« today's lesson (mine) | Main | free dirty danny II: this time it's personal »

spin this

Good news:

The economy grew at a scorching 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers spent with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new evidence of an economic resurgence.

Now, let's wait and see how the left spins this.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference spin this:

» Has the blogosphere gone mad? from Damn Foreigner
The economy does better and all that we can talk about is partisan politics. Have we all gone mad? Did we act like this before we all had blogs? [Read More]

Comments

If you've heard about the Krugman cat index, that poor beast will probably be headed for low earth orbit...

I blame Bush. Yea!

"Let me write a couple hundred billion in hot checks and
I'll show you a convincing illusion of prosperity also."

Sen. Benson in 1988

6.6% was consumer spending so you have to think most of it were people putting themselves further in debt.

That it's not the economy, but the Gross National Product, which is not the measure of millions of people out of work. See? Reading news stories is fun!

Everyone's so excited about the democratic candidates...

Are we still in a jobless recovery? Hey at least Walmart opened up another store in Long Island. TO think of all the people who will have a job now. True the job pays $8.00 an hour to start and offers no health benefits but hey at least jobless claims will be down.

"U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow welcomed the strong GDP report, though he noted the jobs market needed improvement.

"The GDP report is certainly very encouraging news for our economy, but still have more work to do to ensure that every American who wants a job can find a job," he said in a statement.

Even as the recovery quickened in the third quarter, a net 41,000 non-farm jobs were lost, bringing the number of job losses since President Bush took office to 2.6 million."

the problem with that, drew, is that Wal-Mart DOES offer health insurance (Through AIG, now, and through Blue Cross as of Jan 1). IRAs. Stock. Profit sharing. Dental. Employee discount. Yearly bonus. Scholarships.

And the UFCW? Well, as usual, they take your dues and put them in their pockets, and after all is said and done, you still make $8/hour after taxes and dues.

Well, when my good friend who is a Wellstone Dem, get's her IT job back I'll be convinced. Employment always trails recovery and I think she's got the double whammy going.

Drew maybe you didn't notice, but non-skilled jobs don't have the highest starting level wages. When I started in the telecom industry thirteen years ago, I made $5.00/hour to start. At the time, Wal-Mart did pay more than what I was making.

Im sorry I will find the link to the article critizing Walmart practices. I believe the article critized walmart not so much for not offering health insurance but rather only offering to full time employees and fixing there schedules so they never qualified for the benefits.

$8.00 per hour is a difficult salary level for people who live in the Metro NY area. Im sure in some parts of the country where cost of living is lower it may be more workable but in the area where the store opened monthly rents easily exceed 800.00 a month.

I am not sure who the UFCW is but I do no that Walmart is one of the largest employers who is not unionized.

Im sorry I will find the link to the article critizing Walmart practices. I believe the article critized walmart not so much for not offering health insurance but rather only offering to full time employees and fixing there schedules so they never qualified for the benefits.

$8.00 per hour is a difficult salary level for people who live in the Metro NY area. Im sure in some parts of the country where cost of living is lower it may be more workable but in the area where the store opened monthly rents easily exceed 800.00 a month.

I am not sure who the UFCW is but I do no that Walmart is one of the largest employers who is not unionized.

Dont know how the double post happened. Here is the link. If you scroll down you will see where health benefits are mentioned

http://www.flagstaffactivist.org/campaigns/walmyths.html

Can somebody explain to me the wisdom of Walmart paying employees $20/hour to stock shelves and work at a cash register?

In addition, there is no such thing as a "jobless recovery." Unemployment is always a lagging indicator, whether the economy is improving or going badly. Part of the reason why people didn't see that the economy started it's downturn in the early spring of 2000 is that the unemployment rate continued to be low throughout the year.

Anybody who thinks the country can sustain unemployment levels less than 4% like we did in parts of 1999 and 2000 are living in a fantasy world.

If you want to see a good documentary, check out 'Startup.com' which chronicles the rise and fall of the Internet company, Govworks.com. It started out with 7-8 people and within a year they had 250 people working for them and a value of something like $50 million. A year after that, they were bankrupt. It was a time when venture capitalists were handing out money to Internet start-ups like one gives candy to kids on Halloween. These companies were growing like mad. I still remember when Yahoo! and Ebay's stock prices were at $350-$400 a share. The smart people said it wouldn't last. But nobody listened. Bill Clinton was too busy taking credit for all of it and boasting about how many new millionaires there were under his watch.

The bubble burst, and now we're starting to right ourselves again, yet the naysayers like Drew still think we're in the midst of a depression. Get real.

Drew- the UFCW is the United Food & Commercial Worker's Union. If you're going to be slamming wal-mart, you need to know who is trying to do the same thing.

Wal-Mart mythology? My husband's been at the local WM for six years. I know what they offer and what they don't offer. I know their corporate policies. I know their scheduling policies. I know the employee handbook inside and out.

