CNN - 5.6% Unemployment is 'low' (1996), 5.6% Unemlpoyment is high (Today)

CNN ^

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Because if you are older than 10, and you can't see the problem with FORCING companies to have a 30 hour work week, there's no point in me trying to explain it to you. It's just so basic on so many levels, I'm stunned that you don't get it."

Of course, this ten year-old already realizes that companies are being "forced" to have a 40 hour work week, or pay overtime beyond it. Forced to maintain government imposed hiring ratios, not allowed to hire anyone too old, or not to hire anyone too old. Forced to act as a government tax collector without compensation...and the list goes on and on.

Maybe this "ten year old" realizes that a forty hour work week, mandatory overtime, and child labor laws were revolutionary 65 years ago, and that a shorter work week with increased pay is the logical conclusion of increased productivity driven by technology.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...not allowed to hire anyone too old, or not to hire anyone too old..."

Should have read: "not allowed to hire anyone too young, or not to hire anyone too old"

[Phisher]

ping

[Jorge]

The current unemployment rate is at 5.6% - Why isn't CNN calling it 'already low'

I think it has something to do with a Republican being in the White House.

Remember how the exact same arsenic level in water that was acceptable under Clinton for 8 years, all of a sudden was poisoning us when Bush was in office?

The duplicity and dishonesty of the liberal media is astounding.

[dr_who_2]

Will a Republican show up on CNN and point out how two-faced they are? No. That would require having a backbone.

[mvpel]

They were "revolutionary" in the sense of Fidel Castro's use of the term.

Maybe the logical conclusion is to get the government the hell out of telling people how to run their businesses, and maybe then the obstacles to creating new businesses, and new jobs, won't be so damn high!

[Sacajaweau]

In real numbers? How many people were employed in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003.

[Howlin]

Great job! Great job!

[Qwinn]

"Maybe this "ten year old" realizes that a forty hour work week, mandatory overtime, and child labor laws were revolutionary 65 years ago, and that a shorter work week with increased pay is the logical conclusion of increased productivity driven by technology."

Riiiight. It's worked so well in France :rolls eyes:

The 30 hour work week would cause unemployment to -skyrocket-, just as it did there. The reasons why are fairly obvious, but if you're not aware of them, I suspect Thomas Sowell has probably dealt with the issue quite effectively. I'll see if I can find his essay on the subject.

Qwinn

[Luis Gonzalez]

"It's worked so well in France. The 30 hour work week would cause unemployment to -skyrocket-, just as it did there."

You're not only engaging in fortune telling, but you're also insulting the American people.

I guess we should all now realize that since France descended into socialism and political irrelevance, the Americans should have never thrown off the monarchial system of government, and embraced the idea of a representative Republic.

After all, if the French can't make something work, what makes anyone think that Americans could?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"They were "revolutionary" in the sense of Fidel Castro's use of the term."

Here's a bombshell, I hope you're sitting down.

I can actually grasp concepts even without relating it to anything having to do with Cuba, or Fidel Castro.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I work a 30-hour work week, sometimes less.

My ioncome is not affected because the number of hours I work per week is irrelevant, only the output is relevant.

Technology has gotten us to the point were less people can accomplish more in less time; we will have to lower the work week in order to maintain an unemployment ratio in the 5.5% range or lower.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Hey!

Call Bush and tell him not to try going to Mars, after all, the French haven't been able to, so what would make anyone think that A,ericans could?

Oh!

And next time a Hitler defeats the French, we may as well hang it up; if the French surrendered, what chance would Americans stand?

[Qwinn]

"we will have to lower the work week in order to maintain an unemployment ratio in the 5.5% range or lower."

And then you claim -I'm- engaged in fortune telling?

At least I have a representative example of a failed policy in place. You make this claim -against- all available evidence.

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

Oh please. The whole 30 hour work week thing is itself a socialist concept, and you're advocating it by claiming the only reason it didn't work in France is they are socialist!

Your efforts to appeal to my patriotism in order to make me think that we can make a very stupid idea work - isn't working.

Qwinn

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The whole 30 hour work week thing is itself a socialist concept."

Well, I'm no socialist, and I can see beyond "concepts" to understand the future, and the future is shaping as one of increased productivity as a result of advances in technology, which in turn, creates a situation where less people will produce more in less time. To continue demanding high wages and low unemployment in a world were automation is on the rise, is suicide.

Your entire argument was "it didn't work in France, so it won't work here", I was not appealing to your patriotism, I was exposing your absolute lack of it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"You make this claim -against- all available evidence."

You mean other than the 1938 Fair Labor Act which set the work week at 40 hours.

I guess that didn't work in our favor...

[Qwinn]

"Well, I'm no socialist, and I can see beyond "concepts" to understand the future, and the future is shaping as one of increased productivity as a result of advances in technology, which in turn, creates a situation where less people will produce more in less time. To continue demanding high wages and low unemployment in a world were automation is on the rise, is suicide."

And people were making this same prediction when Ford created the assembly line. It didn't happen. Why? Because as production increases, so does consumption.

You have zero evidence to back up your claim. Unemployment rates are -lower- in the last couple of decades than they were for many decades prior to that. Have you seen any of the threads debunking claims that unemployment is high under Bush? He's got the lowest average of any first-term President since Eisenhower!

Qwinn

[Maria S]

"The current unemployment rate is at 5.6% - Why isn't CNN calling it 'already low'"

Great question. Unfortunately, CNNNBCMSNBCABCCBSetal were listening when some loose-lipped WH spokesman said we'd add 2,000,000 (or something like that) this year...then had to recant and say it might not be that many. That little misspeak is repeated almost daily, as the liberal press gleefully assures us that the economy is in the tank, jobs are going overseas, and we're all doomed.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"You have zero evidence to back up your claim."

You mean other than the 1938 Fair Labor Act?