Posted on 10/13/2004 9:16:36 AM PDT by xsysmgr
Our school district had to insource teachers! We live in a heavily Hispanic community and we have a shortage of bi-lingual teachers. We insource from Spain and PI.
Why don't you fill me in? I'm interested in learning how insurers' reserves are relevant to the topic at hand.
And Bruce Bartlett is too an idiot.
Here are the latest employment statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics dated October 8, 2004
Employee Statistics (Workers employed by others)
From Peak Employment 03/01 to 09/04 -940,000
From Lowest Employemnt 11/01 to 9/04 +696,000
Household Statistics (Workers self employed and employed by others)
From Peak Employment 03/01 to 09/04 +2,254,000
From Lowest Employment 11/01 to 09/04 +3,464,000
The Democrats claim 1.6 million jobs lost, since Bush took office, and that is simply not true.
The Republicans claim that 1.3 million jobs have been created over the last 13 months and, based on BLS statistics, that is accurate, if we use the "Employee" statistic.
If "Household" measure, which includes workers who start their own businesses and work for themselves as well as employees who work for others, is used then more than 2 million jobs have been created since Bush took office.
I am not sure what justification the BLS has for not including the employed who work for themselves in determining "employment" in the US.
.In 2002, there were 4,019,280 births in the United States, down slightly from 2001 (4,025,933). source
Great graph, thanks.
There is no data on "Household" employment, which shows that employment did increase under Bush.
If we stick to "Employee" data, I think we make the Democrats' point for them. I believe we should emphasize employment data that reflects both self employed as well as those who work for others. It is a more accurate reflection of those actually employed.
In a totally nauseating role reversal, the 'Rats are pointing at PRIVATE SECTOR employment while the pseudo-conservative Administration is dependent on hyping the growth of Big Government employment to minimize the criticism.
a recovery is when Daschle loses his job.
First off, many laid-off engineers and other technical people have *not* been able to replace their income. Some see that as an opportunity for sneering - go ahead. But financially, when families have one or two laid-off workers who get new jobs at substantially *less* income, the effect ripples throughout the economy.
How? People forclose on their mortgages. Women who weren't working go back to work (count in social costs of latchkey children; unsupervised teenagers getting into trouble, etc.) Family income and thus spending drop, or consumer debt goes up (adding to foreclosures & bankruptcies.) Medical insurance is lost - resulting in more debt, and long-term consequences to health for the whole family (i.e. greater costs down the road.)
Then consider other consequences. Enrollment in engineering & computer science programs has dropped over the past 2 years by half in many major engineering programs. Less US engineering students means several things: more foreign engineering students (i.e. more security risks.) Less enrollment in these programs means eventually some will be closed.
Less technically educated people means that our society will *lack* a critical mass of math/science literate people. IMO this is a critical *national defense* issue. You simply cannot ramp up "production" of math/science literate people the way you do a cheap Chinese manufacturing company.
So those who poo-poo outsourcing consequences can fiddle while Rome burns - for awhile, at least, until the barbarians show up at the gate with other ideas.
I can however, with full confidence this time, state that because of our trade deficit, foreign banks have purchased American assets. When the buy our debt, we use those loanable funds to finance things such as business expansion and homeownership. Because they continue to buy, it keeps interest rates on loans low for American consumers and businesses. When the buy our equity securities, the take a stake in America and become partial owners of our businesses. This makes them interdependent on the health of our economy and less apt to try and ruin it. Their stock transaction provide more market liquidity. When they buy our property many times they will use it to run one of their multi national corporations from, in-sourcing jobs that require higher skilled labor, running their corporations from our soil.
Does this at all seem bad to you? Perhaps you'd like it the other way around and for us to be financing them, increasing their investment activities and expansions. The truth is, it really doesn't matter because it's two different sides of the same coin and all the countries involved will benefit in their unique way. Are their tradeoffs? Yes, there are in everything; which way do you want it?
No body dies or retires in the US?
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.