Unemployment among Americans goes up, again!
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Current Affairs
Forum Discription: Debates on topical, current World politics
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28655
Printed Date: 09-Jun-2024 at 10:12
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Unemployment among Americans goes up, again!
Posted By: opuslola
Subject: Unemployment among Americans goes up, again!
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2010 at 17:42
|
Did anyone note that the August unemployment rate increased again? If not, then you might well have not been paying attention to the correct news organizations?
But the following site identifies those senators and congresspeople, who support this continued rise by both their acts and by their non-action! http://www.numbersusa.com/content/node/8107?jid=687190&lid=9&rid=5145&tid=132385 Enjoy! Did you see any of your representatives? Do you wish to see them again? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Replies:
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2010 at 12:15
|
It looks like we are in serious trouble as the government funded jobs are coming to an end. The economy still is not doing well enough to support jobs without government funding jobs. This is not a surprise to me. Greenspan warned many years ago that we were do for a long and deep recession. It is stupid to blame Obama for something that is out of anyone's control. It took many years to come to this economic crisis and it will take many years to recover. It is like this- decisions made for decades that put us in the state of economic nose bleed. We all know if you put pressure on a nose bleed, it will stop bleeding, so decisions were made to put pressure on the economic nose bleed. That pressure is coming off but we are not past the condition of a nose bleed. Surely you have experienced something like this with a real life bleeding problem. When the pressure is relieved and bleeding continues, you put the pressure back on, and this is repeated until the bleeding stops. Yes, there is a cost to this pressure, it a surgery room it might be many sponges and a lot of a nurse's and doctor's efforts, but there is a greater cost to not stopping the bleeding. It is ignorant to not realize the cost of doing nothing, and to blame the people doing what they can be done. When such ignorant people are high profile people, spreading ignorance and hysteria, we should shun them, and spread awareness of their ignorance so others do not listen to them. If they are ignorant, they will attack people and say things like, "if you follow me God will take care of us". If they are informed, they speak of cause of effect and leave supernatural beings out of the discussion. Only when they speak of cause and effect is intellect discussion possible. |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2010 at 14:08
|
Well, this is what happens when Republicans are in power for 8 years.
------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2010 at 16:52
|
The High School group which calls itself TGS, wrote;
"Well, this is what happens when Republicans are in power for 8 years." Aaaagh! Well choke me with a maggot! 
General Motors sales are down 25%! Blame it on Bush! No one is hiring; Blame it on Bush! Some areas of the Earth are flooded; blame it on Bush! Some areas of this planet are dry!; Blame it on Bush! The Sky is falling; Blame it on Bush!" Blue, as a color, is still Blue! Blame it on Bush! The Sun is still shining! Blame it on Bush! Some people do not floss! Blame it on Bush! Just what in this world does not Obama and you not blame on Bush? Give me a quick list? Hurry! Hurry! Deep thinking is not really a part of your groups attributes, is it? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2010 at 22:27
Are you sure? There was never before Republicans in office for 8 years? Or only when Republicans were in office for 8 years there was an economic crisis, and not following years of democratic administrations? How about giving us details so we can examine what you said. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2010 at 22:35
Speaking of deep thinking, where is your reply to my post? Or are you going to stop at attacking someone? Where are your own deep thoughts? Who about, how things might have been different if we believed Carter when said he needed to conserve and we re-elected him instead of Reagan? What if we avoided all the military spending since the Reagan years? What if we stayed with small, more gas efficient vehicles and the rapid development of alternative energy? Might we be in a difference place today? |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2010 at 11:03
When Reagan was in power, the same thing happened, when Bush was in power, it happened again. I have in the past given Opuslola detailed economic information regarding how the country does under Republicans and Democrats. Fact of the matter is that the Republican economic ideology is outdated and simply does not work. @Opuslola: Yes, 8 years of mishandling and bankrupting the country does lead to problems which cannot be fixed in 2 years. Opuslola is really no different than the hard core supporters of Hitler. He'll support his ideology all the way, ignoring any facts that contradict his views. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2010 at 13:36
Deregulation of the airlines and banks, etc. has done terrible things.