Oh yeah, and i DO hate shopping there...

Part-time employees at Wal-Mart are eligible for the same benefits as full-time employees after six months. Schedule fixing? Puh-leeez. I know almost every single employee at the local store, and the full-timers get 40 hours a week, and overtime if they make it. (If you're UFCW in CA, good luck getting 40 hours a week-let's talk about schedule fixing, ok?). If that's not happening, there's a management problem at the store and the employees had BETTER speak up about it.

Arizona (flagstaff- where that page is located) is a different animal, entirely. It's a "right-to-work" state. My husband worked in grocery there, too (albertson's). Union & nonunion employees get the same wages. management costs are higher because if a union employee has a grievance, a union rep has to be the go-between. If a nonunion employee has a grievance, they can go directly to management about it.

Sorry, Michele. I don't usually do that. I just hate seeing disinformation posted by people who have no idea what they're talking about. And i have blogged about this very thing before.

And don't look now, but "living wage" laws can have some nasty unintended consequences.

BTW, we've already seen how it will be spun, if they don't change the subject completely: Jobs, jobs, jobs. After the job market improves (and it'll probably never reach mid-internet-bubble levels), then we'll probably be back to the "living wage" stuff again...

Ok so just so I have my facts right:

There is no such thing as ajobless recovery. The stories printed about the "jobless recovery" are incorrect and even the quote from John Snow show be treated as an hiccup because its not true. The fact that part of the reason that unemployment claims going down are due to benefits running out or people giving up on the job search are not a factor. In fact the situation with jobs leaving the country should just be ignored. After all $8.00 stock clerk position will all be around

All jobs even ones that pay basic wage are fine. Even though there not finacially feasable leading to people leaving in ways that eventually lead to debt and bankruptcy are okay.

The negative stories about Walmart are completly false. Walmart is an above-board employer who does not use any practices that would not allow employees to be eligable for health benefits. In fact they never been accused of any illegal behavior what so ever. In fact anyone who believes that Walmart is doing anything wrong is simply misinformed and not fully aware of the facts?

Did I cover it all? Sorry to rain on the recovery parade. I will head back to never never land quietly with the rest of you now.

There is no such thing as ajobless recovery. The stories printed about the "jobless recovery" are incorrect...

Drew, how many stories have you read about the 'Social Security trust fund?' That doesn't exist either. Catch phrases are just that - catch phrases. People are more apt to respond to phrases like "jobless recovery" rather than explaining the difference between leading and lagging economic indicators. Here's a better way to put it: What's the opposite of a jobless recovery?

As for jobs and their pay, people shouldn't expect to make great salaries putting up new boxes of Legos on a shelf or ringing up honeydew melons at a cash register. Those aren't skills and as such, don't pay all that well.

In fact the situation with jobs leaving the country should just be ignored.

That's a changing of the times Drew. We're no longer going to be a country that thrives as a result of our manufacturing sector. The service sector is where it's at now. People like you were probably part and parcel of the same people that were bemoaning decline in farming as an industry 100 years ago. The country adapts. You want to continue to be able to pay $35.00 for a DVD player (You can. Circuit City has them)? Then we're going to have to continue to import them from Asia.

Jay I said I was sorry for being off base with the reports I had seen and people I had talk to. Obviously my view on the facts were incorrect and I was simply misguided and brainwashed. I was just simply "one of those" who didnt adapt want to adapt with the times. Prehaps watching the Waltons on T.V. did that. Thank god for the industrial era.

And I agree that people putting up lego's should not be paid well. I mean everyone knows putting up Playstations are more challenging. I mean just because someone didnt goto college and cant find a job that allows them to live on long island should not be a factor. I say move them out. There must be places where we can put people who are the working poor. Prehaps we can resettle them with there jobs to Canada, India or whereever else the jobs are going to.

It is very clear to me now that our country really has solved its problem and thanks to the reduction of the tax rate and the child credits we are off to a better future. Our kids might not be but that dosnt matter much. I even say privatize Social Security and allow people to "roll the dice" with there savings. I mean after all its there right. Or hell why not just do away with Social Security. Old people are such a drag on the economy after all.
Ship the old folk to Canada as well I say.

I appricate your point Jay and even though you seem to want to group me "as one of those". Thank you for tip about the DVD player also .

I just heard Paul Krugman on the radio, and he stated that this is good news. Now, let's see how the right (especially Krugman-stalker Donald Luskin) spins that.

Now, let's wait and see how the left spins this.

Thanks to Drew's sterling example, the MO seems to be changing the subject and condescending sarcasm.

Lance- I am a convert to "everything fine MO". I mean if everyone tells me everything I have heard is wrong I have no choice to but to admit the fallacy of it logic and go along with it. Thank you again for showing me the path of rightousness.

I mean it really I do.

"just because someone didnt goto college and cant find a job that allows them to live on long island should not be a factor."

