US Unemployment Rate 20%, could it be?
Posted 10 May 2003 - 09:56 AM
You have a personal agenda that you are pushing and it is so obvious because you don't even bother to balance your view, if even just for appearance's sake.
And to compare the US with other countries is enlightening too.
According to the BBC...
"France currently has just over 3 million unemployed, a 12.2% unemployment rate"
In Germany "Government sources say unemployment, before adjustment for seasonal factors, leapt to 4.823 million from 4.522 million in December. That translates to a rate of 12.6%"
"In Argentina, whose economy is the worst affected, the number of jobless now stands at 22%."
"In Africa and the Middle East, those looking for their first jobs are finding it especially hard. In some regions 25% of young people are unemployed; even university graduates are having difficulty finding a job."
So while you harp and quibble about the US unemployment rate, you ignore the rest of the world, and you do so because in reality the figures show that the US is a great place to live and work.
Let me give you a more personal view of an unemployed person in the US, for a different perspective. I know a guy who used to work with me in the computer biz. He is a good technician, reads allot about the business in his off hours, and is technically a capable employee. His problem though, is that he personally irritates everyone he works with. In meetings all he would do is critisize what was wrong with what our team was doing. When he worked with associates he critisized his team mates behind their backs. So he was generally a disruptive and negative influence. In light of your obsession with the 6% unemployment in the US, Small Mind, it is interesting that I remember a meeting where our manager finally had enough of this guy complaining about everything and the manager finally said "You can't go through life always worrying about the 5% of things that go wrong. We as a team need to focus on the 95% of things that go right, to do our jobs well". Currently this guy is still unemployed, and has been now for over a year, I think. I know he was getting unemployment for a long time. Someone saw him recently at a party and they said his parents send him money. Apparently his Dad is a retired high exec with Coca Cola, so I guess they are keeping him afloat. But this person that saw him at the party said his attitude hadn't changed a bit.
One other aside about unemployment. This guy I just mentioned, I know for a fact (since he told me) that when he was first unemployed he had jobs he could have taken, but he didn't, because they required him to step down his income. His attitude was that he wasn't going to "start all over again" by going back to entry level pay. I've met others who feel the same way.
Back in the early 90s I changed my location and jobs after I got divorced. I found the job climate challenging, but there was (and is) certainly work available. I went to a temp agency and ended up doing entry level work at a computer company. I wasn't making great money, but I was making money, and I was learning. I was working with younger core employees (the aformentioned unemployed guy being one of them) who were making alot more money, and had better benefits, etc. Some of them I remember would even make fun of me for being a temp employee, but I didn't care. I figured their attitude was their problem. And of course to some extent they resented someone like me coming in to try to learn their job, willing to make much less money. This I heard from some of them myself. But the long and short of my story is that I rose and fell with the tides, adjusting as things changed. Today I'm a core employee at a computer company up the street from the company where I used to temp. I'm still greatful for the oppurtunity I had as a temp, to learn the business. And I guarantee you that if I lost my job tomorrow, I would do whatever it takes to work, including being a temp again, changing my vocation, taking a pay cut, etc. It's a dynamic world, and it forces you to change and accept change to stay in the game.
Posted 10 May 2003 - 02:29 PM
India has plenty of jobs for the english-speaking computer literate.
Posted 10 May 2003 - 08:56 PM
Argentina is a different case, you blame their problems on them as if they were entirely responsible for it rather than what the US controlled IMF and world bank did to them. Their main problem came up because they used the US$ and could not devalue their currency when brazil hit the fan. Which is why I am against IMF type policies, only 2 major countries were unaffected by this transfer of wealth. China and India. Guess which 2 countries the US is now looking to get them out of the mess it is in now?
What almost everyone is overlooking is the fact that the wealth of the world if ending up with a few people. Bader makes fun of it but it is not a laughing matter.
//President Bush, on the other hand, continues to ignore calls for a federal extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed. Instead, he used the 0.2 percent increase in unemployment to buttress his demand congressional action on his 'Jobs and Growth' program that will give tax cuts averaging $105,000 to those with annual incomes of more than $1 million. Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, said Bush was focused on improving the economy, not extending jobless benefits. 'People want jobs; they don't want unemployment checks,' she said. //
//I figured their attitude was their problem. //
I mean how is just going to create more jobs??? Yea you need to change, attitude is the key. Other wise you never improve. But there is a limit. I did notice that blacks have a problem, they just cant seem to over come their attitudes, or maybe it is something else to get those jobs.
