Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Tomorrow's jobs report

  1. #1
    This # is gonna have a huge impact on who gets elected. Last months # sucked after 4-5 mos. of really good #'s. Tomorrow should tell us if last month was an anomally or if the economy really is slowing. Anyhow my question for the Bush bashers is what are you rooting for ? A good # which probably means 4 more years of Bush, or a bad # which gives Kerry a big time edge. Sorry if this is a loaded question, but I really think this # could be the deciding factor in the election.

  2. #2
    to be honest i want good numbers, and i hate Bush.

    This has been the worst labor market of my lifetime, and I really really hope it gets better.

    To be fair these job numbers aren't REALLY traced to who is in power, even though everyone loves to relate them that way. Alan Greenspan has far more influence, but i would venture most Americans don't know who he is..

    So to answer the question if the numbers come out and they are down that would be bad for everyone... so im a Bush hater who desperately wants the economy to pick up.

  3. #3
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    The number doesn't mean anything unless it is really skewed, one way or the other. If it favors Bush they will run with it and vice-versa for Kerry. Not that most Americans make their decisions based on data.

    Personally, I hope the job numbers are horrible. Not because I hate America, but because I do want Bush ass out of office and because I don't want these rediculous policies to continue. Trickle-down economics doesn't work in the long-term. I don't want to see some short-term gains and get Bush re-elected.

  4. #4
    Good answer Bitoni, seriously. I disagree w/ the worst job mkt of your lifetime, but glad to see you put the well being of the economy over your personnal feelings toward Bush. And yes, it's not fair to credit/blame a president for the economy but we do it anyway.

  5. #5
    im 26... when was it worse?

    what is the biggest killer is all this asset appreciation of the last few years that has given people all this equity to borrow against ... now a guy like me not only can't i find a decent job but if i find one, can't buy a house unless it's in the sticks

    im not blaming the president but i am calling it like i see it: a great buyer's market for labor in a nation where prices are only going up.

  6. #6
    [quote][i]Originally posted by kevin45[/i]@Sep 2 2004, 12:23 PM
    [b] Good answer Bitoni, seriously. I disagree w/ the worst job mkt of your lifetime, but glad to see you put the well being of the economy over your personnal feelings toward Bush. And yes, it's not fair to credit/blame a president for the economy but we do it anyway. [/b][/quote]
    He must be pretty young if this is the worst jobs market of his lifetime. With unemployment at a 5.5 % is better then the average of the 90's. Of course most of those jobs are low paying wall mart jobs right bit.

    As far as the jobs number is concerned Kevin, dont forget that theres 2 more numbers before the election. A bad number might hurt the prez a bit but the election is not riding solely on that.

  7. #7
    the problem is that prices went up on all sorts of things... yes the 7.5% in 1992 is worse than the ~6% of today... but the dollar is in the toilet and while inflation isn't crazy, the purchasing power of the dollar has decreased... in 1992 there were more companies that had not consolidated with their competition, less technology solutions where systems take the place of people, and far less white collar outsourcing... i would seriously argue that it was better to be unemployed in 1992, cause at least if you found a job you could do something with it... how is a guy like me gonna get out from under a ton of student loan debt, get a place to live and start my life in a housing market on steroids... i mean yeah it was great for you guys when the shanty purchased in 1990 for 250,000 is now worth a million, but where does that leave people just arriving at the party?

    ****sville, that's where. we are becoming a nation of 30 year olds living in their parent's basement... look no further than long island for the tip of the trend.

  8. #8
    [url=http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt]http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt[/url]

    Historically 5.5% is very good. Not sure of the exact #, but it's very close to the avg. of Clinton's first term. But in your lifetime (not counting the 70's & 80's since that would be nitpicking) 5.5% is better than Aug91-Nov94.

    A bad # tomorrow wouldn't be a death blow to Bush, but it would give Kerry a HUGE edge. It would make it very hard for Bush to refute any claims by the Kerry camp that the economy is regressing. Both sides have not been focussing on the economy the past few weeks, but that will change tomorrow.

    And I do really feel for bad for anyone your age starting out. I'm 32, and bought my house 4 years ago. I could not afford to buy it at todays prices. But home ownership is at an all time high and thats not a bad thing.

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [quote][b]the problem is that prices went up on all sorts of things... yes the 7.5% in 1992 is worse than the ~6% of today... but the dollar is in the toilet and while inflation isn't crazy, the purchasing power of the dollar has decreased... in 1992 there were more companies that had not consolidated with their competition, less technology solutions where systems take the place of people, and far less white collar outsourcing... i would seriously argue that it was better to be unemployed in 1992, cause at least if you found a job you could do something with it... how is a guy like me gonna get out from under a ton of student loan debt, get a place to live and start my life in a housing market on steroids... i mean yeah it was great for you guys when the shanty purchased in 1990 for 250,000 is now worth a million, but where does that leave people just arriving at the party?

