japan does it...

 

Yeah, Bush said he wouldn't offer a Bailout which is exactly what he should say. That doesn't mean he wouldn't offer loans, tax incentives, etc should they come into trouble. But he is not going to blindly throw money at them.

I with Bush on this one, The Govt getting in the middle of free enterprise is always a bad thing (ie: USSR)...

 

And in the end it will eventually bite them in the ***.

 

We live in the economic powerhouse of the world (allbeit we have our problems) and I'm always amazed when someone suggests, directly or indirectly, that we need to be more like some other country/use some other coutnry's system.

While there are some legitimate (but very limited) roles for government in business, the last thing the auto industry needs in this country is more government involvement.

There is nothing the government can do for GM or Ford that they can't do better on their own.

 

At 1:57 AM, you need to lower your expectations for immediate replies to your posts.
Some of us working stuffs need to sleep.

You won't find me standing up for dot-com companies.
I stayed away from them like the plague in the 90s, and still don't like companies that have a server and a few desktops as 100% of their operating capital.

But honestly, the dot-com fiasco didn't hurt employment in the US nearly as bad as moving manufacturing offshore has.

This article is a good one. I like CNN pretty good. But they only post the figures given to them from the Labor Department, and as I said in my first post, the government DOES NOT include people whose unemployment benefits have expired, those typically out of work LESS than 2 weeks, those enrolled in school because they can't find work, and those who are working part-time because they can't find a full time job.
Now look at this CNN artricle dated today...http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/26/news...reut/index.htm
Yours says it went down, mine says it's going up. Hmmm?
Anyways, WRT your first article...
1) There is a difference between the "unemployment rate" and "jobless claims".
2) They proceed to report the unemployment rate at 4.9% - Did I not say in my original post that the rate was "reported at about 5%"? I thought so. Seems I was dead-on the money there, was I not?

This second article is more of an editorial than actual news IMO. Asking people what they GUESS is going to happen is not exactly "fact".
At any rate, when I saw this quote in the article, I knew it was hogwash...,
"How well will they do? Based on the accuracy of last year’s (2005) forecasts, not very. Davos attendees got growth right: hot in Asia, healthy in the United States, dismal in Europe. But everybody agreed: bumps lay ahead. The U.S. dollar would fall. (It rose.) Interest rates would rise. (They didn’t.) Global bubbles from real estate to stocks were likely to burst. (They haven’t, at least not yet.) As for oil and energy prices? “We didn’t even talk about it!” " Look in bold text.
Now look at this article from CNN... http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/13/news/economy/fed_rates/
Headline --> "Fed raises rates for 13th straight time - Dec. 13, 2005 "
"The Fed has increased rates by a quarter of a point at its past 13 meetings, dating back to June 2004. The federal funds rate now stands at 4.25 percent, its highest level since March 2001. '
OOPS! I guess the writer of your second article forgot to look at the rates for the last year and a half before he put that little blurb in his text about "rates didn't go up in 2005", eh? Again, It's an editorial loaded with opinions, not facts.

Now back to the good stuff - I took the liberty of going to the source of the data cited in the first article you linked to, the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. I found the report for December 2005 as reported on Friday January 6, 2006.
Here is a link for you too... LINKY
I read the report briefly, but astutely, and was able to extract the following figures...
Civilian Labor Force (total) = 150,153,000 people
Unemployed (based on BLS U1 criteria mentioned above) = 7,375,000 people
Now, look at part-time workers from their Appendix, Table A-5 "Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status" (from the same report BTW)... LINKY
1) Part-time for economic reasons = 4,138,000
2) Slack work or business conditions = 2,541,000
3) Could only find part-time work = 1,246,000
4) Part-time for non-economic* reasons = 19,582,000
(* = Part time for noneconomic reasons excludes persons who usually work full time but worked only 1 to 34 hours during the reference week for reasons such as holidays, illness, and bad weather.)

So, if we total all of these categories, we get 34,882,000 total unemployed/underemployed people.
Divide 34,882,000 by the total civilian labor force(150,153,000) and you get .2323, or 23%.
So if anything, I was WAY SHORT with my estimate of 11% - shame on me!