Posted 10 May 2003 - 10:10 PM
getting covered in moss and lichen, similar with inflation and other
Decades are rolling by and people are still arguing over symptoms
and their shadows, little wonder the only change is the definitions
by the politicians to disguise what they find embarasing.
In New Zealand if you are employed for one hour a week you are
employed, full stop. You are according to gov stats one of the self supporting that doesn't need any thing else to live.
Great for two party politics in the western world, they have turns at playing the same songs to the public and so they never change the problems and the public chase the shadows doing them a great service.
The economic system, the surrogate of the money system, is
pathetic and an insult to one intelligence, and is never working
for the benefit of anyone but the top few percent. That's why
Smallmind I laugh at it, not the people who suffer.
I though Smallmind you were going to put your finger on something important there for a minute when you referred to the IMF.
I put to you others again- if science and technology replaces
human effort (employment) where is the equivalent of the wages
that have been lost but gone into prices going to get into the hands of the people(consumers) so the goods get sold meeting the publics needs and the system balances?
It's double-speak to talk of creating jobs just to circulate money
when you condone the growth of science and technology which
takes away jobs. If you are going to stay withing this mindset
you have to reverse technological input and head back towards
the horse and cart days.
The alternative is move outside the outdated square and design
a money system that fits the real world wherein technology
is making the old disposition regarding "employment" a folly.
Posted 11 May 2003 - 09:28 PM
True. This has always been the case. Some people are driven to be in control, be rich, etc. Others are not. And some couldn't attain the wealth anyway, due to various problems, whether it be drugs, laziness, or being too dumb. This problem has always existed. There are always the few over-achievers and then...the mob. In ancient Rome they gave the mob bread and circuses to keep them happy. Otherwise the mob would have rioted.
Perhaps we are dealing here with something that isn't necessarily a logical equation....human nature.
Posted 12 May 2003 - 10:41 AM
finished, you haven't related your summary of human nature to
the unemployment problem.
Besides technology replacing human input, there is the huge
numbers being laid off by companies restructuring and then
there is the movement off shore of industry. Where does
human nature fit in these?
The human nature of the likes of Henry Ford and Bill Gates is what you refer to but the real world goes way beyond that.
Try Enron and the others with their creative accounting.
Better still checkout the Fed Reserve on apfn.org or
savethemales.ca It's a real eduction. Do a search on Louis T
McFadden, (Republican Rep., Pa.) who was on a finance committee some decades ago and read his report on the Fed.
The point I think Smallmind was making when he said almost everyone is overlooking the fact that most of the worlds wealth is falling into few hands is the statistical fact which is to my understanding quite well known, that in the free-market world
20% are winning and 80% are losing and the poverty line is creeping up the 80%. If that be true Eric and getting back to
logical theory, can you see the 20% increasing their consumption to compensate for those who are forced to wind down their consumption so the economy won't slow down causing more lay-offs and business failures? The free-market was only good for a burst last time, then came the Great Depression and war.
Posted 12 May 2003 - 07:46 PM
numbers being laid off by companies restructuring and then
there is the movement off shore of industry. Where does
human nature fit in these?"
"Better still checkout the Fed Reserve on apfn.org or
savethemales.ca It's a real eduction"
The first one my job site blocked the page, which ain't a good sign, and the second one was some God and sex site. What you smokin', bro?
"Do a search on Louis T
McFadden, (Republican Rep., Pa.) who was on a finance committee some decades ago and read his report on the Fed."
I did check it out and was surprised to see that you are referring to something that happened in 1933, in the midst of the Great Depression. My God, man, it's 2003!
We have not found a system of economics yet that perfectly addresses the inequality of distribution. It is still a very Darwinian reality, whether you are looking at socialism, capitalism, or communism. But in my opinion capitalism is the most flexible and self sufficient system because it is built around and driven, ultimately, by greed, which I believe to be part of human nature. Other systems such as socialism and capitalism have either stagnated of been corrupted to the point where they bear little resemblance to their stated values. We do have checks and balances to address the needs of the poor in the US.
I don't think it's an exageration to say that a poor person in the US might well be considered well off by a poor person in a country like, say, the Sudan.
I agree that the gap between the wealthy and the poor is growing, and it will be addressed because those at the top have always feared those at the bottom having nothing left to lose, and bringing down the system that we all have a vested interest in.
Posted 24 May 2003 - 08:49 PM
Job layoffs mean less demand at Twin Cities hospitals
Glenn Howatt, Star Tribune
Published May 24, 2003 ANW24
The high cost of health insurance and job layoffs are forcing some health care providers to cut costs or let go of workers because fewer patients are walking in the door.
