|
80,000 Jobs Cut in March; Unemployment Rate Rises
|
|
Topic Started: Apr 4 2008, 11:48 AM (445 Views)
|
|
somerled
|
Apr 5 2008, 10:10 PM
Post #16
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
- Posts:
- 19,451
- Group:
- Banned
- Member
- #62
- Joined:
- September 24, 2003
|
Some info that is relevant :
Table1 Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment
Table 2 Unemployed persons by industry and class of worker
The tables are self explanatory.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Apr 5 2008, 10:27 PM
Post #17
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- somerled
- Apr 5 2008, 10:29 PM
That wouldn't be permitted now due to OHS .... safety was not high on the agenda when the picture was shown , wasn't a consideration even.
And if the vintage of the picture is what I think it is - set in the 20s or 30s , or in the Great Depression , the situation was totally different and there was no social safety net what so ever in the USA at the time , and the unemployed and their families literally starved.
Fortunately there was a safety net here in Australia and my granddad , who lost his job when the coal mines closed their gates (no demand for coal from the steel industry) was compelled to travel 60 miles every fortnight to get the dole from a different post office every fortnight and was compelled to live rough and become a itinerant swagman / bushman. He had no choice in the matter.
Brush up on your history, there was puplic asistence in the US during the Depression.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Apr 5 2008, 10:33 PM
Post #18
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- Intrepid2002
- Apr 5 2008, 09:25 PM
- Wichita
- Apr 5 2008, 12:50 PM
- Intrepid2002
- Apr 5 2008, 04:19 PM
- Dandandat
- Apr 5 2008, 11:37 AM
He was making fun of liberals who where demeaning jobs that where created in the last 8 years.
:lol: Let us not cast aspersions solely to those liberals of the left. There is enough to go around. Besides, there is nothing more demeaning than a politician who uses terminology such as "we must remember there are hard-working individuals, doing jobs that Americans will not do. " (source) A job is a job. Minimum wage or not.
Intrepid, You just lost me. I don't agree or disagree with your point. I just can't figure out what it is. You said: - Quote:
-
Besides, there is nothing more demeaning than a politician who uses terminology such as "we must remember there are hard-working individuals, doing jobs that Americans will not do.
The only sentences that I could see that you were referring to are the following: - From Intrepid's link
-
This program would create a legal way to match willing foreign workers with willing American employers to fill jobs that Americans will not do.
and - from Intrepid's link
-
As we debate the immigration issue, we must remember there are hard-working individuals, doing jobs that Americans will not do, who are contributing to the economic vitality of our country.
The topic of the speech was immigration specifically. Who do you think the politician in question was "demeaning"?
Wichita, Oddly enough, I thought of that question after I posted that reply. Let me try and explain myself. - Quote:
-
To borrow an excuse from the left...
"80,000 jobs? Yeah, but they were all minimum-wage/entrylevel jobs. Nothing substantial."
Why borrow merely from the left when demeaning the loss of a job? My sarcastic reply was that I was wondering why we on the left aren't blaming the illegal immigrants for the increase in unemployment and that maybe it was time we Americans start doing the 'jobs that Americans will not do'. Granted, I am not sure who RTW is referring to, who he is quoting from the left or even where he borrowed the quote from. I assume that these are not his words and that someone from the left was callous enough to make a blanket statement that all jobs lost were minimum wage jobs. I would like to know who that person was and give him a piece of my mind. If indeed this is true, that we have lost 80,000 jobs in March, ( all of them being minimum wage ??? ) then we Americans better start doing the 'jobs that Americans will not do'. Emphasis on "jobs that Americans will not do". It was not my intention to bring to light the guest worker program or the immigration problem but to point out that there is at least one from the right, who has put it out there that there are so called 'jobs that Americans will not do'. I somehow feel demeaned and offended by those particular choice of words. That is just my personal opinion. Hence, in my own way, was 'borrowing an excuse from the right' and at least providing a source as to who said it. Which then ties into the following statement - Quote:
-
He was making fun of liberals who where demeaning jobs that where created in the last 8 years.