Imagine what a city with no building codes and no housing regulation
would look like
Slum landlords would surely profit from that. Someone has to look at things from a different point of view than the point of view someone wanting to earn a buck, because this person will see things differently. There must be a regulator's point of view. Also someone needs the necessary information. For example starting in the 1960's we had research on the causes of poverty. We got some really good social programs out of the 1960's that I am very much enjoying now that never would have happened during the Reagan administration, because he flipped our war on poverty to a war on those living in poverty. When Reagan took office, research on poverty is completely changed to research on welfare fraud. This complete change in research makes it invalid because it is so obviously research done for a purpose, and that purpose was so obviously scapegoating the poor for our economic troubles. Not until Clinton did we start talking about the bad management causing us economic problems. Reagan made a case of welfare fraud, and this gets generalized to the those lazy no good people living on welfare. Forget that they live in an inner city slum, that is the result of rural people flooding into the cities to get good industrial jobs and the industry has moved out leaving an economic ghetto. Reagan proved there was welfare fraud and this justified slashing domestic budgets and pouring money into military spending. But still there wasn't enough money for the military spending he wanted, so he took money from Social Security and still there wasn't enough money, so he deregulated banks. This is so like Germany! Anyone remember how the Germans took the same steps when preparing Germany for war? I don't know how to explain this, but our great wealth since the Reagan administration has been a growing false wealth. The only ones to really benefit are those directly connected with the Military Industrial Complex such as Cheney and Halburton. I assume investing in the military industry is still a good bet. Housing may go down, but as long as we are engaged in war, military spending is not going down. Even when we have far more atomic bombs than needed, we can always stock pile these weapons. Understand, we no longer send a military force prepared to meet its own needs, and possibly the needs to the "liberated" people. These needs are supplied by an industry that is paid well to supply the needs, and the book keeping challenge is so great, millions of dollars can disappear here and there. Does the company that looses millions of dollars get replaced? No, these guys are the "experts" and therefore, the best government choice for the contract. These guys are so good, one of them can be our vice president telling our president what to do. Yipes the wrongs are so great, I get off subject- why deregulating banks, while at the same time making it almost impossible to declare bankrupcy? Or how about this, when the housing market fails, promote student loans and tie them to so much pain, the poor young person who takes one out, sharply increasing interest rates, increased car insurance rates is a good thing when a payment is late, and no chance in hell of buying a home until the debt is cleared. Our high tech military does not require us to recruit most our young men, and man industry with the women, and sacrifice like we had to sacrifice in past wars, but it does require a lot of money. Forget the regulations Joe, and too hell with the average citizen, false wealth is good for military spending, and that is how to have power. This government is not about protecting citizens, it is about the Military Industrial Complex, the New World Order the Bush family loved so much. History has something to teach us, but how many US citizens study the history of Germany? How many of us understand fascism as an economic organization? |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2010 at 12:34
|
Robert Shapiro, PhD from Harvard (one of the best in the world), M.Sc from the London School of Economics (one of the best and most selective in the world). He is an economic expert. Here is what he says:
------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2010 at 13:54
Stop pratling. Either post an intelligent reply or stick to the tavern. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2010 at 13:57
|
"Vote a republican into office, you get everything you deserve". Harry S Truman. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2010 at 14:28
|
OK Tomatoe Master!
