Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 02/27/2004 7:01:49 PM PST by Phisher

Edited on 04/29/2004 2:03:58 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Economists didn't expect June's unemployment rate to be much different from May's, which was an already-low 5.6 percent. But in fact, it did fall -- to 5.3 percent. The unemployment rate hasn't been that low since June 1990.


(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: ccrm; cnn; dol; liberalmedia; mediabias; unemployment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-132 last
To: Luis Gonzalez
"You mean other than the 1938 Fair Labor Act?"

What about it? How does that constitute proof of anything? Just citing it doesn't make your case.

Qwinn
121 posted on 03/07/2004 3:43:54 PM PST by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Phisher
Welcome to Free Republic. Great find!

Prairie
122 posted on 03/07/2004 3:56:55 PM PST by prairiebreeze (So, who has the pictures on Orrin Hatch? And what do they show?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket
Different employment surveys paint contrasting pictures about the health of the economy, which has lost 2.2 million jobs since Bush took office three years ago.

Bureau of Labor statistics:

January 2001 Employment - 136.0 million

January 2004 Employment - 138.566 million

Looks like a gain of 2.566 million jobs on Bush's watch to me.

123 posted on 03/07/2004 4:12:47 PM PST by Leroy S. Mort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
"Just citing it doesn't make your case."

Just your saying that it doesn't make my case does not refute the point. What it does say, is that you lack a sufficient understanding of the history of the act, otherwise, you would understand that it is absolutely germane to the discussion.

124 posted on 03/08/2004 7:11:25 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Unless the world is made safe for Democracy, Democracy won't be safe in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Leroy S. Mort
(shhh...quiet, the media may find out)
125 posted on 03/08/2004 7:12:06 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Unless the world is made safe for Democracy, Democracy won't be safe in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
It may be germane to the discussion, sure. The point is that if you're going to claim it is, it's your responsibility to point out how it does so. If I already knew all about it and believed that it justified your position, I'd be on your side!

Sheesh.

Qwinn
126 posted on 03/08/2004 7:14:45 AM PST by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
"...it's your responsibility to point out how it does so."

No it's not

It's your responsibility to show why it isn't, after all, it's you saying that it isn't germane, and simply arguing that you don't understand how it is germane, neither obligates me to educate you, nor does it refute my post.

I know it's germane because I took the time to research, if you want to refute it, then take the time to research the act, and refute me, otherwise, go away.

127 posted on 03/08/2004 8:36:21 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Unless the world is made safe for Democracy, Democracy won't be safe in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
*laugh*

Listen, I've come to know you from your posts well enough that nothing would -ever- change your mind. I'm not having this debate to convince -you- of anything, because that's pretty much impossible.

I'm debating this for the sake of others reading this thread, because it would be an economic disaster if your policies were implemented, and that would require popular support, which I can currently envision coming only from welfare-liberals. Quite frankly, very very very few posters are going to know so much about the Labor Act of 1938 that they're going to say "Well, DUH! That settles it - it's a NO BRAINER that conservatives should support even more drastic societal engineering at a time when conservatives are sick to death of it, and cut -everyone's- hours by 25%! That's where we should spend all our political capital!"

So no, you're right, it's not your "responsibility"... but you're also not going to convince -anyone- of -anything- by citing a 66 year old Act as if everyone should just know exactly how YOU relate it to a -completely- different world of globalization and free trade, and what would seem to me to be an entirely different situation. And that's fine. That's your perogative. I just figured (apparently incorrectly) that you actually wanted to convince anyone of your view. I was suggesting a means by which you might actually accomplish that goal. Since you apparently show no interest in backing up your position beyond 5 words and an air of smug arrogant superiority, I guess I was wrong.

Oh, and by the way? The situation as it stands now is a 40 hour work week. I believe that the vast bulk of conservative opinion would be against you on this matter. I have no need to research or prove anything. Actually make an effort to convince people of your very unpopular (at least on FR) position, or don't. All the same to me. But if this is how tenacious you are at actually trying to bring people about to your point of view, I have no worries that you'll be converting anyone anytime soon.

Qwinn
128 posted on 03/08/2004 8:56:20 AM PST by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
That 66-year old act, which is still in effect today, was enacted to increase the number of people employed in the US by reducing the number of hours an employer could work someone before increasing their pay (overtime). Today, the White House is considering changing the standard work week from a 40 hour week, to a 80 hour two week, so changes in the standard are already being considered, and these changes will reduce, and in some instances eliminate, overtime pay.

Back in 1938, the Fair Labor Act was considered socialism by many, today, you stand defending that old socialist standard 40 hour work week with obligatory overtime pay.

Technology is reducing the number of workers needed to accomplish tasks, and as technology advances, the number of people physically needed to maintain elevated production levels, or even increase production, will continue to diminish...it's unavoidable, it's simply a fact.

So, where would we go as a people?

Our wages are quite high now, so much so, that coupled with the costs imposed on industry by government, our products are too expensive to compete in the world market. The answer cannot possibly be simply to ignore the continuing growth exhibited by the emerging industry in developing nations, as it may destroy the marketability of our goods, imploding our economy.

I envision a foreseeable future where technology allows us to work less hours and accomplish more, so, we can maintain a high standard of living, high wages, and more leisure hours.

Guess what?

That future is already here, I'm living proof of it.

129 posted on 03/08/2004 9:41:20 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Unless the world is made safe for Democracy, Democracy won't be safe in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
"...and cut -everyone's- hours by 25%!"

Less hours, higher pay for more specialized workers.

Anyone can pick a tomato, but it takes training to run a harvester, it takes some training to weld a joint in a auto plant, it takes a great deal more training to run the programs, and maintain the production robots.

I don't know if it was on this thread, but I made mention of all the workers that lost their jobs assembling mechanical typewriters at the onset of the computer age, the response was "they got jobs assembling computers".

They did, and quite possibly at a higher pay.

130 posted on 03/08/2004 9:47:34 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Unless the world is made safe for Democracy, Democracy won't be safe in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

Bump for todays 5.2% unemployment.


131 posted on 02/10/2005 7:39:54 PM PST by icwhatudo (The rino borg...is resistance futile?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Phisher

BUMP


132 posted on 07/04/2006 9:41:25 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (What you know about that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-132 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson