THE ECONOMY and jobs. democrats have no clue

[rainstorm]

Wednesday, February 18, 2004
LET'S TALK ABOUT "YOUR" JOBS

Jobs .. and the economy. Those seem to be the issues that are driving many, if not most, of those who are supporting the Kerry candidacy.

First of all ... I'm going to repeat this simply because it makes the whiners so unbelievably angry. Listen up. They're not your jobs! The jobs belong to the employers .. not to you! You have job skills and, presumably, a willingness to work. Your task in a free economy is to get out there and find some employer with a job who needs your skills ... and strike a deal.

If you do not have the particular set of job skills that an employer needs, of if you have priced your labor out of the marketplace, guess what? It's not the employer's fault. The fault lies with you. Either develop a new set of job skills that are actually in demand, or adjust your pricing. The employer knows what he's looking for you. If you're not it .. it's your problem, not his.

Now ... you say you're going to vote for a Democrat this year because of jobs? You mean to tell me that you're going to vote against George Bush this year because you don't have a set of job skills that are in demand in our free marketplace? Yeah .. that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

Tell me. Just what do you want the president to do? You information technology people out there .. just what are you demanding? Do you want companies to stop outsourcing IT jobs to India? OK ... tell me how to do that. These companies aren't shipping parts overseas and completed products back. All they do is ship information overseas by phone lines or the Internet. Then that information is modified and shipped back the same way. What do you want the government .. the president to do? Do you want some federal law that prohibits companies from transmitting information overseas by the Internet, having that information transformed or modified, and then shipped back? And tell me just how do you enforce that law? Does that law then apply to you also if you seek information from a company that is located overseas, thus depriving a domestic company of your business?

Ditto for manufacturing. I've already told you the story about the California company that makes computer mouses. (computer mice?) This company ships the components to China. The mouse is assembled in China and shipped back, then sold for around $40. Why? Because the assembly is cheaper in China than it would be in the US. So, you say you want the president to force this company to have that mouse assembled in the US? Fine .. then the price for the mouse goes up to about $70 a pop and sales drop. As the sales drop the jobs of the people in this country who manufacture the components for that mouse go away. Then the 100 marketing jobs this company supports in California also go away. You see, perhaps you can succeed in forcing this company to assemble these mouses in the US, but there just isn't any way you can force the American consumer to pay 80% more for the "made in America" version.

As Bruce Bartlett says in an article listed in my reading assignments, "No nation has ever gotten rich by forcing its citizens to pay more for domestic goods and services that could have been procured more cheaply abroad."

What we are seeing here is a demonstration of the "government owes me" mentality of far too many Americans. Every time you arrive at a speed bump in your life's journey you start screaming to the government for help. Sure, the speed bump is going to slow you down a bit ... but just keep moving forward and things inevitably pick up speed again. Americans are becoming helpless whiners. The more helpless you are, and the more you whine, the more likely it is you're going to vote for a Democrat. Democrats specialize in stroking the malcontent.

Congratulations, whiners. At a time when America if fighting World War IV, the war against Islamic terrorism ... you're going to vote for a candidate who wants to treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem because you've made some pitiful jobs choices. Pitiful.
http://www.boortz.com

[stormchazer]

I could not say it any better.

[blizzard]

Where I agree with some of what that cut and paste article says.... It is leaving out a major point as to why we are losing jobs here in the good ool' US of A. Tariffs, period. We have little to no tariffs on impoted goods, so the imported goods can be sold cheaper, becasue they are made cheaper (and not only price wise). And on the other hand, our exports get the heck tariffed out of them. Now where is the reasoning behind that?

[rainstorm]

who said we are losing jobs. at last check, the current 5.6% unemployment rate is less than the 5.8% avg during the 8 clinton years. dems werent complaining about jobs and unemployment then.
as far as tariffs go, they are bad. if other countries want to keep our goods out, it is only hurting them.
it would do no good at all for us to keep low cost goods out of this country.

[Lindaloo]

Well I am not real happy with Haley Barbour right now. He has cut the budget on education in this state. Which will mean laying off 3,000 teachers and eliminating programs. Right now it is affecting my son's High School band and the football team.

[blizzard]

who said we are losing jobs. at last check, the current 5.6% unemployment rate is less than the 5.8% avg during the 8 clinton years. dems werent complaining about jobs and unemployment then.
as far as tariffs go, they are bad. if other countries want to keep our goods out, it is only hurting them.
it would do no good at all for us to keep low cost goods out of this country.

That unemployment rate is a farce. That rate is stating the amount of "new" claims for unemployment, it does not take into account those that have exhausted their benefits. And in this area, we are still "losing jobs" at an alarming rate. And those jobs that are being created are not even paying a "living wage" most of the time. NAFTA was a big mistake in that it contributed in the loss of many many jobs for Americans. Adding Bush's plan for illegals, it is just going to increase the jobless rate exponentially due to the fact that they will take their wages back to their homeland to spend it, and reduce our economy that much more, thus creating more jobs lost. This is JMO, not a quote from any other source.