Again, the BLS does not keep statistics on people enrolled in education due to job loss/placement programs. It also does not track the number of people whose unemployment benefits have expired. These numbers are HUGE.

Even using the BLS's own standards, they offer a separate chart that shows unemployment rate stated 6 different ways!!!
Look at this chart, and you will see their own standards show seasonally-adjusted unemployment jumps up to 8.6% for Dec05, using their U6 method which includes more, but not all, of the unemployed persons that fall under categories other than their basic "unemployed 15 weeks or longer" category - a.k.a. "U1".

As for your MSNBC article...
Here's one right back at you that works my side of the story...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10953632/from/RSS/
""I'm looking for anything. I have computer skills and experience as a manager, receptionist and in sales," Janiak said. "But you have to jump through hula hoops to find a job, and then they only pay $6 an hour.""

"The unemployment numbers can be deceptive, however, because they don't include the chronically unemployed who have dropped out of the job market, and many of the new jobs are low-paying and lack benefits, Florida AFL-CIO spokesman Rich Templin said." (and I am not a fan of the AFL-CIO either, so this reaks on me...)

Look, most experts agree that unemployment figures never have been well-defined, and they are cooked to make the picture brightest for the person who needs it. Based on my every-day life experiences, talking with people, seeing what is happening in the news, and watching plants close around my state daily - I can conclude easily that more than 1 in 20 people on the street are in need of a good job. My wife was let-go from Sara-Lee last year, and is still looking for a "good" job as a production scheduler/analyst today - she has her resume listed on Monster right now. She is getting offers, but they are rediculously low for her education and skill, so we know what the market is offering right now, and frankly, it sux. My mother-in-law works at a local community college (teaches I.T./computer) and she says she has never seen anything like the people enrolling in course now that are using job disposition benefits to go to school. The numbers are huge - in the 1000's at our local tech/comm college, and I doubt ours is the only one around seeing this situation.

I think my point still stands... there are highly-qualified people out looking for jobs because their old plant closed and their jobs went offshore, but the offers they are getting are almost insultingly low because of the glut of workers looking. Fortunately for us, I have a good job and pay all the bills, so the wife is able to stay home and keep looking. But for a single parent that must pay bills, they would have to take anything that comes along to support themselves and their kid(s).
THESE are the kinds of people that are having to take jobs at Import Plants that don't offer the benefits that mr00jimbo was referring to in his post.

 

Again, we find common ground!

 

Look at the time of your most recent post- the time stamping on this forum is wrong.


It just appears you are throwing a bunch of mud (random quotes and stats) on the wall (thread) hoping something to stick but you didn't post anything quantifying your 'TRUE 11% 'unemployment figure.

I would be willing admit that TRUE unemployment might be slightly higher then 4.9% but nowhere near the 11% you are throwing out. In reallity home ownership wouldn't have reached a historical high (68.8% own) in the last few years, if things were as bad as you are making them out to be. I do believe there are problems on the horizon, but right now things are pretty good for alot of people.

There's a saying that goes: "Don't judge everyone elses wallet by your own".

 

Out of respect, I won't quote anyone in this thread.
But all of you who think King Bush is taking the right approach by not offering aid to an ailing company or industry need to do some studying.

Government can, and should, assist business and industry when conditions are right for such aid. It has been done in the past, and should not be abaondoned in the future. Business and commerce are the main contibutors to a nations wealth. People sitting at home do not contribute to GDP or GNP, nor do they generate taxable income. Instead, they become a BURDEN to the government. There are 2 simple benefits right there.

Now before the benchwarmers come out and sream that I am pro-government, put me on record for having NUMEROUS conditions to this act of intervention.
1)Government does NOT need to be more intertwined in business than it is now.
2)Businesses should exhaust every alternative commercial method of aid or reform before even considering governmental intervention.
3)The size of the aid package should be significant enough to warrant government involvement. (that means Billy-Bob's hot dog stand that does $45k total in annual sales and employs 1 person should NOT get seat-time in front of congress to ask for $2500 to get him through the next 3 months.)
4)The industry/business that is applying for aid should be well-established and have a definite future. (No bailouts for a horse buggy company, and no bailouts for a time-machine company to continue their "research" program either.)

