping unemployment under Bush is only due to these discouraged workers, but there is no data to support that claim. Here is where you can access this info (check the "Discouraged Workers" report). You can see that the number of "Discouraged Workers" in Dec 1996 (unemployemnt rate of 5.6%) was about 334,000, and in Dec 2003 (unemployement rate of 5.6%) it was 433,000, or a difference of 99,000 (less than 2% of the official total unemployment tally). Based on these figures, the "Real" unemployment rate would still be well under 6%.

Its also interesting to examine the employment data in December 2001 compared to the latest data for Feb. 2004. Again, this data does not correlate to the Democrats claims. Kerry critizes Bush for 3,000,000 jobs lost on his watch, but the number of people employed in the civilian labor force has actually gone up by 2,300,000 since Bush took office (138,301,000 now compared to 135,999,000 in Dec 2001).

Also, wages and weekly earnings have gone up over 9% since Bush took office (average weekly pay of $524.58 now compared to $480.89 when Bush took office), which completely contradicts the claim that people are settling for crap jobs because they gave up their "real" job search.

Job creation is running at a tenth of what it needs to keep up with population growth. The unemployment rate is dropping because they don't count people who have fallen off the unemployment insurance dole; they "are no longer looking for work" because they have given up and taken crap jobs. Hardly counts as a true decrease in unemployment.

Wrong. The BLS tracks unemployment as well as "Discouraged Workers" (workers who are "Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking"). The left always claims that the dropping unemployment under Bush is only due to these discouraged workers, but there is no data to support that claim. Here is where you can access this info (check the "Discouraged Workers" report). You can see that the number of "Discouraged Workers" in Dec 1996 (unemployemnt rate of 5.6%) was about 334,000, and in Dec 2003 (unemployement rate of 5.6%) it was 433,000, or a difference of 99,000 (less than 2% of the official total unemployment tally). Based on these figures, the "Real" unemployment rate would still be well under 6%.

Its also interesting to examine the employment data in December 2001 compared to the latest data for Feb. 2004. Again, this data does not correlate to the Democrats claims. Kerry critizes Bush for 3,000,000 jobs lost on his watch, but the number of people employed in the civilian labor force has actually gone up by 2,300,000 since Bush took office (138,301,000 now compared to 135,999,000 in Dec 2001).

Also, wages and weekly earnings have gone up over 9% since Bush took office (average weekly pay of $524.58 now compared to $480.89 when Bush took office), which completely contradicts the claim that people are settling for crap jobs because they gave up their "real" job search.

Job creation is running at a tenth of what it needs to keep up with population growth. The unemployment rate is dropping because they don't count people who have fallen off the unemployment insurance dole; they "are no longer looking for work" because they have given up and taken crap jobs. Hardly counts as a true decrease in unemployment.

Wrong. The BLS tracks unemployment as well as "Discouraged Workers" (workers who are "Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking"). The left always claims that the dropping unemployment under Bush is only due to these discouraged workers, but there is no data to support that claim. Here is where you can access this info (check the "Discouraged Workers" report). You can see that the number of "Discouraged Workers" in Dec 1996 (unemployemnt rate of 5.6%) was about 334,000, and in Dec 2003 (unemployement rate of 5.6%) it was 433,000, or a difference of 99,000 (less than 2% of the official total unemployment tally). Based on these figures, the "Real" unemployment rate would still be well under 6%.

Its also interesting to examine the employment data in December 2001 compared to the latest data for Feb. 2004. Again, this data does not correlate to the Democrats claims. Kerry critizes Bush for 3,000,000 jobs lost on his watch, but the number of people employed in the civilian labor force has actually gone up by 2,300,000 since Bush took office (138,301,000 now compared to 135,999,000 in Dec 2001).

Also, wages and weekly earnings have gone up over 9% since Bush took office (average weekly pay of $524.58 now compared to $480.89 when Bush took office), which completely contradicts the claim that people are settling for crap jobs because they gave up their "real" job search.

