SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (6070)3/10/2004 9:14:54 AM
From: stockman_scottRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568
 
Kerry Campaign Chair Awards Bush the “Herbert Hoover Award”

March 09, 2004

For Immediate Release
Washington, DC

Today as President Bush handed out awards at the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality awards ceremony, Kerry Campaign Chairwoman Jeanne Shaheen awarded George Bush the “Herbert Hoover Award” for presiding over the worst record on jobs of any president in American history.

“Since the president is handing out awards today, we wanted to give him one,” said Governor Shaheen. “So, on behalf of the nearly 3 million people who have lost their jobs under this administration, we are awarding George Bush the first ever ‘Herbert Hoover Award’ for having the worst jobs record since the Great Depression. It’s a special award reserved for presidents that have somehow managed to lose jobs on their watch. The American people need to know that their president has failed to lead on jobs, and that John Kerry is running for president to change the direction of this economy and get people back to work.”

To view the Herbert Hoover Award, click here:
johnkerry.com


GEORGE W. BUSH: WINNER OF THE “HERBERT HOOVER AWARD” – A RECORD OF FAILURE ON JOBS

BUSH: Worst Job Creation Record Since Hoover. “The economy has lost 2.2 million payroll jobs since January 2001, giving Bush the worst job creation record of any president since Herbert Hoover. The U.S. economy, to match the White House's jobs forecast, would have to churn out well over 220,000 new jobs each month for the rest of the year, economists say.” [Associated Press, 2/11/04]

The Numbers Tell the Story of Failure

ALMOST THREE MILLION: Since George W. Bush took office, America has lost almost 3 million private sector jobs.

EVERY MONTH: Manufacturing jobs have been lost every single month of the Bush Presidency.

ONE MILLION: One million jobs have been outsourced since President Bush took office.

33 PERCENT HIGHER: Unemployment has increased 33 percent since Bush took office.

$10,368. American families will pay 10,368 in interest on the debt by 2014.

George Bush’s Solution: More of the Same, More Broken Promises

Even though George Bush’s economic plan of tax cuts for the wealthy have only led to more job losses, he is offering more of the same: one trillion more in tax cuts targeted to the wealthy and new promises that he cannot meet.

First Tax Cut:
Bush Promise: Will create 800,000 jobs by the end of 2002.
Reality: American lost 1.9 million jobs.

Second Tax Cut:
Bush Promise: Will create 1 million new jobs.
Reality: America lost 53,000 jobs.

New Promise:
Bush Promise: 2.6 million jobs in 2004.
Reality: FED Chairman Alan Greenspan says it’s unlikely.

Nationally, 2.9 Million Jobs Lost; Unemployment Rate Up 33 Percent. The national unemployment rate in January 2004 was 5.6 percent, up from 4.2 percent when Bush took office in January 2001 - a 33 percent increase. Nationally, the economy has lost 2.9 million private sector jobs under Bush. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, bls.gov]

Bush Promised, Then Backed Away From 2.6 New Million Jobs This Year. “Thursday's report also showed that the number of unemployed people collecting jobless benefits for more than a week rose by 106,000 to 3.2 million for the week ending Feb. 7, the most recent period for which that information is available. This suggests that jobs are still hard to find for some workers. The report comes as recent Bush administration comments about the job climate touched a political nerve and raise questions about the White House's economic grasp. President Bush on Wednesday distanced himself from an earlier prediction by his economic advisors that that the economy would add 2.6 million new jobs this year.” [Associated Press, 2/19/04]

One Tenth Needed Jobs Created in February. “About 21,000 jobs were created in February, the Labor Department said yesterday, a sixth the size of economists' forecasts. The unemployment rate remained at 5.6 percent as 392,000 people dropped out of the labor force, just as the presidential campaign kicked into high gear. The Labor Department, which originally estimated an increase of 112,000 jobs in January, also revised that number downward, to 97,000.” [Baltimore Sun, 3/6/04]

Nationally, Nearly 2.8 Million Manufacturing Jobs Lost Under Bush. The manufacturing industry has lost 2,787,000 jobs nationwide since Bush took office in January 2001. Employment for this key sector of the American economy is at its lowest level since October 1958. Of the 2.9 million private sector jobs lost under Bush, manufacturing losses account for 95 percent. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, bls.gov]

Nationally, Workers’ Wages and Salaries Are Stagnant. In the third quarter of 2003, America's gross domestic product surged at a rate of 8.2 percent and corporate profits grew at an annual rate above 40 percent. But during this same period, wages and salaries grew by less than 1 percent. Furthermore, in the six months that ended in November 2003, income from wages rose just 0.65 percent after inflation. [Department of Commerce, 12/23/03; New York Times, 12/31/03; Charleston Gazette (West Virginia), 1/2/04]

Bush Presided Over “Biggest Gusher of Red Ink In History.” ”President George W. Bush has now presided over the biggest gusher of red ink in the nation's history, from a surplus of $127 billion when he entered office for fiscal 2001 to a 2004 deficit projection of $521 billion. …” [Business Week Online, 2/3/04]

