Posted on 03/12/2004 4:07:52 PM PST by The G Man
To call this the worst economy since Hoover is rediculous. I lived through Carter. 22% interest, 12% unemployment, double digit inflation, home repo's by the 100's of thousands.
Marvelous! I'm glad that your consulting practice is working out so well!
Jobs IS jobs. That is, if you're trying to answer the question "how many people have jobs?", then jobs IS jobs.
If you're trying to answer some *other* question, of course, all bets are off. But what question would that be, and why would it be deemed important?
The real, underlying problem here is the idea that you should possibly alter who you vote for because of some STATISTIC you read in some newspaper: "The statistic is low, I guess I'll vote for Bush." "Oh wait, no, the statistic is HIGH, I guess I can't vote for Bush." This idea is IDIOTIC.
I vote for someone based on ideas and actions and leadership: what will they actually DO? will I agree with it? do I trust him to do the types of things I'd like to see done?
These factors are NOT AFFECTED AT ALL by (1) the definition of some "jobs" statistic being accurate or inaccurate, (2) the value of that "jobs" statistic at any given time. Not at all.
You could come up to me and with a lengthy explanation perhaps convince me that the REAL unemployment figure (according to a BETTER definition of unemployment) is 40%. Unless you could point to something CONCRETE which Bush ACTUALLY DID to cause this high figure, and I disagreed with that concrete action on its own terms, the statistic being high would not change my vote. In a sense, this entire conversation is irrelevant. Statistics should not change *anyone's* vote, one way or the other!
Overlooked is, "job" no longer means steady employment with benefits.
"Job" never meant that. Why do you think "job" always meant that? and since when does a job require "with benefits"?? I guess nobody in human society had a "job" prior to the middle part of the last century (when "fringe benefits" started to become more common due to tax breaks etc)? What did everyone have then?
Scream that "nobody has a right to a job" but many of us are old enough to remember the days when you could count on it nevertheless.
I don't believe there were any days when EVERYONE "could count on" finding and having a job. Maybe you mean something else by this. In any event, the idea that a Jobs Statistic should affect how you vote still strikes me as idiotic.
Statistics should not affect anyone's vote!
Um, but these people [people who work part-time "for economic reasons"] aren't 4.4 million potential (R) voters. You seem to be saying that if the Republicans could just Find Full-time Jobs for these people, they'd all vote Republican.
Wrong.
First of all, out of these 4.4 million, one must assume that some fraction of them are already going to vote Republican. (You think otherwise? You REALLY think that everyone who's unemployed uses a knee-jerk, robotic "if I don't have a job I'm voting against the incumbent" voting strategy?) Let's be conservative and say 1/3 of them are solid Republicans ANYWAY.
Second, out of these 4.4 million, another fraction are UNAVAILABLE to Republicans, because they are Knee-Jerk Yellow-Dog Democrats. Let's say another 1/3.
That leaves some 1.5 million (a THIRD of the "part-time for economic reasons" people) who could, in theory, be available to vote Republican if they just could Find Jobs for these people. But consider:
The number of people who are "part-time for economic reasons" is NEVER going to be ZERO. It never has been, it never will be. Even in the great and glorious years of Clinton the number was greater than zero. Much greater than zero. In fact a little searching found me this page which has a chart showing that the number reached a *minimum* of about 3 million in the Clinton years. In fact it was ONLY smaller than 4.4 million (the current number which you think is intolerable) from about 1995-2000.
But ok, let's assume that (R)s in Congress, and Bush in the White House, could wave their magic job-creating wands (this does seem to be how you think jobs are created) and "create" new jobs for the part-time-for-economic-reasons people. Let's say they create so many jobs that they get this number back down to Clinton's BEST (=3 million).
In other words, at the very best, the (R)s could "create" jobs for 1.4 million of the part-time-for-economic reasons. Not more.
And remember our 1/3 - 1/3 - 1/3 rule: out of those 1.4 million, 1/3 of them are Knee-Jerk Democrats, 1/3 of them are Voting Republican Anyway, so at best (by "creating" these jobs) the (R)s can get about half a million new votes they wouldn't otherwise have had.
But oh wait, remember, this all assumes that all these part-time-for-economic-reasons people (100% of them) let their votes turn ENTIRELY on whether they have a job. It assumes they are machines, if you feed them a job, they give you a vote. In REALITY, people aren't like that. Certainly there is an effect, some FRACTION of them will change their vote to the incumbent if they get a job under him, but this fraction is NOT 100%.
We may be talking about 300,000 potential voters, or less.
About 100 million people voted in the last election for the two major parties. This is 3/10 of one percent of that total, or less. Mathematically, they are probably not worth reaching for then; there are probably better ways to gain voters from other subgroups. I'm just saying this on a strategic level: worrying about these voters (and trying to bend over backwards to somehow "create" jobs for them - I'm still not sure how you think the government can do this BTW) does not make much strategic sense at all.