5.6% unemployment: Low for Clinton, High for Bush.

The Bureau of Labour Statistics doesn't agree with you.

During Clinton's term in office, the unemployment rate dropped from 7.5% to 4.0%. During the first three years of Bush's term, it rose from 4.0% to 6.0%.

That's the figure based on the number of people collecting unemployment, which you're only able to do for six months after being laid off. For example, the bulk of the support workers HP outsourced last year would not appear in this figure.

Even though the CPI is holding mostly flat, concerns over deflation are a red herring as there is actually inflation in all goods right now save for one. If you look at the basket of goods that make up the CPI, you find that the only thing that has gone down is the price of housing, which in the CPI is based only on rental values. Normally this makes sense, since mortgages are mostly fixed on won't change much over time. However, given the exceptionally easy credit market we are in right now, all kinds of people are qualifying for cheap mortgages that they didn't qualify for previously. So, people are leaving the rental market in droves, driving down the price of those rentals as they try to get people to lease.

Further increasing speculation that we're heading for more inflation is the sharp increases on the prices of raw materials over the last 12 months. Once that starts to affect consumer goods (and I've noticed my groceries are getting more expensive), the credit market will tighten (because that's the almost reflexive action of central banks), and the rental exodus will stop, driving those prices back up. Higher interest rates AND inflation. It will be 1979 all over again. The best counter argument to my concern is that the drive up of raw materials is in large part driven by this same easy credit market. I'm not too convinced of that yet, but time will tell.

I'm not too worried about deflation right now.

Hey, I just checked into the salaries of neurosurgeons and I bet that you didn't have to pay for college. The average going rate for a neurosurgeon in 1998 in L.A. is $483,774. Even a general surgeon makes on average $255,438 according to the federal government. $150k of malpractice insurance is a cost of doing business too, so it's probably a write-off to some degree.

So, in sum, $150,000 is a lot of money to pay per year, but it allows for your dad to continue making a substantial amount of money on top of that. I certainly hope you didn't have to pay for college:)

taken from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

~139M working and the Census Bureau says there's ~292M people. that means about 48% are working. 48% of 40 is ~19M. With these numbers job growth is off ~10%. Can anyone point out how much the job count can swing from year to year?

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

This is where comparison with American unemployment rates with European unemployment rates break down. For one thing, unemployment payments in the US lasts only six months (where I live anyway). In Germany you can stay on unemployment forever theoretically, as long as you're really applying for jobs. I'm sure if the US did away with unemployment payments altogether, unemployment rates would go down even more as people laid off from white-collar jobs would be applying to work at McDonalds and whatnot that much quicker. Whether this is good or bad depends on whether you are a worker, or a member of the idle class like Paris Hilton who benefits from the misery of people who work for a living.

Saying Free Trade works out well because faceless corporation make billions is just plain wrong.

You are correct, that reasoning is dead wrong. Luckily it is not the actual reason people say it works out well...

Consider that "between 1983 and 2003, outsourcing went from 6.5 million jobs to about 10 million jobs. Between 1983 and 2002 jobs in-sourcing -- jobs coming TO the United States -- went from 2.5 million to 6.5 million."

That is a net increase of half a million jobs coming TO the united states. The above was quoted from Neal Boortz's website, where he stated that he obtained this information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Boortz also brought up how this outsourcing has worked out in the past... near the time of the civil war in the US, the north was 'outsourcing' jobs to the south. The jobs being outsourced were menial jobs, and the result was good for both sides: the work force in the north learned more desirable job skills, and increased the quality of life in the north, while the south gained much needed jobs, and also increase quality of life.

This is why free trade works out well.

But let's not stop there. In any society, there is going to be *some* unemployment. An unemployment level of 3-4% is generally considered very good. 3% of 2,772,620 is 83,179, meaning that even if 83,179 people in the "computer and mathematical" category were out of a job, this would still be a very healthy situation. Reducing the number of H1B immigrants by 76821 could potentially achieve that, and would still leave 293,669 immigrants.