The Democrats have not had less than 200 members in the HoR,since 1949! But in the last two congresses this is the number; 110th 2007–2009 100 D49 R49 I2 — 435 D233 R198 — I4 111th 2009–2011 100 D57 R41 I2 2 435 D256 R178 — I1 So, from the beginning of the 110th Congress until the beginning of the 11th, the Democrats had full control of the HoR, as well as control of the Senate, because the two independents, mostly voted Democrat! So, just why did this congress create all of the Job Losses during the period of 2007-2010? The job losses can be placed directly upon the Congress and not the "Lame Duck" president! If TGS and other like minded persons can place the loss of over 7million jobs on Bush, why cannot I place the blame on the Congress? HUH? All they did not have was the presidency, and he was a "Lame Duck!" My source was; http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html#axzz0yxpp8MoJ ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2010 at 18:11
|
First of all, learn how the United States government works and also attempt to educate yourself on a little bit of economics. This Great Recession did not happen over night and certainly was not the result of a few months. To say that a Democratic Congress, which happened at the end of Bush's second term, was the cause of the financial crisis is ludicrous. Opuslola, why dont you let professional economists decide the facts, instead of making up your own fantasy. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to post Beck's source claiming his rally was attended by 500,000+ people. So far, the only credible analysis has said the crowd was around 87,000. Oh thats right, Beck conveniently forgot to have counters present...I wonder why? Maybe he was scared that if he did, his own sources would also put the number at less than 100,000, then he'd have no way of lying about it.  ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2010 at 20:11
|
"So far, the only credible analysis has said the crowd was around 87,000."
You have actually seen the photographs and contend that 87,000 is correct? Maybe you need to get your eyes checked? Ok, I'll revise and determine, by my great eyes that the crowd was in excess of 275,000! You do know that I have lived there? I just like to be nice! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2010 at 22:00
|
I don't think the writer of the link, answered his question very well, but he got close. We went wild with credit and created a false economy, making everyone indentured slaves to the banks. Long ago Greenspan warned this would lead to a long period of high unemployment. I think Reagan began this insanity by deregulating banks and promoting a fantasy of wealth. I remember very well the suffering of the 1970-80 recession and Reagan's denial of it, and the city of Eugene jumping on the Reagan bandwagon with a "look of wealth" program that saddled the city with debt, and did not bring on the prosperity that was expected. We continue to build too big and too fancy as though there were no limit to money. We went insane and have not regained our sanity, and we still refuse to live modestly and within our means. Even if we got instantly sane, everyone is indentured servants to the banks, individuals and whole cities. We all have to pay off old debt before we can move forward. That is going to take years, and will take even longer if the federal government doesn't continue using credit to keep what have going, going, because our Gross National Product will take a nose dive and then our national credit will be ruined, because our credit is backed by our Gross National Product. You know that source of revenue we sent over seas (jobs), expecting it to return to us with a profit. Keeping things going with credit is borrowing from the future, and it is a serious problem. Maybe we should just bite the bullet and allow the Great Depression to happen. Just know, people are going to hurt, no matter what decisions are made. And Obama is not to blame for the mess we were in before he took office. http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/why-economic-growth-united-states-cannot-happen |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2010 at 10:48
Yea because you're an expert right? Where are Becks sources for his claims? He DOESNT have any. The only professionals who counted estimated the crowd to be at around 87,000. Get over it.
That was simply a brief analysis, it wasnt meant to be a detailed explanation of anything. The economist was simply trying to show that only 41,000 jobs have been lost under Obama, and 7,000,000+ under Republicans.
I completely agree. Reagan not only deregulated, but he lowered taxes while at the same time increasing spending to ridiculous amounts. He was probably one of the worst presidents.
Good article. Here are some statistics: -over 40% of American families spend more than they make. -the average American family with one credit card has over $10,000 in credit card debt. I could go on and on... The problem is deregulation and people being allowed to borrow too much money which they cant pay back, which is what caused this Great Recession in the first place. Thanks Bush, Thanks Reagan, Thanks GOP....   ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2010 at 11:14
|
Since a lot of you blame banks and banking for a lot of America's problems then it seems that 16.7% of Mississippians might well be very smart? I.e., no credit cards, no credit period! They exist in a cash only environment!