The pandering-to-Hispanics stuff may actually get him more votes... ;-)
-wave their Job-Creation Wands and "create" jobs for 1.4 million part-time-for-economic-reasons people (bringing that number down to Clinton's BEST),
-HALF of those (700K) are actually going to vote
- 1/3 of them are Knee-Jerk (D)s and another 1/3 of them are Voting (R) Anyway, leaving 1/3 (~233K) who could potentially swing to the (R)s if some job were "created" for them
-but of course people don't change their votes like that, people are not automatons you can feed a job to and receive a vote in return. Only some fraction of people are that way.
Frankly, having thought about it a bit more, I'm pretty sure we're talking about something like 100,000 potential swing-to-(R)-if-you-create-them-a-job voters, at most.
I guess I didn't explain it very well. That's been one of my points. I am tired of politicians, pundits, talk show hosts playing with numbers from the BLS. A finite number of Americans are bearing the brunt of changes we are going through because of "globalization" or whatever. Then of course there are the normal number of folks between jobs.
"jobs is jobs" is my shorthand for the attitude that former middleclass job holders (many in their forties and fifties) should take any job and shut up. Most have.
BTW. My experience in the 1940s and 1950s was that one could expect a secure job. No job was owed to you of course but the jobs were there in the factories.
RE: "some fraction of [4.4 million] are already going to vote Republican. (You think otherwise? You REALLY think that everyone who's unemployed uses a knee-jerk, robotic "if I don't have a job I'm voting against the incumbent" voting strategy?)"
I believe that the Limbaugh-Hegecock-Sullivan crowd angers people who have lost their jobs when that crowd trashes the unemployed as being too lazy to work. Here are 4.4 million of them working at the only jobs they can get. "Stop extending unemployment insurance then they'll get jobs!"
So, yes the trashing might well keep some of them home in Nov. I don't think it's a matter of them finding full-time jobs. They know that we are going through changes in the economy -- the recovery started more than two years ago and job creation is still lagging! -- this is not a classic recovery. They are smart enough to know that but their critics are not.
"their votes turn ENTIRELY on whether they have a job. It assumes they are machines, if you feed them a job, they give you a vote. In REALITY, people aren't like that."
I agree.
Thanks for taking the time and providing a good analysis. I agree with what you say but I didn't explain my view well enough.
I guess I should have been more precise. It's not the lack of good jobs (they'll show, when? don't know), it's the trashing of the unemployed. Look at these threads on unemployment issues.
I am not directly affected but I have heard the President himself say that we need to create more good jobs. I won't "stay home in Nov." because of what the rank-and-file are saying. "Amnesty" for ILLEGAL aliens still needs fleshing out however -- IMO that means something closer for a call for a regime change in Mexico City. I am directly affected by ILLEGAL aliens.
I suppose you could tell them that, but why would you? Are you saying people actually do that?
Pray for W and The Truth
how the government calculates unemployment http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
The survey never asks if you are employed or unemployed. A savvy respondent may try to convey one or the other but a computer figures it out matching the survey results to variable criteria.
But who has that attitude? The problem here is that you are entering into the middle of a debate where (D)s cull some statistic or another to beat (R)s over the head with ("the statistic is X.Y% instead of Z.W%!! Bush bad!!"), a debate ensues, and here you are saying "Republicans shouldn't say Jobs-Is-Jobs". What you are ignoring is context: that the only reason for (R)s to even talk about this is that they are defending (well trying to) themselves against ignoramus (D) criticisms of them which involve pointing at numbers and inflating them as much as possible.
I believe that the Limbaugh-Hegecock-Sullivan crowd angers people who have lost their jobs when that crowd trashes the unemployed as being too lazy to work.
I've never heard Limbaugh say this. Don't know enough about the other 2 names (is that Andrew Sullivan? and Hedgecock is the guy who sometimes replaces Limbaugh?)
I guess I should have been more precise. It's not the lack of good jobs (they'll show, when? don't know), it's the trashing of the unemployed.
Look, again, honestly, I don't know what you are talking about here. Nobody I have ever seen is "trashing" "the unemployed". I just don't know where you get that.
Your point is well made.
Therefore, we should not pay attention to "the household survey". I sure don't.
In fact, we should not pay attention to ANY statistics. They are irrelevant when it comes to determining our vote. Statistics being good doesn't make me happy. Statistics being bad doesn't make me sad. Statistics are NUMBERS in a newspaper.
One should based his vote on things like ideas, trust, and leadership. That's what I do.
So I'm with you. Let's ignore ALL of these bogus statistics.
RE: "What you are ignoring is context: that the only reason for (R)s to even talk about this is that they are defending (well trying to) themselves against ignoramus (D) criticisms of them which involve pointing at numbers and inflating them as much as possible."