Ours is going down -- the opposite of skyrocketing.

2000 - 4.0%, 2001 - 4.7%, 2002 - 5.8%, 2003 - 6.0% That doesn't look like it's going down to me sport.

Allow me to direct you to here and here. The first link gives yearly unemployment averages from 1948 to 2002. The second link, to the homepage, says the average unemployment numbers for 2003 are 6.0%. As for the "booming 90s", 1990-1999 yield a simple average of 5.75% Lower than present. Now if we take the numbers from 1994-2001, the years the Clinton administration is mostly responsible for, you get 4.925%.

Much of our country's history has been spent in debt, the key is the percentage of the debt versus the GDP of the nation. Debt is not the problem, its the ability of the nation to manage that debt and make the payments in relation to the country's ability to produce goods and services that people want to obtain.

A budget deficit doesn't paint the whole picture? Brilliant deduction! Let me guess, you went to college for an Economics degree, didn't you? 'The country's ability to produce goods and services that people want to obtain'... that sounds directly related to our trade deficit. Which is also at an all time high. In terms any American can understand, this country has lost it's job and is now living on the credit cards.

I won't even bother to respond to the rest of your flamebait. How this post got modded 4 Interesting is beyond me. I'm beginning to think Slashdot is the target of astroturfing.

Ours is going down -- the opposite of skyrocketing.

2000 - 4.0%, 2001 - 4.7%, 2002 - 5.8%, 2003 - 6.0% That doesn't look like it's going down to me sport.

Allow me to direct you to here and here. The first link gives yearly unemployment averages from 1948 to 2002. The second link, to the homepage, says the average unemployment numbers for 2003 are 6.0%. As for the "booming 90s", 1990-1999 yield a simple average of 5.75% Lower than present. Now if we take the numbers from 1994-2001, the years the Clinton administration is mostly responsible for, you get 4.925%.

Much of our country's history has been spent in debt, the key is the percentage of the debt versus the GDP of the nation. Debt is not the problem, its the ability of the nation to manage that debt and make the payments in relation to the country's ability to produce goods and services that people want to obtain.

A budget deficit doesn't paint the whole picture? Brilliant deduction! Let me guess, you went to college for an Economics degree, didn't you? 'The country's ability to produce goods and services that people want to obtain'... that sounds directly related to our trade deficit. Which is also at an all time high. In terms any American can understand, this country has lost it's job and is now living on the credit cards.

I won't even bother to respond to the rest of your flamebait. How this post got modded 4 Interesting is beyond me. I'm beginning to think Slashdot is the target of astroturfing.

So do you deny that there has been some recovery in the job market over the past 6 months? And if so, do you do that with a straight face?

Maybe you believe Howard Dean when he says that 2 million jobs have been lost in the US since Bush took office. I guess Dean hasn't looked at the actual numbers, because there are about 10 million more people employed in this country now than there were in Jan 2001 when Bush took office.

It irks me too that the combination Ms. Pac Man/Galaga machines now charge .50 per play - why is it double the price to play an old game??

I don't know; maybe inflation? Ms. Pac-Man came out in 1981, over 20 years ago. With inflation, 50 cents is nearly spot on the same price.

Start with Dol official UI#/workforce == (non-seasonally adjusted UE rate. U3)
9144K/146,068K == 6.3% unemployment rate.

( B.T.W. Seasonal adjustment shifts this number to 5.6%, In the last month we really lost 2.8 Million jobs, but seasonal adjustments make it look like a net gain of 112K.)

--

Add IN.....

Disability rolls rise, skew labor data

"Recent research finds a 60% jump in number of disability recipients keeping unemployment low."

"The "labor force," 142.5 million strong, does not include people who draw disability benefits from the Social Security Administration(SSA). As of December 2002, there were about 5.5 million adults getting disability benefits, totaling about $4.6 billion a month. "

OK.. so tack in 3,000K partially disabled, get federal checks, want work, but not counted.
(9,144K+3,000K) / (146,068K + 3,000K) == ~8.1% unemployment rate..