"Smart, very smart!" ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2010 at 12:53
|
Unfortunately, their cash no longer has value. Our coins had value because of the amount of gold, silver, nickle, copper they contained. Our dollar had value because it was backed by gold, and then by gold and silver, but now is fiat money backed by our Gross National Product. As our Gross National Product decreases, effectively so does the value of the dollar. And all the silver, nickle and copper has been removed from coins, so they have no value at all. In fact if you bury pennies in your back yard and dig them up next Spring, you will notice they are eroded so badly, some will have holes and you won't be able to tell what others are, except for the fact you know you put pennies in the ground. Celebrating our new state coins, makes us look like idiots! It is like a young man giving his girl friend a fake diamond ring and she believing it is real. We have been robbed and don't know it, because we are distracted by the design of new valueless coins. What is the difference between counterfeit money and charging interest? We know counterfeit money can be devastating to the economy so every effort is made to prevent it from circulating. But how is loaning out $25 and claiming to have $30 because of interest added to the value of the $25 any different? We have said this decrease in the value of our money is a growing economy. Do you feel the hook in mouth yet? Every year people with salaries and on Social Security get a raise, because some how our economy grows. In fact this growth is a decrease in the value of money. What is growing is imaginary money- that is claiming interest rates added to loans means you have more money to loan out. So effectively the value of the dollar goes down and the price of the house and car, etc. go up. We have hit a damn wall okay? The prices went too high, the cash cow has bloat from eating too much, and is lying on the ground. It is not sure if we can save the cow? This sure as blazes is not Obama's fault. In 1915 a family of 6 could live well on $768 to $900 a year. It cost more to live in cities, and in different regions of the country, so the figures depend where the family lives. If someone earned $5 a day he would be rich! If this were true today, our laborers could easily compete for jobs. But now we need that yearly income every week, to do as well. Are we any better off having to earn $900 a week than when we could live a whole year on $900? If people took the rich state poor state thread seriously they have something to gain in the form of knowledge. |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2010 at 13:06
Well, this is because of inflation, and it is completely natural. Adjusted for inflation, that $900 dollars is around $18,000, still far less than what we need today to survive. This compliments the article you posted, which showed that costs of living are increasing faster than inflation, which goes to show that corporations DO NOT CARE about the welfare of the average person, only about profit. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2010 at 16:31
|
Well duh, I was a business owner, and I was overwhelmed just trying to keep the business going. We should not expect business people to consider anything else but the business decisions they must make for the health of the business. I love the new reality show where they have upper management doing the labor jobs, and these dudes know nothing about the real work. In the past, someone started a business by doing the actual work. Maybe he got enough business to hire some help, but he kept doing the labor part. Now managing the business and doing the work are two separate things. With autocratic industry these two sides never meet, and one does not move from one side to the other. With democratic management, everyone is trained to move up, and there is a lot of working together. I believe the democratic model would improve our country in many ways. Autocratic industry lead to autocratic families and we call these dysfunctional today. The democratic model would greatly improve our family lives. There are also great economic benefits, and I think less likelihood of management corruption like Enron. Yipes, I have said two completely separate things. But the bonding factor of both thoughts is people working together as opposed to the autocratic order and division, makes a difference. When management and labor are separate, management doesn't know the laborer and the families of laborers. All those human factors that we inherited from other social animals, do not come into play, so there is a moral break down. But when management and labor are working together, getting to know each other and each others family, than all those factors that make us moral kick in. Wow, now I am thinking of Milton S. Hersey the maker of the Hersey chocolate bar. He made a fortune when his candy bars were used to supply the army. He also used his fortune to build a town and an orphanage with good schools. He made life good to many, many people. Today's extremely rich are also giving millions of dollars to good causes. Oh jeese, I need a lobotomy. Our situation is more complex than the problem is greedy people. I don't think it is that simple, but has a lot to do with if we are autocratic or democratic. Do we believe "we" are separate from "them", and that there are basic differences between the overseers and the overseen and that justify great differences in income? Or can we afford to build low income apartments with nice sized rooms, or should we keep the apartments small and cheap? Any low income housing considers the needs of the poor, but the other half of the consideration is how much do we have to spend and how much can we expect to get back? Can we mentally manage more than operating a business or managing money and property? Is there a role for government in all this? How about assuring neighborhoods are a mix of low and high income people, and have places for social interaction. How about zoning and building codes? How about education? What is the purpose of education? What will the students be prepared to think about? I had a college professor who told the class their highest priority should be their career goals, not the people they will serve when then they get their bureaucratic job. What are schools teaching? It is not want was being taught before 1958. How about this, we once prepared everyone for industrial and civic leadership, but since 1958 we have been preparing products for industry. We have reduced our mass to the mentality of a third world country dependent on someone else to provide them industry, then we sent their jobs over seas. How smart is that? |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2010 at 16:50
|
But TGS, without the purchasing power of the average American, "corporations" as you disparagingly look upon them would not have any customers, other than the rich!