Think Tanks Predicts Debt of $5.3 Trillion in Ten Years. “In a study of budget trends, the Brookings Institution said the national debt will increase by $5.3 trillion over the next decade, so that by 2014 the increase in government borrowing will cost the average household in America an extra $3,000 just to pay interest on the debt. … If the tax cuts are made permanent as Bush wants, the Congressional Budget Office says that could increase the deficit by another $1.4 trillion over the next decade.” [Chicago Tribune, 2/8/04]

Nationally, 3.5 Million More Americans Have Fallen Into Poverty Under Bush. In 2002, the number of Americans living in poverty increased to 34.6 million. Three-and-a-half million more Americans live in poverty under Bush. For 2002, a family with two parents and two children lives in poverty if their total household income is below $18,244. [Census Bureau, Poverty in the United States: 2002, Table 4, census.gov]

Bush Proposed to Eliminate Overtime for 8 Million Workers. Bush proposed regulations that would end eligibility for overtime pay—a critical source of income—for 8 million workers by reclassifying them as managers, administrative workers or professional employees. In addition, Bush's Department of Labor issued advice to companies in its explanation of the proposal on strategies to avoid paying overtime. Among these were cutting workers' base pay to subtract extra overtime pay costs and cutting workers' hours to strictly enforce a 40 hour work week. The non-partisan Economic Policy Institute called the proposal “pure special-interest politics with complete disregard for the democratic process.” [Akron Beacon -Journal, 12/5/03; EPI, 7/03, www.epi.org; New York Times, 7/1/03; AP, 1/6/04]

Republicans Say Larger Spending Increases Than Democrats. “[Reporter David GREGORY]: But the deficit and the Bush record of annual spending increases--larger than any since Lyndon Johnson was in the White House--has created a potent election-year issue for Democrats. … The real political trouble for the president is that it's not just Democrats piling on, but even conservatives. Rush Limbaugh delivered this stinging blow to his radio audience Thursday.
Mr. RUSH LIMBAUGH: Bush has outspent Clinton.

GREGORY: Spending--like Mr. Bush's plan to send a man to Mars, and his projected 17 percent budget increase for the national endowment for the arts--has the president's political base agitated. Both are seen as outreach efforts to swing voters, but allies warn it could backfire on Election Day.” [NBC Nightly News, 1/30/04]
Small Businesses Shutting Down. In fact, for the first time since 1990, more businesses with more than one and fewer than 500 employees shut down in 2001 and 2002 than were created, according to the Small Business Administration's most recent data.

Bush Eliminates Key Part of Small Business Loan Program—First Time in 50 Years. “The Bush administration's recently released federal budget is a travesty for small business. In the whopping $2.4 trillion budget, the Small Business Administration gets a measly $678.4 million — a decrease of $119.5 million, or 15%, from last year’s already low level.

Here are some ways President Bush's budget slashes small-business assistance:
Entirely eliminates the Microloan Program.

Reduces government guarantees from 75% to 50% and increases fees on the SBA 7(a) loan program.
Reduces funding for Small Business Development Centers.
Slashes the Manufacturing Extension Partnership from $106 million to a paltry $39 million.
‘This would be the first time in the 50-year history of SBA that zero appropriations would be provided the 7(a) program,’ said Anthony R. Wilkinson, president of the National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders — a group of private-industry bankers. It will be much more difficult — and costly — for entrepreneurs to qualify for SBA loans. Keep in mind these programs are highly successful and cost efficient. In fact, there's solid evidence that SBA loans and SBDC assistance result in increased tax revenues. …During the last decade, small business has become an even more important part of the American economy. Indeed, if it weren't for the jobs created by small business, the American employment picture would be far more dismal than it is. Virtually every study of new job creation shows that it's small and new companies — not big or existing businesses — creating jobs. A 2003 Census study found most job growth came from companies less than 2 years old.” [Rhonda Abrams Money column, USA Today, 2/14/03 (author of The Successful Business Plan: Secrets & Strategies)]



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (6070)3/10/2004 9:35:43 AM
From: stockman_scottRespond to of 81568
 
Outsourcing's long-term effects on U.S. jobs at issue

seattlepi.nwsource.com



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (6070)3/10/2004 9:52:14 AM
From: stockman_scottRespond to of 81568
 
Is Recovery Without Jobs Now the Norm?
______________

By Don Lee
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 10, 2004

For months, economists have been reassuring Americans that the employment market drought will soon end.

With corporate profits surging and economic indicators improving, they said, it won't be long before there is a downpour of jobs. After all, history shows that strong economic growth is quickly followed by robust job creation.

With this recovery, that still hasn't happened. Most economists aren't ready to throw out the history books, but the release month after month of disappointing payroll-gains reports has raised troubling questions about whether there has been a profound change in the way the U.S. economy operates: With advances in technology, rising productivity rates and the outsourcing of work to foreign countries, more economic activity won't translate into more jobs.

"I'm growing increasingly suspicious that something more fundamental may be happening to the job market and the economy," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com, a research and consulting firm in West Chester, Pa.