    ****sville, that's where. we are becoming a nation of 30 year olds living in their parent's basement... look no further than long island for the tip of the trend.
    [/b][/quote]

    I'm lucky I bought 2 years ago. I know a lot of people who are forced to rent because they missed the window. My house is in a pretty bad area of D.C. and houses are now selling near $1 million. A lot of people in the D.C. area are buying in West Virginia just to find something they can afford. (Or paying 400K for a 1 bedroom condo.)

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [quote][b]A bad # tomorrow wouldn't be a death blow to Bush, but it would give Kerry a HUGE edge. It would make it very hard for Bush to refute any claims by the Kerry camp that the economy is regressing. Both sides have not been focussing on the economy the past few weeks, but that will change tomorrow.
    [/b][/quote]

    Have you watched any of the RNC? Cheney is the only one who talked about the economy and that was for 5 seconds. The topic is Terror Terror Terror. They already have no leg to stand on, but it doesn't seem to matter.

  11. #11
    Thats what I said. They have NOT been focussing on the economy. Neither side is gonna stick their neck out and say something foolish before tomorrow's # . And if it is good, 6 out of the last 7 months will have been good so please tell me how the Rep.'s would have no leg to stand on ?

  12. #12
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Greenwich Village, NY
    Posts
    2,243
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Sep 2 2004, 12:18 PM
    [b] I don't want these rediculous policies to continue. Trickle-down economics doesn't work in the long-term. I don't want to see some short-term gains and get Bush re-elected. [/b][/quote]
    Care to explain? What policies are ridiculos exactly? Why don't trickle down eceomic work in the long run? BTW, fiscal policy is not supposed to work in the long run, they are short run tools.

  13. #13
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [quote][b]Care to explain? What policies are ridiculos exactly? Why don't trickle down eceomic work in the long run? BTW, fiscal policy is not supposed to work in the long run, they are short run tools.
    [/b][/quote]

    [b]What policies are rediculous?[/b]
    The largest tax cuts ever (mainly for the rich.)
    Going from the largest surplus to having the largest defecit ever.
    Giving no-bid contracts to Halliburton and other contractors.

    [b]Why don't trickle down eceomic work in the long run?[/b]
    They didn't work for Reagan and don't appear to be working very well now.

    [b]Fiscal policy is not supposed to work in the long run, they are short run tools.[/b]
    I hope you don't make any investments with that mentality. I tell you what, you give me $10 and in a few weeks I'll give you $30. Now, in a year you will owe me $300. How does that sound?

  14. #14
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Greenwich Village, NY
    Posts
    2,243
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Sep 2 2004, 01:27 PM
    [b] [quote][b]Care to explain? What policies are ridiculos exactly? Why don't trickle down eceomic work in the long run? BTW, fiscal policy is not supposed to work in the long run, they are short run tools.
    [/b][/quote]

    [b]What policies are rediculous?[/b]
    The largest tax cuts ever (mainly for the rich.)
    Going from the largest surplus to having the largest defecit ever.
    Giving no-bid contracts to Halliburton and other contractors.

    [b]Why don't trickle down eceomic work in the long run?[/b]
    They didn't work for Reagan and don't appear to be working very well now.

    [b]Fiscal policy is not supposed to work in the long run, they are short run tools.[/b]
    I hope you don't make any investments with that mentality. I tell you what, you give me $10 and in a few weeks I'll give you $30. Now, in a year you will owe me $300. How does that sound? [/b][/quote]
    a) Without the rhetoric, what policies have proven they don't work? Obviously, any tax cut will benefit the rich more. I don't see how that is a problem. Do you think that raising taxes is really going to stimulate the economy?

    The surplus vanished for many reasons: an overheated economy, a terrorist attack that probably cost in the trillions, corporate abuse, 2 wars. To blame this on Bush is wrong. I realize you dont like they guy, but try to view things from more than an anti bush angle

    While I'm no expert on government contracts, I don't believe this administration has awarded government contracts any differently than any other in the past. There aren't amny companies that are in the business' that HAL is. If there was no Cheney connection, this wouldn't be an issue and HAL would still ahve been awarded the contracts.

    B) How did they no work well for reagan? Please explain? What exactly didnt work well.

    C) Do you know what fiscal policy is designed to do? What part of this polic do you feel was missued considering the state of the economy at the time? Do you really feel we are at a point at the economic cycle where raising of taxes would be beneficial?