Again, I wanted to point out that there are those from the right (at least one and those who agree with him) who can, in my estimation, be equal when making excuses and being demeaning when it comes to the many facets of employment/unemployment in the United States of America. - Quote:
-
The topic of the speech was immigration specifically.
I was aware of that. My mistake was to not to quantify from the very beginning that I was not bringing light to the subject of immigration but to focus on the "jobs that Americans will not do" mentality and how irritating it is to me to hear those words.... especially in times like this when we are losing jobs at the rate of 80,000 in the month of March alone according to the article originally posted. - Quote:
-
Who do you think the politician in question was "demeaning"?
I have no idea who the person from the left was that made that statement that all jobs lost were minimum wage jobs. I'm sorry if I'm particularly hypersensitive to issues like this. Working in the trenches of the medical field, I see too often, more often people losing medical insurance because of the loss of a job and suffering the other related stresses that not having medical insurance, much less a job, has on people. I used to work for a Catholic hospital that at least had the provision of charity care. Now that the Sisters of Mercy have finally sold out and the bigger hospital has taken over, there are rumors that entail the pulling of your credit report when you visit the Emergency Room. Unbelievable. Nevermind the other rumors flying around that job cuts are all but a certainty. Trying to work in patient health care with all this bureaucracy is getting harder and harder by the day. I'm secretly glad all I have to do is follow orders. [sarcasm] So somebody give me the mailing address of " Mr. Liberal on the left who thinks all those jobs lost are minimum wage jobs anyway." [/ sarcasm] Sorry for the tangent.
Intrepid2002, I still think you are misunderstanding RTW.
One of the critasisums the left has had for the Bush administration when faced with the fact that under this administration unemployment was down, was to state that it didn't matter because the jobs that where created where too small to make a difference. Now that those jobs are being lost RTW is turning that critasisum back on the left saying that if those jobs did not mater when they where had, then they must not matter now that they are lost again.
|
|
|
| |
|
somerled
|
Apr 5 2008, 10:36 PM
Post #19
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
- Posts:
- 19,451
- Group:
- Banned
- Member
- #62
- Joined:
- September 24, 2003
|
- Dandandat
- Apr 6 2008, 01:27 PM
- somerled
- Apr 5 2008, 10:29 PM
That wouldn't be permitted now due to OHS .... safety was not high on the agenda when the picture was shown , wasn't a consideration even.
And if the vintage of the picture is what I think it is - set in the 20s or 30s , or in the Great Depression , the situation was totally different and there was no social safety net what so ever in the USA at the time , and the unemployed and their families literally starved.
Fortunately there was a safety net here in Australia and my granddad , who lost his job when the coal mines closed their gates (no demand for coal from the steel industry) was compelled to travel 60 miles every fortnight to get the dole from a different post office every fortnight and was compelled to live rough and become a itinerant swagman / bushman. He had no choice in the matter.
Brush up on your history, there was puplic asistence in the US during the Depression.
There was ?
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Apr 5 2008, 10:37 PM
Post #20
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- somerled
- Apr 5 2008, 11:36 PM
- Dandandat
- Apr 6 2008, 01:27 PM
- somerled
- Apr 5 2008, 10:29 PM
That wouldn't be permitted now due to OHS .... safety was not high on the agenda when the picture was shown , wasn't a consideration even.
And if the vintage of the picture is what I think it is - set in the 20s or 30s , or in the Great Depression , the situation was totally different and there was no social safety net what so ever in the USA at the time , and the unemployed and their families literally starved.
Fortunately there was a safety net here in Australia and my granddad , who lost his job when the coal mines closed their gates (no demand for coal from the steel industry) was compelled to travel 60 miles every fortnight to get the dole from a different post office every fortnight and was compelled to live rough and become a itinerant swagman / bushman. He had no choice in the matter.
Brush up on your history, there was puplic asistence in the US during the Depression.
There was ?