The government's latest employment report showed that employers nationwide added a puny 21,000 nonfarm jobs to payrolls in February. The California jobs report for last month, due this Friday, is likely to be as grim.

The jobless recovery, nearly 2 1/2 years old, has gone on too long to be called an anomaly or a blip, Zandi said. "Even if the economy finds its way and creates jobs," he added, this strange time will be remembered as "part of economic lore."

If the past pattern of growth no longer holds, the implications are enormous.

Of course, for would-be entrants to the labor market, and the 8.2 million Americans who are officially jobless, the specter of fast economic growth without much hiring is discouraging. And on the political front, the lack of new jobs is weighing on President Bush's reelection bid.

But economists have another concern: If hiring remains sluggish for several more months, it could dampen consumer spending, which has been a major stimulant for the economy. The recovery, then, could be derailed.

At this point, most analysts don't see that happening. "Our view is still that it's not a question of whether but when the job recovery will take place," said Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Banc of America Capital Management in St. Louis.

Some say it might already be happening. They contend that the chief monthly Labor Department report understates the gains because the agency surveys establishments that have one or more workers on the payroll. The agency counts the self-employed in a separate survey of households. And in fact, the household reports suggest that there has been more employment growth than the payroll reports indicate.

Most economists agree that the next few months will tell whether there has been a temporary or a permanent shift in the relationship between economic and job growth. There are, after all, short-term factors to consider: Employers are still feeling a bit unsure about the recovery, for example, and they have tax incentives to invest more in equipment and capital rather than labor.

The last recession officially ended in November 2001. And in recent months, the nation's broadest measure of economic output, gross domestic product, has been on a tear.

Real GDP grew at an average annual rate of 6% in the second half of last year and probably has slowed only slightly in the first quarter. Business spending is rising, as are U.S. exports, and low interest rates and federal tax cuts have added plenty of juice to the economy.

At the same time, by the Labor Department's tally, nonfarm employers in the United States added an average of 60,000 jobs a month since August — an annual growth rate of about 0.5% and about one-third of what economists had been projecting.

Compare that to the economic recovery of a decade ago: In that business cycle, the recession ended in March 1991 and it wasn't until about a year later that GDP growth shot up to about 4%. But the rapid growth was accompanied by accelerating payroll increases.

By 1993, the U.S. economy was on its way to creating about 230,000 jobs every month.

One explanation for the difference between then and now is increased productivity. Businesses can produce more with fewer employees because they are squeezing ever more output per hour from their workers.

At nonfarm businesses, productivity rose by 4.2% last year, after a jump of 4.9% in 2002 — marking the best back-to-back improvement in more than 50 years.

In the fourth quarter, productivity slowed to a rate of 2.7%, leading economists to believe that employers would have little choice but to ramp up hiring. But a look at the paltry jobs gains in February suggests productivity may have picked back up again, BofA's Reaser said.

"Structurally, productivity growth does appear to be running at higher rates than the past; that's a fundamental change taking place in the economy," Reaser said.

Another big change is corporate America's increasing willingness to outsource white-collar jobs, whether it's farming out bookkeeping to an independent contractor in another state or shifting entire call centers or software development to India, a subset of outsourcing known as offshoring.

In the case of offshoring, U.S. companies generate jobs that don't count in the Labor Department tally. And when companies outsource, some of the work ends up being performed by freelancers, independent contractors and others who are self-employed and therefore don't hold "payroll" jobs.

Big companies such as GE Capital and IBM have been outsourcing for years. And small firms have been taking a page from their playbook.

Stephen Roach, chief economist at Morgan Stanley, has argued that offshoring is a big culprit in the jobless recovery. Roach said a "global labor arbitrage" had turned the labor market upside down, and may be indicative of a "fundamental breakdown in the time-honored relationship between aggregate demand and employment."

Ken Gaebler, president of Walker Sands Communications, a Chicago-based marketing company, said business had jumped 20% since the second half of 2003, helping lift revenue last year to just under $1 million. He hasn't, however, added a single person to the three-member payroll, instead handing the extra work to contractors, some in Ukraine.

Gaebler also said he had a reluctance to hire: He ran a dot-com company that went under in 2001, and he had to fire 100 people.

"Our mode is not to hire in advance of the business — or even if the business doesn't stick around for a while," he said.

Multiply Gaebler's experience by tens of thousands of other managers, and there could be another explanation for the jobless recovery.

Edward Leamer, director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast, said many firms in the roaring 1999-2000 period went on a hiring binge, "basically hiring everybody who crawled on the street." So, he said, it's taken longer to "work off the fat."

Even accounting for that, Leamer said he was surprised that there hadn't been a turnaround by now.

"Everybody's been thinking tomorrow," he said, "and tomorrow never seems to come."

latimes.com



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (6070)3/10/2004 10:55:25 AM
From: American SpiritRespond to of 81568
 
Bush can't talk about jobs, he's the worst ever.
What's worse for hm is the greatest jobs losses have been in key mid-western battleground states, especially Ohio.