An unexpected downturn in admissions has led Abbott Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis to lay off 70 workers and to take measures to control costs in other areas. St. Cloud Hospital also is retrenching. It now has 35 fewer full-time positions after some employee hours were cut.
Abbott Northwestern, which draws 50 percent of its patients from outside the metro area, is hearing reports that would-be patients have lost health insurance because they've lost their jobs.
"They've experienced some very severe layoffs in communities we serve," said Denny DeNarvaez, chief executive officer. "When they lose their insurance, they do not come in for physicals, for treadmill tests, for stress tests."
The mild winter also contributed to the drop in patient visits at Abbott Northwestern.
"The mild winter meant we had no flu season at all," DeNarvaez said, noting that the Medicare patient volume was down 11 percent. Typically, the flu sends many Medicare patients into the emergency room.
Posted 24 May 2003 - 10:56 PM
What is the point of just dredging up bad news after bad news? I could do the same for any country, and find much worse things too. I don't know why it bothers you so much, but the US is the best place to live, IMHO. If you expect it to ever be perfect, you've got a long wait.
Posted 25 May 2003 - 12:22 AM
And it is not dredging up every single bad news just major ones that means something.
Usually how to get a job or make money. Right now it looks difficult to find either, at least being on the long side.
Posted 25 May 2003 - 03:26 AM
Tell me this Small Mind, to take a different tact, what country do you consider the best in the world for taking care of it's people? And don't forget about their defense budget when you answer. If we protect them, they don't count. Lemme know.
Posted 25 May 2003 - 07:06 AM
clicked on the relevant section of the other one you would have
found the first one which is a link and more information available.
Had you bothered to take in the games that McFadden revealed
after the Fed, a private monopoly, was only twenty years old
you might expect after 90 years it is likely to be worse. And Enron
and co. have got nothing on this.
Current public bebt of the U.S. is six and half trillion and since
September 2002 the debt is increasing at the rate of 1.13 billion per day, which equates to $22,244.25 per man woman and child.
President Bush wants to reduce taxes. Federal tax is for paying the interest on the debt not the principle which never gets reduced.
If the current economy fundamentals are so good Eric why is
retirement saving evaporating in billion dollar lots?
Just remember while your head is in the sand its easier to get at your wallet.
Posted 25 May 2003 - 09:54 AM
For a while there it was Iraq at the top with Saudi Arabia and some of the other oil countries. When oil prices dropped they all ran out of money and then Iraq dropped off the free services during the Iran-Iraq war and then what ever else they had got bombed to the dark ages. I knew some people who got paid for just going to college.
Posted 25 May 2003 - 09:57 AM
The slave trade did not get abolished, it just changed colors.
Congress completes $984 billion borrowing boost, largest ever
(05-23) 22:39 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
Posted 25 May 2003 - 11:59 AM
This is true. For awhile Iraq was a very progressive country, and enjoyed a promising economy. Hospitals and Universities were built and the people enjoyed a high standard of living. The Iraq/Iran war did take it's toll on the economy due to high debts incurred during the war. The whole conflict with Kuwait was all about money. Saddam accused Kuwait of "economic warfare" for various reasons. The aftermath of the Kuwaiti invasion, with the US intervention and then later the UN sanctions, left Iraq devasted and turned it into a third world country.
Posted 25 May 2003 - 12:34 PM
Saddam invaded Kuwait, I thought, for oil. He also considered the old Iraqui claim that Kuwait was once part of Iraq to be valid.
If economic warfare was considered a justifiable reason for invading a country, then the entire world would be at war.
Posted 25 May 2003 - 12:47 PM
If you are interested, here's a link describing some of the consequences of the Iraq/Iran war leading up to the Kuwaiti invasion. link
To ensure popular backing for the war, Iraq's government used its oil earnings to flood the country with European luxury goods unknown to most Iraqis. One woman recalls her first taste of Camembert cheese came at the start of the Iran-Iraq war.
He also gave cars and homes to people who lost sons or fathers in the war. This is not to defend Saddam, I do believe he ruined his country. I'm by no means a fan! Iraq went from great prosperity to a third world nation in just a couple of decades. How sad for the people there!
Posted 26 May 2003 - 07:53 AM
using for for crimes against humanity. The Iranians know the U.S. used him to try and destroy the Islamic revolution there.
Little wonder the Iraqis dont want Uncle Sam to have a second go
at setting up a leader or show them a better way of life.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users