Yes
|
|
|
| |
|
somerled
|
Apr 6 2008, 12:19 AM
Post #21
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
- Posts:
- 19,451
- Group:
- Banned
- Member
- #62
- Joined:
- September 24, 2003
|
- Dandandat
- Apr 6 2008, 01:37 PM
- somerled
- Apr 5 2008, 11:36 PM
- Dandandat
- Apr 6 2008, 01:27 PM
- somerled
- Apr 5 2008, 10:29 PM
That wouldn't be permitted now due to OHS .... safety was not high on the agenda when the picture was shown , wasn't a consideration even.
And if the vintage of the picture is what I think it is - set in the 20s or 30s , or in the Great Depression , the situation was totally different and there was no social safety net what so ever in the USA at the time , and the unemployed and their families literally starved.
Fortunately there was a safety net here in Australia and my granddad , who lost his job when the coal mines closed their gates (no demand for coal from the steel industry) was compelled to travel 60 miles every fortnight to get the dole from a different post office every fortnight and was compelled to live rough and become a itinerant swagman / bushman. He had no choice in the matter.
Brush up on your history, there was puplic asistence in the US during the Depression.
There was ?
Yes
I might be mistaken , but didn't the great depression start in 1928 ?
You talikng about food stamps and soup kitchens ?
and FDR's social and economic programs that started in 1935 or there about ?
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Apr 6 2008, 01:31 AM
Post #22
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- somerled
- Apr 6 2008, 01:19 AM
- Dandandat
- Apr 6 2008, 01:37 PM
- somerled
- Apr 5 2008, 11:36 PM
- Dandandat
- Apr 6 2008, 01:27 PM
- somerled
- Apr 5 2008, 10:29 PM
That wouldn't be permitted now due to OHS .... safety was not high on the agenda when the picture was shown , wasn't a consideration even.
And if the vintage of the picture is what I think it is - set in the 20s or 30s , or in the Great Depression , the situation was totally different and there was no social safety net what so ever in the USA at the time , and the unemployed and their families literally starved.
Fortunately there was a safety net here in Australia and my granddad , who lost his job when the coal mines closed their gates (no demand for coal from the steel industry) was compelled to travel 60 miles every fortnight to get the dole from a different post office every fortnight and was compelled to live rough and become a itinerant swagman / bushman. He had no choice in the matter.
Brush up on your history, there was puplic asistence in the US during the Depression.
There was ?
Yes
I might be mistaken , but didn't the great depression start in 1928 ? You talikng about food stamps and soup kitchens ? and FDR's social and economic programs that started in 1935 or there about ?
The Great Depression is said to have started in the US on October 29, 1929 with the crash of the stock market. Things where relatively fine for a while after that; with some economists still making favorable predictions about the US economy for a year or so more. In 1931 was when things really took a down word spiral and when unemployment shot up. The Depression ended as ramp up to WWII started in the late 30s.
Herbert Hoover was president at the start of the depression and FDR was elected in 1932.
Under Hoover the States, municipalities, and communities where the primary source of public assistance; this assistance came in the form of money and food hand outs. This is not remarkable because before the presidency of FDR the federal government was relatively week and it was States responsibility to deal with such issues.
FDR, after winning power in 1932, strengthened the Federal Government and more aid then before was passed down from the federal government to the people. Again there was money and food hand outs.
|
|
|
| |
|
RTW
|
Apr 6 2008, 06:39 AM
Post #23
|
Vice Admiral
- Posts:
- 7,678
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #543
- Joined:
- February 12, 2006
|
- somerled
- Apr 5 2008, 07:13 PM
.... why don't do us all a favour and grow up sonny ....
I'll grow up when you wise up.
Even after the comment had been explained you still fell (jumped?) into the sarchasm.
|
|
|
| |
|
Wichita
|
Apr 6 2008, 07:06 AM
Post #24
|
The Adminstrator wRench
- Posts:
- 9,878
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- May 1, 2003
|
Intrepid,
Sorry for not making myself clearer.