---

Factor in that there are the 10.3 Million self employed workers who are paying estimated (self employment) taxes(14.1%) for LESS THAN a 2.4 million FULL TIME MINIMUM WAGE workers. (Shift another 8 million from the employed to the unemployment category). If they're not filling form 1040-ES's, then they're not making any money. (Equivalent to unemployed)..

raw tax collection data. Table IV.. (individual estimated tax payments)
3,371 Million(2003 1040ES data)/.141(SE tax rate)/10.3Million == average SE income $2,321/yr..
[Notes: Uses 2003 tax collection data as a baseline, and ignores federal income tax liability and the contributions by people paying in for capital gains.] [Full time job at Federal Min wage pays $10,300/yr.]

(9,144K+3,000K+8,000K) / (146,068K+3000K) == ~13.5% unemployment rate.

----

Add in the FACT, that there have been workforce adjustments which lop off a couple of million (unemployed) workers each year, despite the Census numbers that workforce should be growing by 2 Million per year. [B.T.W. We've added ~9 Million to the 16 and over Civilian NI population since the tech bust started, at least 65% would have taken a job if it was available.]

Undo the recent changes to workforce participation percentages. (revert back to 2000 average 67.1% verses current 65.7%) It's obvious they want to work. Just no work to be had.. That adds back in 1.4% percent of overall work population.. 3.0 Million workers..

(9,144K+3,000K+8,000K+3,000K) / (146,068K+3000K+3,000K) == ~15.2% unemployment rate.

-----

Add in the FACT that the DOL changed(1994) the household survey data collection method and resulting in the almost doubling of the non-parcipation rate, from 4.3 to 7.5 Percent. The DOL accomplished this feat by substituting a scientifically sound MAIL IN form, with scientifically discredited IN PERSON interviews.

Well, I don't know about you, but being unemployed is not a badge of honor. Most people do not like to admit that they are unemployed, and would be even less likely to do so while being interviewed in person. I.E. It demeans their social status and self esteem.

If they managed to convince/intimidate those households, with at least one unemployed worker not to participate. That would add another
3.4 Million to the unemployment/workforce figures, thusly increasing unemployment by another 2 to 3 of percent.

[Another item in the DOL household survey is the incredible number of Ineligible households!! Thats 12,000 out of a sample lot of 72,000 or 16.6%..

Start with Dol official UI#/workforce == (non-seasonally adjusted UE rate. U3)
9144K/146,068K == 6.3% unemployment rate.

( B.T.W. Seasonal adjustment shifts this number to 5.6%, In the last month we really lost 2.8 Million jobs, but seasonal adjustments make it look like a net gain of 112K.)

--

Add IN.....

Disability rolls rise, skew labor data

"Recent research finds a 60% jump in number of disability recipients keeping unemployment low."

"The "labor force," 142.5 million strong, does not include people who draw disability benefits from the Social Security Administration(SSA). As of December 2002, there were about 5.5 million adults getting disability benefits, totaling about $4.6 billion a month. "

OK.. so tack in 3,000K partially disabled, get federal checks, want work, but not counted.
(9,144K+3,000K) / (146,068K + 3,000K) == ~8.1% unemployment rate..

---

Factor in that there are the 10.3 Million self employed workers who are paying estimated (self employment) taxes(14.1%) for LESS THAN a 2.4 million FULL TIME MINIMUM WAGE workers. (Shift another 8 million from the employed to the unemployment category). If they're not filling form 1040-ES's, then they're not making any money. (Equivalent to unemployed)..

raw tax collection data. Table IV.. (individual estimated tax payments)
3,371 Million(2003 1040ES data)/.141(SE tax rate)/10.3Million == average SE income $2,321/yr..
[Notes: Uses 2003 tax collection data as a baseline, and ignores federal income tax liability and the contributions by people paying in for capital gains.] [Full time job at Federal Min wage pays $10,300/yr.]