By the way, during the great depression (ca. 1932-42), which took longer to get to rural Mississippi than other places, my father was placed in a position to hire workers for a lumber business. He hired the workers @ $.50 a day, for work that began at sun-up and ended at sundown, and was six days a week! So, let's see, that amounts to $3.00 per week or about 12-13 dollars per month! And Carol posted a figure in 1915 of; "In 1915 a family of 6 could live well on $768 to $900 a year" But it seems that these men were some how able to live in the 1930's with a yearly income of only $145-48 per year, and take care of their family! (12 X 13) Just how was that possible? My father had no shortage of possible workers, some were willing to work for $.25 per day! You see, people were so desperate to just work, that they would work for very little! Actually they would manage to eat, etc., because at home the wife and children also worked and raised crops, and pigs, etc.! Workin used to be something a man did out of pride, if nothing else! It was a virtue unto itself! When my father was a young man, there were almost no, I repeat "NO" game animals left to hunt! They had almost all been hunted into extinction! This goes for rabbits, squirrels, racoons, as well as birds, and deer, etc.! Thus was the depresson era in N. Mississippi! But, no one starved, because it seems there were always others that helped, and they helped one another! Some of them would have been considered as "rich" by the way! Some of them, of course, moved with their feet to places promising good jobs at good pay! But most of that was false! Deer, and all other game animals are now considered as pests in most of Mississippi! That is becuase now they are plentiful! Possibly there exist more deer and raccons, and birds, today than in any period of time in this area of the world? Some times I feel tired trying to explain things to some of you? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2010 at 18:20
Wow, you really are lacking in economic knowledge arent you? Americans are buying things with money THEY DO NOT HAVE. This causes economic problems, such as the recession THAT WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW. That is not good. Having purchasing power is good, but not when you dont actually have the money. DEBT IS NOT GOOD.
ok, so what?
Because they lived in rural Mississippi, where I assume the cost of living, even today, is very very cheap. Again, basic economics.
Wow, you just described illegal immigrants. Congratulations. 
Those Communists! How dare they help others in suffering! Your grandfather was a liberal? How the hell did you turn out to be so conservative? As usual, most of what you said was gibberish and unrelated to anything we're talking about, I had to look hard to find something to respond to. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2010 at 19:51
Well, I am doing a little better than TGS in seeing something to converse about, because I am no spring chicken, you old goat.  What do you think you explained? The figure for income that I gave, was about living well. I got the information from a 1916 book titled "Poverty and Riches- A Study of the Industrial Regime", by Scott Nearing, Ph.D.. The pictures in this book are really great. One is about the coal famine and is a picture devils escorting the old and young to hell. A little girl says "Please, good Mr. Devil, fetch my mamma, too. It's so nice and warm in your house." Poverty kills. And the death rate for timber workers was so high, men would stand waiting in a line for someone to be killed, so he could have the job. It is hard for us to wrap our heads around people waiting in line for jobs with a high death rate, but then we are not living with the deaths resulting from poverty. High risk jobs were a better chance of surviving than no job. I helped clean what was the paupers area of a cemetery, several years ago, and felt closer to those who died during the Great Depression, than a book would lead me to feel. I worked in mass graves of children, who died when disease spread and their malnourished bodies just couldn't fight off disease. You can bet your stars, under these conditions a father would risk his life for 50 cents a day. It is one thing to go cold and hungry ourselves, and something else to feel helpless when our children are cold and hungry. What was the point you wanted to make? Seven tenths of population in the study had wages less than $750 a year and that was in good times. It was before unions got strong enough to change things. Yes, people managed, and in Oregon the wilderness was the supermarket for most people. I know when rifles were handed down through the family, and given to the son's as a rite of passage. Our population was relatively low, so we didn't face a shortage of game food, but I do understand the changed mentality of depending on supermarkets instead of hunting and fishing. I had clients whose families homesteaded this area. There were no supermarkets nor much industry. Today we have homeless people living off the city like rats, instead of people living off the land. This ability to move west and exploit the wilderness, made our nation better than the old civilizations where people don't have this option. Have you tried living off the land lately? I don't like geese or possums because they are too greasy. If I have to eat game meat I want onions and possibly apples to cut the gamy taste. The fishing ain't want it used to be, but in all in all, Oregon is pretty much a garden of Eden. Now I am feeling guilty. I should have been harvesting my garden hours ago, but it has been so much fun sharing with you all. bye |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2010 at 22:09