[rainstorm]

how did nafta cause the loss of jobs?

[rainstorm]

Well I am not real happy with Haley Barbour right now. He has cut the budget on education in this state. Which will mean laying off 3,000 teachers and eliminating programs. Right now it is affecting my son's High School band and the football team.

and thats exactly the reason govt spending will never be brought under control. i admire politicians that take hard steps. i personaaly think the fed govt should cut budgets 5% across the board. of course, people would be screaming bloody murder.

[blizzard]

how did nafta cause the loss of jobs?

huh??
US corporations moving their operations to Mexico for one. Because the taxes and wages they pay down there are less than what they would have to pay here, thereby increasing their profits.

[rainstorm]

The Effects of NAFTA on Exports, Jobs, and the Environment: Myth vs. Reality
by Sara J. Fitzgerald
Backgrounder #1462


August 1, 2001| |



The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which the United States implemented with Canada and Mexico in 1994, has benefited Americans substantially, according to U.S. government data. It has increased exports, expanded U.S. agriculture, improved environmental standards at home and abroad, and given Americans higher-paying jobs. Yet critics of free trade continue to assert the opposite: that NAFTA has resulted in fewer U.S. exports, cost American jobs, and jeopardized the environment. The data clearly refute these claims.

Myth: NAFTA has diminished U.S. exports
Critics often claim that America has gained little from NAFTA. For example, theUnited Auto Workers has stated that "NAFTA has been a disaster." 1 This is not true.

Reality: U.S. exports to America's NAFTA partners have vastly outpaced U.S. exports to the rest of the world
As U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick points out, "U.S. exports to our NAFTA partners increased 104 percent between 1993 and 2000; U.S. trade with the rest of the world grew only half as fast." 2

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, "During 1993-1998, U.S. goods and services exports to the world rose by approximately 45 percent (goods exports increased by nearly 47 percent). During the same period, exports of goods and services supported an additional 1.6 million jobs (to a total of 11.6 million in 1998)." 3 Moreover:

America's NAFTA partners were Missouri's top export markets in 1998, with exports of $1.6 billion to Canada and $1.2 billion to Mexico, according to the Commerce Department. They were also the top two export markets for Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania in 1998. 4
"Sales of U.S. corn to Canada increased more than 127 percent in volume between 1990 and 2000 and increased nearly eighteenfold to Mexico during 1993 to 2000," according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which adds that "NAFTA partners purchase 27 percent of U.S. agricultural exports." 5
U.S. exports to Mexico of motor vehicles in 1998 were 14 times greater than in 1993, rising to $2.4 billion. Exports of parts were 30 percent greater, reaching $9.5 billion. 6
Myth: NAFTA has cost American jobs
Representative David Bonior (D-MI) is among critics of NAFTA who claim that "hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs have been lost" because of the agreement. 7 This is false.

Reality: NAFTA has led to more higher-paying jobs for Americans
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported that more people lose their jobs each year from labor strikes than from import competition. 8 Moreover:

After a five-year analysis of NAFTA, the Department of Commerce concluded:
We estimate U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico support over 600,000 more jobs now than in 1993. U.S. exports to Canada support an estimated 1.7 million jobs, over 300,000 more jobs than in 1993. Exports to Mexico in 1998 supported almost a million jobs, up over 350,000 jobs from 1993. Jobs supported by exports pay 13 to 16 percent more than other U.S. jobs. 9

Bureau of Labor Statistics data confirm that "Total employment in the U.S. motor vehicle industry has grown five times faster following NAFTA that in the years prior to the Agreement." 10
U.S. unemployment has declined significantly since NAFTA was signed. For example, U.S. unemployment in 1992 stood at 7.5 percent; today, it is 4.5 percent. 11
Myth: NAFTA is not environmentally friendly
Representative Bonior also claims that "Since NAFTA, factories have moved to Mexico to take advantage of cheap labor and lax environmental standards." 12 This claim also is not borne out by the facts.