(9,144K+3,000K+8,000K) / (146,068K+3000K) == ~13.5% unemployment rate.

----

Add in the FACT, that there have been workforce adjustments which lop off a couple of million (unemployed) workers each year, despite the Census numbers that workforce should be growing by 2 Million per year. [B.T.W. We've added ~9 Million to the 16 and over Civilian NI population since the tech bust started, at least 65% would have taken a job if it was available.]

Undo the recent changes to workforce participation percentages. (revert back to 2000 average 67.1% verses current 65.7%) It's obvious they want to work. Just no work to be had.. That adds back in 1.4% percent of overall work population.. 3.0 Million workers..

(9,144K+3,000K+8,000K+3,000K) / (146,068K+3000K+3,000K) == ~15.2% unemployment rate.

-----

Add in the FACT that the DOL changed(1994) the household survey data collection method and resulting in the almost doubling of the non-parcipation rate, from 4.3 to 7.5 Percent. The DOL accomplished this feat by substituting a scientifically sound MAIL IN form, with scientifically discredited IN PERSON interviews.

Well, I don't know about you, but being unemployed is not a badge of honor. Most people do not like to admit that they are unemployed, and would be even less likely to do so while being interviewed in person. I.E. It demeans their social status and self esteem.

If they managed to convince/intimidate those households, with at least one unemployed worker not to participate. That would add another
3.4 Million to the unemployment/workforce figures, thusly increasing unemployment by another 2 to 3 of percent.

[Another item in the DOL household survey is the incredible number of Ineligible households!! Thats 12,000 out of a sample lot of 72,000 or 16.6%..

The writer of the headline for the original article didn't read the story: "...a job gain of 22m in the US by '10, against a job loss of 2m due to offshoring." Note that that's a total gain of jobs in the US of 22 million; that number has little to do with offshoring. The original BLS numbers are here.

-- Fred B.

[Ms Farrell] pointed out that the Bureau of Labour Statistics was predicting a job gain of 22m in the US by '10, against a job loss of 2m due to offshoring.

[Ms Farrell] pointed out that the Bureau of Labour Statistics was predicting a job gain of 22m in the US by '10, against a job loss of 2m due to offshoring.

"She pointed out that the Bureau of Labour Statistics was predicting a job gain of 22m in the US by '10, against a job loss of 2m due to offshoring."

When have 5+ year estimates ever been accurate in economic matters?

Secondly -
Tomorrow's Jobs (from bls.gov)
http://www.bls.gov/oco/oco2003.htm
"Services. This is the largest and fastest growing major industry group and is expected to add 13.7 million new jobs by 2010, accounting for 3 out of every 5 new jobs created in the U.S. economy. Over two-thirds of this projected job growth is concentrated in three sectors of services industries-business, health, and social services."

Social services? Wheeee.... big money here I come..... :-/

I don't think you have a clue about labor statistics. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics website:

Unemployed persons: All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4 week-period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

Here is more information including the collection methods.

Ok- as other people have pointed out, you are trying to read more meaning into those numbers than is actually there. Our unemployment rate is 5.6%, and while this is not a perfect measurement, that is the closest estimate that we have of the people that are actually looking for jobs and cant find them. And while 5.6% isn't anything to get excited about, historically we have had much worse.

So a teacher may start out at $25k-$30k (an ok amount of money for the great lakes region) but with twenty years teaching experience (and a masters) could be making $75k.

I won't argue about the oddness of teaching unions. But I don't think that quite as many teachers qualify for $75k (especially in the midwest) as you imagine. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the 90th percentile of teachers earn $65,480 and that's across the country, including areas with very high costs of living (and those with very low).

In Columbus, OH specifically, the 90th percentile of teachers earns $64,580 according to the data here. And to be in that high of a percentile, not only do you need 20+ years experience, but that will be with a PhD, not just a masters.

-dave

So a teacher may start out at $25k-$30k (an ok amount of money for the great lakes region) but with twenty years teaching experience (and a masters) could be making $75k.