Again you make an excellent point and you are correct, IMO. But, I really would like to hear more consrvatives acknowledge the estimated four-plus million people working part-time because they cannot find full-time jobs. The President has stated that more good jobs are needed.
Getting it out there is one way of taking it away from dem Rats and it lets the four-plus million know that they are not forgotten, IMO. The official unemployment rate is not an issue for me. It is not that bad. But the four-plus million are long-term unemployed in terms of not having full-time jobs as far as I am concerned. Their numbers went down a bit in Feb., maybe the trend will continue.
Being retired I listen to talk radio virtually around the clock. No TV. I've always been a fan of talk since the 1950s, 1940s if you count Baby Snooks, et al. I hear lots about the jobs problem from callers -- perhaps it's worse becaue my area includes silicon valley.
I see. I haven't heard these things as I am not much of a regular Limbaugh listener, but I'll take your word for it.
It should be said that if you're reporting their words accurately, they are not calling anybody "lazy". They are criticizing the extension of unemployment benefits as a policy. If you can't tell the difference between those two things we have bigger fish to fry.
That's fine but the great majority of the long-term unemployed are trying.
I'm sure they are. I'm starting to lose sight of what your point is however. Resolved: the great majority of long-term unemployed people are trying to get a job. We both agree. Now what? Is there a point?
But, I really would like to hear more consrvatives acknowledge the estimated four-plus million people working part-time because they cannot find full-time jobs.
But WHY? "Acknowledge" those people? To what end? Let's try this out: "I, Dr. Frank fan, hereby acknowledge the 4.4 million people who are working part-time because they cannot find full-time jobs." Happy? How has that helped anything?
Also, what exactly makes this particular group of 4.4 million people more special or important than all the other groups of 4.4 million people one could cull from our fine country of some 280 million people? What about these groups: "redheads", "people who work with animals", "Linux users", "people who like anchovies on pizza", "people who are color-blind", "people with no siblings"... without knowing more detailed data I reckon that all of these subgroups contain roughly 4.4 million people give or take 10 or 20 million. Should conservatives make special effort to "acknowledge" them too? Why not?
I guess I just have a hard time understanding what you're complaining about given that you seem to agree with me that (D) criticisms of "the economy" are all fraudulent and self-serving. You agree, and yet here you want the (R)s to "acknowledge" the part-time-for-econ-reasons people? But this buys into the silly assertion that they don't "acknowledge" such people (=don't think they exist). I don't accept that assertion.
Again, there is nothing particularly extraordinary about the number of people who are part-time-for-economic reasons. This number was lower in, say, the 1960s (but so was the US population). It rose and rose, and was 4.4 million or above until roughly 1995. Between 1995-2000 it dipped down to about 3 million (not zero!!!) due probably to the internet boom. And now it's gone up again since 2000, fluctuated some, reduced a little, to a point where it's now about 4.4 million. SO WHAT?? This number is not the disaster or tragedy you think, or pretend to think, it is. It is roughly in line with history apart from the 1995-2000 dip. What the heck is there for conservatives to "acknowledge"?
Getting it out there is one way of taking it away from dem Rats and it lets the four-plus million know that they are not forgotten, IMO.
Which of these people think they are "forgotten"? For crying out loud. Give me the names of some such people, I'll talk to 'em ;-)
I guess my problem with all this is, Conservatives are under no obligation to accept lefty talking-points as holy writ. If some lefty is saying "conservatives have 'forgotten' you!!" it's not my job to prove I haven't, it's the lefty's job to prove he's not shoveling BS. If I start bending over backwards to "acknowledge" someone to "prove I haven't forgotten" them, this only plays into the lefty's hands, because I'm on the defensive; it seems to acknowledge that his "conservatives have 'forgotten' you" point has some validity. (Which it does not.)
But the four-plus million are long-term unemployed in terms of not having full-time jobs as far as I am concerned.
Ok, the four-plus million are long-term unemployed. If you say so. But again, the number is well within what you'd expect by historical standards. Nothing to get all worked up over. (Note to you four-plus million: this doesn't mean I've "forgotten" you! I still "acknowledge" you! ;-)
I hear lots about the jobs problem from callers -- perhaps it's worse becaue my area includes silicon valley.
Oh, definitely it's worse because your area includes silicon valley (where I live too) :-) Silicon Valley contains large numbers of people who had a very easy time getting jobs in the late 90s. Some of them, now, are finding it more difficult. This is regrettable to the extent that all unemployment was regrettable, but on the other hand it was totally predictable and hardly surprising; anyhow, the idea that it has something to do with Bush is a crock.
(It's also worse because you're hearing complaints from talk-radio callers. "Talk-radio callers" is a self-selected, biased group of people who, it's safe to say, are more inclined to be Dissatisifed about something than Satisifed. Few are tempted to call into a radio station just to say "I've got a job and I'm doin' fine, no real complaints" ;-) Best,
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.