You posted a copy of a speech and said that at least on person on the right "demeans" the loss of jobs.
In the speech you posted who are you saying was "demeaned" by the politician making the speech? That is what I wanted to know.
There are jobs are that Americans will not do. That's a fact.
If there were not, then there would be 100% employment in some areas of the country at least.
That is not to say that Americans are too lazy to work, however. If someone is trained as a school teachers and laid off due to budget cuts, the person will undoubtedly take some time to look for another teaching position instead of running down to the local gas station to become the midnight to 8 am clerk. It would be a perfectly understandable decision, but does - at least technically - mean that there are some jobs that person - at that moment in his/her life - will not do.
Dandandat explained what RTW meant. Minimum wage jobs are considered no bid deal when the opposing party creates them (which is my opinion, demeaning those who get them), but suddenly when jobs disappear, they (the same jobs) are considered "evidence of the end of the world" to the same critics.
I read Bush's words in the speech as praise for the individuals who play by the immigration rules and are willing to do virtually anything to support their families and do gain citizenship. I don't find his words demeaning to them at all and that is why I am confused.
My grandfather was a product of the great Irish potato famine exodus to the US. His son, my Dad, virtually supported his stepmom and brothers by himself by the age of 18 doing multiple jobs. After a full week at the plant (and "full" being more than 40 hours and in questionable work conditions), he would wait tables at night and move people or caddy at the golf club on weekends. He turned his paychecks over to his mom and she would give him back streetcar fare and 50 Cents. When he got married, he continued to send money to his mom despite the fact she stopped talking to him for marrying a protestant. She didn't send the money back. His brothers were so gratefull that, when she passed, decades later, they told the lawyer to redivide the estate 4 ways instead of 3.
I never met my grandfathers, but I understand what Dandadat says when he talks about what that generation was willing to do for their kids.
|
|
|
| |
|
Wichita
|
Apr 6 2008, 07:37 AM
Post #25
|
The Adminstrator wRench
- Posts:
- 9,878
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- May 1, 2003
|
From the Powerline Blog:
- Quote:
-
I'm sorry to see unemployment climb to 5.1%, but by historic standards, that's not exactly a "grim picture." For example, nothing like the unemployment rates that, along with runaway inflation, propelled Ronald Reagan to the presidency in 1980. But I wondered about a more recent comparison. Do you remember 1996, when Bill Clinton swept to an easy re-election victory over Bob Dole, on the basis of what pretty much everyone in the press considered a near-perfect economy? No "pink slip nation" in 1996!
Actually, though, the unemployment rate in November 1996, when Clinton rode a soaring economy to victory, was 5.4%. That's right--three tenths of a percent higher than the "grim picture" of a "pink slip nation" painted by this month's unemployment report.
To be fair, the unemployment rate in November 1996, while higher than the current rate, was essentially flat, while March's 5.1% unemployment represented an increase over the extraordinarily low rates that have characterized George Bush's presidency.
I didn't check their double-check their figures, but that could easily be done. If you read the whole article, it was a response to a newspapers article "Pink Slip Nation". I posted this an example of what RTW was referring to in his post.
|
|
|
| |
|
Intrepid2002
|
Apr 7 2008, 05:02 PM
Post #26
|
UNGH!
- Posts:
- 16,001
- Group:
- Cadet
- Member
- #155
- Joined:
- March 30, 2004
|
- Wichita
- Apr 6 2008, 08:06 AM
who are you saying was "demeaned" by the politician making the speech? That is what I wanted to know.
What I am saying is that the six words, "jobs that Americans will not do", is particularly demeaning to me. I agree with you on the speech, I just wish he didn't use those six words. He praises 'the individuals who play by the immigration rules and are willing to do virtually anything to support their families and do to gain citizenship' and then turns around and demeans the American worker by saying that there are jobs that they will not do almost implying that there are jobs we are above doing. I'm just not comfortable with that attitude towards work. That terminology, the mentality is bothersome to ME as is a person from the left who thinks jobs lost "were all minimum-wage/entry level jobs. Nothing substantial". Equally demeaning to me. Again, it's my own personal interpretation. It's what I walk away with when hearing those words.