I won't argue about the oddness of teaching unions. But I don't think that quite as many teachers qualify for $75k (especially in the midwest) as you imagine. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the 90th percentile of teachers earn $65,480 and that's across the country, including areas with very high costs of living (and those with very low).

In Columbus, OH specifically, the 90th percentile of teachers earns $64,580 according to the data here. And to be in that high of a percentile, not only do you need 20+ years experience, but that will be with a PhD, not just a masters.

-dave

Slow economy? I'm seeing growth right now, what are you talking about? It was slow a year ago, times are changing...

Economic news is always reported in the most cheerful and upbeat manner possible, and always has been. The day after the big stock market crash of 1929 (Black Tuesday) featured headlines reading "The Worst Is Over!", and "Stock Market Rallies!". Throughout the depression most major newspapers routinely printed articles about how great the economy was doing. Today we have an unemployment rate that is actually higher than it was during the so-called "Great Depression". More people are homeless per-capita today than in 1930. To me this does not indicate "growth" in the economy; it indicates that things are still very bad. Don't take my word for it, look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics I should mention that after a truly fascinating decision by President Bush, the BLS no longer collects information on mass layoffs. Its one way to deal with a problem I suppose...

What did the US do to help win the Cold War? First of all, it's always mentioned in US schools or corporate media how the Russians occupied Eastern Europe with it's armies. What's not mentioned is that the US occupied Western Europe with it's armies. Until 1956 in France, the communist party (PCF) was the most popular party in elections. In Italy the communist party was so popular the US had to result in subterfuge and election tampering to keep Italy from going communist. In fact Italy was the main focus of the Cold War starting with Truman, and as late as 1976 communists were winning over one third of the vote, and coming in less than 5% behind the Christian Democrats (center-right) in Italy. The US ruling class supported the Spanish dictatorship because resistance continued even after the civil war was lost. Stalin agreed to not interfere with Greece, yet the resistance there to English/US meddling was so great that the US had to militarily take over the country and supprot dictators there as well. Not to mention the dictators and attacks on popular movements the US supported in Latin America, Asia, Africa and so forth.

The US said it had to do this because of the USSR. The US idle class said they would not have foreign bases if not for the USSR. Yet the USSR collapses and - nothing changes. The US continues with it's military bases and personnel on over half the countries on earth, military spending stays near cold war levels, billions go to Colombia to put down worker movements there, or Israel to pay for the Palestinian occupation. In fact, the US doesn't have the USSR to check it's power any more so it becomes even more bold since it has unilateral power. Nothing could prove the premise of the cold war was a lie like the actions of the US elite post-Cold War, who are making war on the world. Now they say they are against "terrorism" which apparently means anyone who does not like US troops in their country (Osama Bin Laden), and doesn't like having the US idle class take over the land and natural resources and exporting the profits back to the US. It should be noted of course that Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are old friends of the US elite who armed them during the 1980's, even though they had the same disregard for human life back then as they do now. If they didn't, the US ruling class would have never supported them.

How has this helped American workers? Not at all - blue collar jobs were shipped out for decades, and now white collar jobs are being shipped out. Mexicans and H1-Bs are imported for the jobs that are left. The US economy has been stagnating since the late 1960's (albeit a bump in the late 1990's) with a tepid growth of production while the rest of the world has been catching up - the EU's GDP rivaling the US's and Japan and the Asian tigers as well with China growing 8% a year or so. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average inflation-adjusted hourly wage in the US is below what it was 35 years ago. Hours worked per year by worker have increased in the three-digit level. The economy has been in a sandrap for three years.