I could go on and on, but my point should be made by now. When you are dealing with an indusrty such as the automotive one in the US, there are literally millions of jobs, directly and indirectly related to just 2 or 3 major companys. To let one of them just fold up would be economically devastating to the country. That does not give them the right to RELY on governmental assistance, but if their management is really trying to turn around and they have a sound plan to do so, but can't get commercial lenders to buy-in (or can't afford the commercial lender's rates), then I think our government should give them a chance.

Anybody recall the Chrysler bailout? Whopping success story. The government MADE money from the low-interest loan that Iacocca and Chrysler paid back to the government - $1.2-billion, paid in full, even paying off the note early.

And for those of you who applauded Bush not wanting to bail out the auto industry... why not? He bailed out the airline industry.
Airline Bailout Bill
"President Bush signed into law the emergency aid package for the airline industry Saturday."

Airline bailout gains in House

"As President Bush directed his staff to draw up a list of ways to help the airlines cope with massive losses, the House was moving quickly on legislation that would do so."

Despite his "forced generosity" to the airline industry because of public empathy from 9-11, Bush himself is NOT inclined to help any business or industry. His record speaks loudly. And for a guy who ran businesses into the ground and then made money off their liquidation, I doubt he sees any need to keep businesses operational. In his eyes, going out of business is a good thing - it helps you make money.
Bush wary about big airlines bailout
Bush: No help from Washington for California power crunch
Entergy bailout not in president's hurricane bill
There's tons of this stuff out there.

 

Yet, you can't find anything to prove your TRUE 11% unemployment

Bigger government isn't the answer because more-socialist European countries have higher unemployment:

France- 9.6%
Germany- 11.2%
European Avg.- 8.3%

 

Unemployment (BLS) figures have some value for conducting analysis but arguing aobut a specific percantage/what they should say if only they included this or excluded that is pointless.

How BLS collects its data is antiquated to say the least. Only a very narrow section of "unemployeed" will even show up in the stats...many unemployeed people are not included because they have fallen out of the window of time BLS looks at but by the same token, many are not counted as "employed" because they aren't working for traditional businesses and getting a traditional paycheck but that does not mean they are not making a good living.

I would submit that the only truly unemployed in this country (other than those numbers which are always "in transit" between jobs) are unemployed only because they are unwilling to do what is necessary to find a job...that might mean more/different education, entering a different industry, moving to another city or state, etc.

 

Unemployment figures are so messed up anyhow. It doesn't take into account People that are too lazy to work, or just refuse to stay on govt aid... If you could try to find the % of people that /really/ want a job and can't find one - I venture to say it is a LOT LOT LOWER then even 5%.

 

Thanks for your detailed breakdown of my response which included lots of detail, forethought, and effort. I'll reciprocate the next time I respond to your post.

As for your comments...
* by their own accounts, the BLS shows rates as high as alomst 9%, and they explain that the don't account for all cases.
* I don't throw mud And I showed you figures reaching as high as 23% based on BLS statistics that YOU chose to cite in your post.
*There is nothing wrong with my wallet - I'll wager you that I am doing better than yourself.

I just don't forget about other people who are less fortunate than me, because I was fortunate enough to forge my way out of that lifestyle through 8 years of university study and 28 years of hard work. I come from poor people, and I have many friends who break their backs every day earning a wage. I respect them, associate with them, and am proud to acknowledge them as my friends and family. Maybe that's what separates people like me from "others".

Thanks for your concern though!

 

That is assuming that there is in fact that opportunity for all of those individuals. That is certainly not the case in this country no matter how much some people want to believe it.

 

I believe you risk having policies that are very clearly skewed to protect certain businesses. What if Walmart were in trouble? They are the world's largest company or Exxon? Should the government step in always when companies are in trouble? I don't believe they should.

 

Thats jsut wrong no matter how much you want to belive it otherwise.

Most native Americans are simply too damm spoiled - in this country, when you can't find an opportunity, you make one.

Immigrants prove it every day.