Reality: NAFTA's side agreements on the environment have focused public attention on environmental problems and have helped to finance solutions
According to Tiahoga Ruge of the North American Centre for Environmental Information and Communication, "NAFTA has brought the environment into the mainstream in Mexico, as something to be taken seriously." 13 NAFTA's side agreements have focused attention on significant environmental concerns:

Since NAFTA was implemented, Mexico has taken the initiative to pass environmental laws similar to those of the United States and
Canada.
The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), NAFTA's supplemental agreement on the environment, promotes development through mutually supportive environmental and economic policies. It also created the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) to protect, conserve, and improve the environment.
The NAFTA agreements also created the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADB). The BECC assists border communities in addressing environmental concerns and certifies environmental projects. The NADB uses private and public funding to finance BECC projects.
According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, since the NADB's establishment in 1995, it "has approved a total of $105 million in loans, guarantees, [and] grants to help finance 14 environmental projects benefiting over four million residents on both sides of the [U.S.-Mexico] border." 14
As a result of one BECC-NADB project in the Lower Valley of El Paso, Texas, 2,600 households will be connected to a wastewater treatment system this year, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. 15
Thanks to another wastewater treatment project in Mexico, 93 percent of the residents in the city of Ciudad Juarez will have sewage services. Without NAFTA, this probably would not have occurred.
Conclusion
According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, "we trade $1.8 billion a day with our NAFTA partners--that's $1.2 million a minute." 16 As U.S. government data indicate, without NAFTA, the United States would have lower-paying jobs and would export less, and Mexico and the United States would have lower environmental standards.

Congress has the opportunity to expand the benefits of trade agreements like NAFTA--which was passed with bipartisan support--to other countries by granting the President trade promotion authority (TPA) this session. Such trade agreements stimulate innovation and opportunity, both of which will bring the citizens of the United States and its trading partners many benefits.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick points out that "NAFTA and the Uruguay Round [of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] have boosted the annual income and lowered the cost of purchases for an average family of four by $1,300 to $2,000." 17 New trade agreements can only add to the income and savings of American families and encourage sound economic and environmental policies among its partners. Nothing less than prosperity is at stake.

[rainstorm]

how did nafta cause the loss of jobs?

huh??
US corporations moving their operations to Mexico for one. Because the taxes and wages they pay down there are less than what they would have to pay here, thereby increasing their profits.

whats wrong with profits? you still havent said anything that says jobs have been lost because of nafta. free trade always promotes economic growth, even bill clinton, who signed nafta into law, realized that.

[blizzard]

"NAFTA FACTS": FIRST NAFTA RESULTS SHOW JOB LOSSES FOR AMERICANS
THE OFFICIAL NUMBERS DON'T ADD UP
The public has recently been misinformed by the Department
of Commerce and media reports that distort the facts. The
official Department of Commerce trade data for the first six
months of NAFTA reveal a net loss of more than 21,000 jobs for
American workers, and not their bogus claim of a 100,000 net job
gain in their six month report on NAFTA (released August 18,
1994), NAFTA Facts: Summary of Trade Trends Under NAFTA:
January-June, 1994.
The major daily newspapers never bothered to check the
Department's own numbers and arithmetic. They uncritically
accepted and promulgated these new "Nafta Facts". Included among
them were: The Los Angeles Times, "NAFTA--Glad We Met Ya", Aug.
20,1994 (lead editorial); the Washington Post, two articles by
Hobart Rowen and Peter Behr, Aug. 21, 1994; and a Wall Street
Journal article by Patrick Lucey, ambassador to Mexico, Aug.
30,1994.
If you perform the proper calculations from the data in the
Department of Commerce report, you will see that the U.S. balance
of trade deficit with our NAFTA partners in the first six months
of 1994 worsened by about $1.1 billion. That is to say that
growth in our imports from NAFTA partners out-paced growth in our
exports to them by $1.1 billion. How 100,000 new jobs were
created by a worsening balance of trade deficit is a mystery not
explained by the Commerce Department or by the press. The reason
is that they simply got it wrong.
The "trade-employment multiplier" calculated by pro-NAFTA
economist Gary Hufbauer and Jeffery Schott is 19,600 American
jobs (increase or decrease) for each $1 billion change (increase
or decrease) in the balance of trade with our NAFTA trading
partners. Thus, the deterioration in the U.S. trade balance with
Mexico and Canada of $1.1 billion during the first six months of
the agreement resulted in the loss of 21,560 jobs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


U.S.NAFTA Balance of Trade Summary
Jan-June, 1993 vs. Jan-June, 1994
($ Billions)
United States 1993 1994 Change
Exports to Canada 50.8 55.6 4.8
Exports to Mexico 20.9 24.5 3.6
Exports to NAFTA 71.7 80.1 8.4


Imports from Canada 55.9 61.4 5.5
Imports from Mexico 19.4 23.4 4.0
Imports from NAFTA 75.3 84.8 9.5


Balance of Trade -3.6 -4.7 -1.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Source: "Summary of Trade Trends Under NAFTA: Jan.-Jun.,
1994", U.S. Department of Commerce, 8/18/94.