I guess Safire is telling us we should stop and think about how "great" it was

What did the US do to help win the Cold War? First of all, it's always mentioned in US schools or corporate media how the Russians occupied Eastern Europe with it's armies. What's not mentioned is that the US occupied Western Europe with it's armies. Until 1956 in France, the communist party (PCF) was the most popular party in elections. In Italy the communist party was so popular the US had to result in subterfuge and election tampering to keep Italy from going communist. In fact Italy was the main focus of the Cold War starting with Truman, and as late as 1976 communists were winning over one third of the vote, and coming in The US said it had to do this because of the USSR. The US idle class said they would not have foreign bases if not for the USSR. Yet the USSR collapses and - nothing changes. The US continues with it's military bases and personnel on over half the countries on earth, military spending stays near cold war levels, billions go to Colombia to put down worker movements there, or Israel to pay for the Palestinian occupation. In fact, the US doesn't have the USSR to check it's power any more so it becomes even more bold since it has unilateral power. Nothing could prove the premise of the cold war was a lie like the actions of the US elite post-Cold War, who are making war on the world. Now they say they are against "terrorism" which apparently means anyone who does not like US troops in their country (Osama Bin Laden), and doesn't like having the US idle class take over the land and natural resources and exporting the profits back to the US. It should be noted of course that Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are old friends of the US elite who armed them during the 1980's, even though they had the same disregard for human life back then as they do now. If they didn't, the US ruling class would have never supported them.

How has this helped American workers? Not at all - blue collar jobs were shipped out for decades, and now white collar jobs are being shipped out. Mexicans and H1-Bs are imported for the jobs that are left. The US economy has been stagnating since the late 1960's (albeit a bump in the late 1990's) with a tepid growth of production while the rest of the world has been catching up - the EU's GDP rivaling the US's and Japan and the Asian tigers as well with China growing 8% a year or so. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average inflation-adjusted hourly wage in the US is below what it was 35 years ago. Hours worked per year by worker have increased in the three-digit level. The economy has been in a sandrap for three years.

I guess Safire is telling us we should stop and think about how "great" it was that "we" "won" the Cold War. That before the decade of rest before the US has gone once again into a permanent warlike state like Orwell describes in 1984, this time a "war on terrorism". I'm sorry, but I look back at things such as Safire boss Nixon's support of the democratically elected government of Chile overthrow, replaced by a bloody tyrant, as a tragedy, not as something to celebrate. And 35 years later US workers are worse off, although the very small wealthy elite on the very top who are perhaps S

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the mean annual salary for a general practititioner in the greater Chicagoland area is only $128,060. This statement would be correct if you were comparing the average INDIAN CS salary, but according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the mean annual salary for all Computer and Mathematical Occupations for the greater Chicagoland area is $63,550.

Another area to consider is that all practicing physicians are required to carry professional liability insurance. Premium rates can exceed $100,000 annually for high risk specialties [1], and still run in the $1000's annually for the average MD.

There are many in the medical profession who are much better off financially than the mean, but to make a blanket statement that all practicing physicians make $400K - 800K is just not true.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the mean annual salary for a general practititioner in the greater Chicagoland area is only $128,060. This statement would be correct if you were comparing the average INDIAN CS salary, but according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the mean annual salary for all Computer and Mathematical Occupations for the greater Chicagoland area is $63,550.

Another area to consider is that all practicing physicians are required to carry professional liability insurance. Premium rates can exceed $100,000 annually for high risk specialties [1], and still run in the $1000's annually for the average MD.

There are many in the medical profession who are much better off financially than the mean, but to make a blanket statement that all practicing physicians make $400K - 800K is just not true.

The answer seems to be "downhill". Most job growth is in low-paying sectors. The U.S. Department offers this guide to anticipated job growth through 2010. Top job growth areas are "Combined food preparation and serving workers, including fast food", and "Customer service representatives".

Would you like fries with that?

A fundamental question for American business, and their political servants, is this: Where does the buying power come from? As disposable income decreases, business activity will slow.

unemployment rate the lowest in years, eh?

Where do you get your data? The "Bush-is-good-no-matter-what economic report"? It's not even *close* to reality. Unemployment had been steadily decreasing since the early 90s, down to around 4%, and right after bush took office there was a sharp *increase* in unemployment, which has been hanging steadily around 6% since then.