  15. #15
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Lawyers, Guns and Money+Sep 2 2004, 01:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Lawyers, Guns and Money @ Sep 2 2004, 01:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Section109Row15[/i]@Sep 2 2004, 01:27 PM
    [b] [quote][b]Care to explain? What policies are ridiculos exactly? Why don&#39;t trickle down eceomic work in the long run? BTW, fiscal policy is not supposed to work in the long run, they are short run tools.
    [/b][/quote]

    [b]What policies are rediculous?[/b]
    The largest tax cuts ever (mainly for the rich.)
    Going from the largest surplus to having the largest defecit ever.
    Giving no-bid contracts to Halliburton and other contractors.

    [b]Why don&#39;t trickle down eceomic work in the long run?[/b]
    They didn&#39;t work for Reagan and don&#39;t appear to be working very well now.

    [b]Fiscal policy is not supposed to work in the long run, they are short run tools.[/b]
    I hope you don&#39;t make any investments with that mentality. I tell you what, you give me &#036;10 and in a few weeks I&#39;ll give you &#036;30. Now, in a year you will owe me &#036;300. How does that sound? [/b][/quote]
    a) Without the rhetoric, what policies have proven they don&#39;t work? Obviously, any tax cut will benefit the rich more. I don&#39;t see how that is a problem. Do you think that raising taxes is really going to stimulate the economy?

    The surplus vanished for many reasons: an overheated economy, a terrorist attack that probably cost in the trillions, corporate abuse, 2 wars. To blame this on Bush is wrong. I realize you dont like they guy, but try to view things from more than an anti bush angle

    While I&#39;m no expert on government contracts, I don&#39;t believe this administration has awarded government contracts any differently than any other in the past. There aren&#39;t amny companies that are in the business&#39; that HAL is. If there was no Cheney connection, this wouldn&#39;t be an issue and HAL would still ahve been awarded the contracts.

    B) How did they no work well for reagan? Please explain? What exactly didnt work well.

    C) Do you know what fiscal policy is designed to do? What part of this polic do you feel was missued considering the state of the economy at the time? Do you really feel we are at a point at the economic cycle where raising of taxes would be beneficial? [/b][/quote]
    I doubt you&#39;ll get an answer. Section is good for a few liberal talking points and thats about it. No substance whatsoever.

  16. #16
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [quote][b]I doubt you&#39;ll get an answer. Section is good for a few liberal talking points and thats about it. No substance whatsoever.
    [/b][/quote]

    I&#39;m busy right now, I&#39;ll have a detailed answer later.

  17. #17
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Sep 2 2004, 01:12 PM
    [b] [quote][b]A bad # tomorrow wouldn&#39;t be a death blow to Bush, but it would give Kerry a HUGE edge. It would make it very hard for Bush to refute any claims by the Kerry camp that the economy is regressing. Both sides have not been focussing on the economy the past few weeks, but that will change tomorrow.
    [/b][/quote]

    Have you watched any of the RNC? Cheney is the only one who talked about the economy and that was for 5 seconds. The topic is Terror Terror Terror. They already have no leg to stand on, but it doesn&#39;t seem to matter. [/b][/quote]
    correction mr section.
    Arnold spoke quite eloquently of the economy..........."don&#39;t be an economic girlie man"

  18. #18
    [quote][i]Originally posted by joewilly+Sep 2 2004, 03:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (joewilly @ Sep 2 2004, 03:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Section109Row15[/i]@Sep 2 2004, 01:12 PM
    [b] [quote][b]A bad # tomorrow wouldn&#39;t be a death blow to Bush, but it would give Kerry a HUGE edge. It would make it very hard for Bush to refute any claims by the Kerry camp that the economy is regressing. Both sides have not been focussing on the economy the past few weeks, but that will change tomorrow.
    [/b][/quote]

    Have you watched any of the RNC? Cheney is the only one who talked about the economy and that was for 5 seconds. The topic is Terror Terror Terror. They already have no leg to stand on, but it doesn&#39;t seem to matter. [/b][/quote]
    correction mr section.
    Arnold spoke quite eloquently of the economy..........."don&#39;t be an economic girlie man" [/b][/quote]
    That was one of many great highlights of this convention so far. I also loved Millers line where he tells Kerry he can&#39;t fight the war on terror with spitballs.

    Another great line was when they were talking about Edwards&#39; 2 Americas talking point. Guiliani said Kerry needed two Americas one for every opposing decision. Good stuff.

  19. #19
    Pretty good #. 144k vs. 150k expected, basically in line. Last month&#39;s # revised upward. Unemployment to 5.4% from 5.5%. Good for the economy, good for Bush. It&#39;s gonna be hard for Kerry to attack the economy w/ a straight face. Maybe some more botox would help him w/ that. :D

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us