When I replied in sarcasm in the very beginning, I was wondering why we from the left weren't blaming illegal immigrants who are taking away our jobs that we will not do anyway. So I playfully borrowed from the right to express my angst. By quoting a source I just wanted to to bring focus those six words, not moreso the problem of illegal immigration, and yes that they came from someone on the right.
I have no idea where "80,000 jobs? Yeah, but they were all minimum-wage/entry level jobs. Nothing substantial." came from. I would kind of like to know but then again maybe not. I am aggravated enough by such callous comments from the left.
I think we differ in the interpretation of those words. Regardless of who said it, when you use those six words, I wonder what those jobs are. When I clean up a "mess" after a person has an "accident" in his hospital bed, is that a job that an American will not do? I wonder.
- Quote:
-
He turned his paychecks over to his mom and she would give him back streetcar fare and 50 Cents. When he got married, he continued to send money to his mom despite the fact she stopped talking to him for marrying a protestant.
Are you sure you weren't talking about my mother? :lol: My grandmother turned around when my father converted over to the Catholic faith and when my mother promised my grandmother the children would be raised as Catholics. My mother sent money to her mother till she died. I don't think she really needed the money but it was moreso the gesture on both their parts.
- Quote:
-
That is not to say that Americans are too lazy to work, however. If someone is trained as a school teachers and laid off due to budget cuts, the person will undoubtedly take some time to look for another teaching position instead of running down to the local gas station to become the midnight to 8 am clerk. It would be a perfectly understandable decision, but does - at least technically - mean that there are some jobs that person - at that moment in his/her life - will not do.
But why not? What if there is no other teaching position? Technically, it's a choice but what if there is no other choice. If it meant shovelling manure, then I'd do it. I kind of do it now in my current job. :lol: I don't think there is anything an American will not do to provide for himself and/or his family. There is dignity in work. There is honor in working, even if it is a "minimum wage job."
I see this as a difference of interpretion. I apologize if I'm not explaining myself better.
- Quote:
-
Dandandat explained what RTW meant. Minimum wage jobs are considered no bid deal when the opposing party creates them (which is my opinion, demeaning those who get them), but suddenly when jobs disappear, they (the same jobs) are considered "evidence of the end of the world" to the same critics.
I would like to thank Dandandat for making an effort to explain. I understood him clearly. But I already understood the sarcasm, unfortunately mine did not come across as well.... or even at all. I can also understand your point when you say "demeaning those who get them". For now, we just have different opinions.
I hope this explains my POV.
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Apr 8 2008, 10:23 AM
Post #27
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- somerled
- Apr 6 2008, 12:19 AM
- Dandandat
- Apr 6 2008, 01:37 PM
- somerled
- Apr 5 2008, 11:36 PM
- Dandandat
- Apr 6 2008, 01:27 PM
- somerled
- Apr 5 2008, 10:29 PM
That wouldn't be permitted now due to OHS .... safety was not high on the agenda when the picture was shown , wasn't a consideration even.
And if the vintage of the picture is what I think it is - set in the 20s or 30s , or in the Great Depression , the situation was totally different and there was no social safety net what so ever in the USA at the time , and the unemployed and their families literally starved.
Fortunately there was a safety net here in Australia and my granddad , who lost his job when the coal mines closed their gates (no demand for coal from the steel industry) was compelled to travel 60 miles every fortnight to get the dole from a different post office every fortnight and was compelled to live rough and become a itinerant swagman / bushman. He had no choice in the matter.
Brush up on your history, there was puplic asistence in the US during the Depression.
There was ?
Yes
I might be mistaken , but didn't the great depression start in 1928 ? You talikng about food stamps and soup kitchens ? and FDR's social and economic programs that started in 1935 or there about ?
1931, actually.
|
|
|
| |