You are absolutely correct! I heard about it from this article at underreported.com which points to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

They actually maintain 6 different figures, with the one hovering around 5% being the one that gets reported in the media. The actual number of people really unemployment (as I take it to mean not having a job) is up around 9%-10%.

Here's their PDF explaining the various levels.

--Darren

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate in the "information" section was 7.2% in December 2002 and 6.5% in December of 2003. The actual number of unemployed was 255K in 12/2002 and 224 in 12/2003.

According to the BLS, the average wage across all professions is $17.18. That's Bill Gates down to the migrant farm worker. The average for "blue collar" workers is currently about $8.10...

Hmmm...I went to the BLS and looked up the information myself, and it doesn't support your assertion.

In fact, the national average for Parking Lot Attendants was $8.26, and the overall blue-collar average was $14.51, pulled lower by 'floor helpers' and 'laborers' who averaged $10.98.

What year were you looking at data for?

And Globalization can have no effect that I can imagine on waitstaff who work for tips...It would be pretty damn hard to outsource the delivery of my plate of dinner from the kitchen to a foriegn country.

Manufacturing has not doubled. In twenty years it has added about 60%. That's not even 2.5% per year. Inflation over the same period was 3.1% per year. Besides, the concern is that as a function of per capita GNP, which is obviously a function of popluation, is changing and not in an upward direction. You've failed to site direct references to authoritative sources, so here's mine: http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn2/gpoc.htm

You will notice that we have dropped from total manufacturing being about 18% of GNP to 14% of GNP between 1987 and 2001. You will also notice that we have added roughly 30 million in population. In terms of electronics manufacturing, we've lost nearly 30% in that sector just between 1994 and 2001 (.020% of GNP to .014% of GNP). "Soaring" my ass.

Sorry about omitting my source for wage data. It is the Bureau of Labor Services National Compensation Survey July, 2002

71 work related fatalities out of 308000 oil and gas employees in 2002.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t02.htm

Where does the outsourcing stop? It's interesting to contemplate the cost-benefits derived from outsourcing other knowledge base professions like legal services and medicine. It seems the only 'safe' professions to be in are the service sector, film and music, sports, education, governement and the military.

I did not protest when auto and chip fabrication went overseas because my job was not affected and I benefited by the lower prices. I don't see how programmers can argue that this job transfer is any different simply because it affects us personally.

And the argument about how short-sighted these companies are for moving projects offshore when eventually Americans won't be able to purchase the goods the business produces, assumes that the programmer population plays a major role in the market. How many programmers are there in the US anyway? Last figure I saw was 568,000 in 1996 with a prediction that the US would need 700,000 by 2006. But with a working population of 138.6 million we're just a tiny splat on the market windshield.

I think the government is even more optimistic than you.

Computer software engineers are projected to be the fastest growing occupation from 2000 to 2010.

I'm glad I just got certified to be a personal trainer just in case...

According to the US Dept of Labor, from their 2002-3 Occupational Outlook Handbook, s/w engineers "are projected to be the fastest growing occupation over the 2000-10 period" while employment growth for programmers "will be considerably slower than that of other computer specialists, due to the spread of pre-packaged software solutions".
If you're worried about your job security, start learning more than just programming languages and APIs. (Of course, until we have a proper accreditation system, anyone in the s/w industry can call themselves an engineer...)

According to the US Dept of Labor, from their 2002-3 Occupational Outlook Handbook, s/w engineers "are projected to be the fastest growing occupation over the 2000-10 period" while employment growth for programmers "will be considerably slower than that of other computer specialists, due to the spread of pre-packaged software solutions".
If you're worried about your job security, start learning more than just programming languages and APIs. (Of course, until we have a proper accreditation system, anyone in the s/w industry can call themselves an engineer...)

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics [bls.gov] we (US programmers) only held 585,000 jobs in 2000. It sounds... wrong, but maybe we all just have an inflated opinion of ourselves. ;)

I mean beside the r00t3d god complexes...*g*