|
Baaaaaaaaaaaaah! Just move very slowly! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Cirill
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2010 at 02:09
| How looks unemployment picture in USA now? |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2010 at 13:44
|
Unemployment figures for August and September were 9.6%, statistics for October will not be released til Nov. 5th. Unemployment was at 9.7% in January. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2010 at 09:49
|
Those figures have been toasted. They don't reflect those who have been unemployed for a year.
I don't think they have the guts to release the real figures, esp. for the Northeast
. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2010 at 15:53
Yea, real unemployment is probably around 18%. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2010 at 19:09
| Friends, Romans and country men, haven't we seen these problems before? |
Posted By: TheOrcRemix
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2010 at 22:35
|
It's interesting how the unemployment rate reflects the state's main economic situation and un-clouds the economic driver of that state. For example, a state like Nevada relies heavily on construction and tourism (services) to keep their budget away from the negative column. Since the dip, the unemployment rate is above 14% (http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm); However, a state that has strong agriculture and energy sectors (North Dakota), has the lowest unemployment rate in the country. I just found it ironic that the United States, being a major service provider, has been shown-up by a simplistic version of its former-self. Maybe the U.S. has gotten "too big for its britches" with frantic overspending and debt. ------------- True peace is not the absence of tension, but the presence of justice. Sir Francis Drake is the REAL Pirate of the Caribbean |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 28-Oct-2010 at 17:52
|
Here is some good news! Less that 250,000 new applications for un-employment happend last month! Whew! Am I relieved!
Regards, ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 28-Oct-2010 at 21:05
Well, agriculture in the United States is highly subsidized and there is enormous job security in that sector. Construction relies on good economic performance. WHen people build, construction sector booms. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2010 at 19:47
|
Nice post above by TGS!
Yes the farm subsides that exist are a product of both party's! Funny isn't it that cotton is grown in what were at one time deserts in the West? And just how did that happen? Well they were given almost free fresh water from Federal Water sources, to irrigate the cotton crops! Where as, at the same time, cotton farmers in Mississippi, Arkansas, etc. were paid off to "not grow cotton!" Sadly farmers have been the most Socialist controlled part of American for many years! But most farmers also vote Conservative! Weird eh? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2010 at 21:20
What started California's and Neveda's economies was gold and silver. Of course Califonia had a coast line and that means commerce which is a great benfit, but still you need the resources for an economy that draws the people. In the north there were some minerals and timber and agriculture. Machines have largely replaced human labor in both agriculture and the timber industry. Without industry, what is going to support a service economy? Remember the saying, "It takes money to make money".
Japan built a great industrial economy by importing resources. It did so by riding the coat tails of the US. Before this Great Britian accumulated great wealth by spreading its empire around the world, importing raw resources to feed its industry, and exporting the product of its industry. Great Britian has since lost its empire and it is pretty amazing it is doing as well as it does. The US is in trouble because it has exhausted much of its resources required for industry, and has exported its jobs. The multinational companies will continue to enjoy wealth, but not the citizens who depend on industry for jobs.
If there is no industry to support a service economy, the service economy has to fall. Hum, I think I started a thread about state resources. I didn't get real good answers about what each state used as a resource to get things going, and without the information, we don't have the information we need for this thread.
|