On October 28, 1994, The Wall Street Journal published a
twelve page review of NAFTA. The section included two articles
of interest, one by NAFTA's renowned econometrician Hufbauer who
was curiously silent about the Commerce 100,000 job gain and
another by Jeff Faux, a NAFTA opponent, who correctly reported a
net loss of more than 20,000 American jobs.
Had the Department of Commerce, the press, and pro-NAFTA
"economists" properly fulfilled their civic and professional
duties, their headlines would have read, "First NAFTA Results
Show Job Losses for Americans." It appears that we are a long
way from the promised 170,000 new jobs to be created by NAFTA by
1995. Already, we can hear the "sucking sound."
***************************************

I found out that i can cut and paste too..... Anyone's views can be substatiated by a search of the internet. But then you think, well, who is right. Well, I can tell you from first hand experience, that NAFTA has caused job losses. You have not proven that it has created gains. (To you I am sure I have not proven anything either, but that's OK with me.)

[Lindaloo]

Well Haley Barbour is a well known supporter of NAFTA. So with that I will say NUFF said on his position to cut back on education.

Teachers in MS are already underpaid. What a slap in the face to them as well.

[blizzard]

I agree 100% Linda, cutting the wages of teachers is the last thing they should be doing. Now, cutting the wages of the administrators, heck yes. They usually get paid an amount equal to 5 or 6 times the wages of the teachers in their district. Maybe even more. And their interaction with the students is slim to none.

[Lindaloo]

He is doing more than cutting their wages this time. He is laying them off and to me that is unnacceptable.

I am an Independant and I always vote Republican. But in this case with Haley Barbour I voted for the Conservative Democrat Ronnie Musgrove. Hope all who voted for that militant Republican in this state are happy now.

[blizzard]

You are right, laying them off is repulsive. Now instead of 25 pupils per teacher, there will more than likely be 25 per teacher. So much for quality education. Hope things can get turned around.

[blizzard]

White House backs off Job-Growth Forecast

TERENCE HUNT

Associated Press


WASHINGTON - The White House backed away Wednesday from its own prediction that the economy will add 2.6 million new jobs before the end of this year, saying the forecast was the work of number-crunchers and that President Bush was not a statistician.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan, asked repeatedly about the forecast, declined to embrace the prediction which was contained in the annual economic report of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

Unemployment and the slow pace of job creation are political liabilities for Bush as he heads into a battle for re-election. Despite strong economic growth, the nation has lost about 2.2 million jobs since he became president.
The jobs forecast was the second economic flap in recent days for the White House. Last week, Bush was forced to distance himself from White House economist N. Gregory Mankiw's assertion that the loss of U.S. jobs overseas has long-term benefits for the U.S. economy.

Asked about the 2.6 million jobs forecast, McClellan said, "The president is interested in actual jobs being created rather than economic modeling."

He quoted Bush as saying, "I'm not a statistician. I'm not a predictor."

"We are interested in reality," McClellan said

He said the annual economic report was based on data from about three months ago. Since then, Bush has said that things are improving.

The issue arose at the White House after Treasury Secretary John W. Snow and Commerce Secretary Don Evans declined to endorse the jobs prediction and said it was based on economic assumptions that have an inherent margin of error. They spoke during a tour through Oregon and Washington to promote the president's economic agenda.

"The number-crunchers will do their job. The president's job is to make sure we're creating as robust an environment as possible for job-creation," McClellan said. "That's where his focus is."

"This is economic modeling. ... some have said it would be lower," he said.

"The president has said he is not a statistician. He is most concerned about whether people are hurting and able to find jobs," McClellan said.

"The economy is moving in the right direction ... but there is more to do," he said.

[j]

Just some things to ponder before you get all over NAFTA. Did you enjoy the DVD player you recently bought at WalMart for $59? How about any number of other electronic items that you are purchasing dirt cheap? You can kiss these bargains goodbye w/o NAFTA.

So....besides the exports that have increased due to NAFTA, we are also enjoying the benefits of imports at very attractive pricing.

[blizzard]

Just some things to ponder before you get all over NAFTA. Did you enjoy the DVD player you recently bought at WalMart for $59? How about any number of other electronic items that you are purchasing dirt cheap? You can kiss these bargains goodbye w/o NAFTA.

So....besides the exports that have increased due to NAFTA, we are also enjoying the benefits of imports at very attractive pricing.

May be attractive prices, but shoddy workmanship. Does that DVD player last very long?? How about that other piece of electronic equipment you bought for dirt cheap. Chances are they will not last as long as that unit you bought ten or fifteen years ago that's still going strong. ANd besides, when all the jobs are gone, who's gonna buy that stuff and with what money? And, no I'm not saying that all the jobs will be gone. But they are leaving.

You get what you pay for ...."Cheap Merchandise"

And.....how many of those attractive priced DVD players are manufactured in Canada or Mexico??

[j]

Well...I've had my DVD player I got at Best Buy now for 15 months. I bought it to use on the porch. It was an after Thanksgiving Day sale and I got it for $39. If it tears up...so what..I'll throw it away.

In principal I agree with NAFTA and the whole free trade practice. I want to keep illegals out, not the products we import from them.