Now, maybe I have a different "United States" in mind, but last time I checked nobody is forcing anyone to live on Long Island. If you don't have the skills to get a job that will pay your rent where you live (esp. if you live somewhere with an absurdly high cost of living), move.

It's not complicated -- growing up my family did it 12 times before I reached the 6th grade. If you're making $8.00/hr you cannot afford to live in downtown new york. Sorry. You can certainly live a lot of other places, though.

OK, Drew, we got the gist of it already. It's truly the sign of a mature mind that one can act so churlishly in the face of facts. Congratulations, and Howard Dean appreciates your vote.

Lance. I am all on board. I have contact the GOP and my Bush reelection stickers are on the way.

Dean no way? Bush all the way.

Pete- I already agree with you. I said ship them out with there Jobs. Long Island should be the playground for those who can afford it. But keep in mind if you ship out all the $8.00 people who is going to prepare the Starbucks coffee's we have all grown to love.

"who is going to prepare Starbucks coffee's we have all grown to love."

The 16 year old children of the people who can afford to live there. The same can do the stocking at walmart.

I'd try and spin it, but I always get motion sickness when I do that....

Here's the official spin, straight from Nancy Pelosi:

"Today's announcement that the GDP has increased is welcome news. However, it does not change the fact that far too many Americans are out of work.†.†.†. Mr. President, on your watch we have lost more than 3.2 million private sector jobs. You have the worst record on job creation since Herbert Hoover. Mr. President, where are the jobs?"

Perhaps in 2004, the Democrats can beat Herbert Hoover in the election. 23 skidoo!

Its all misinformation. And to think they blammed Hoover for the Great Depression.

Scott, thanks. I just dribbled water all over my shirt like a little kid when I read the 23 skidoo thing.

You know, I would say that the majority of the electorate was not alive when Herbert Hoover was President, so trying to attach his name to GWB is really poor strategery.

Nancy Pelosi's always good for a laugh. You can count on her.

Drew:

Hmmm. Why do you think the jobs are going overseas? The Left (Mike Moore? Or was it Ted Rall?) argues that it's simply to keep the workers down. Is that what you believe?

Or is it that perhaps the cost of keeping low-skill jobs here is high, when you can get folks to do it for 1/10th the price?

Now, if stocking shelves were to pay, say, $20/hr, do you think more or fewer jobs would go overseas?

"Ah," says Drew, "then you put up tariffs to keep those goods out." Okay, so the goods from abroad now double, say, in cost. Who gets hurt most by the $20 T-shirt (3-pack from Hanes)? Is it the rich or the poor?

Since there WILL be poor, even in the protected economy of your revamped, no-free-trade world, you know?

I suppose you could also pass some kind of law that prevents you from shipping jobs abroad (quite a few unions would love that).

By the way, what kind of car do you drive? You planning on buying an American car next time around? Any reluctance behind that decision?

""Ah," says Drew, "then you put up tariffs to keep those goods out." Okay, so the goods from abroad now double, say, in cost. Who gets hurt most by the $20 T-shirt (3-pack from Hanes)? Is it the rich or the poor?"
I told you I am a convert I agree with you Dean. Tariffs never work especially in out global economy...we tariffs wine they tariff steal ect. But please donít quote me when I havenít said or even implied anything tariffs. After all I surrender my previous position and agree with the people who left comments here.

As far as car kind of loaded question since no matter what my answer was it wouldnt really matter since as far as I know Manufactures use parts from around the world. Hell even my Dell uses parts from other parts of the world.

I take mass transit to work though. Ironic the cars do have nice signs that say made in canada but dont hold it against me. After all were shipping our seniors and workware folks there..

Rep. Pelosi came off sounding really, really whiny. "Where are the jobs?" she whined. Whoa, one thing at a time, Representative. I wonder what she's going to be whining about a year from now after those 2 million new jobs have materialized and Iraq is pacified? It's going to be a bad year for the Donks. They're about to get McGoverned.

The Labor Department takes two different employment surveys. They found 2.6 million jobs lost, but they didn't find 2.6 million people out of work. Some of the losses were second jobs; I met a young woman a year ago who chose to work four part time jobs. Most of the people found jobs of the sort which doesn't show up on the Employer survey, since it is done by querying large corporations. I've been in the work force for 35 years and never worked for a corporation large enough to be surveyed, altho I've done contract work for some. Some of those contracts lasted as little as a week or two, so you could say, for example, that I lost two jobs with the same bank in one summer.

Rep. Pelosi came off sounding really, really whiny. "Where are the jobs?" she whined. Whoa, one thing at a time, Representative. I wonder what she's going to be whining about a year from now after those 2 million new jobs have materialized and Iraq is pacified?

I'm sure she'll come up with something. Someone who compares Bush to Hoover when unemployment was significantly higher during portions of the Clinton presidency than it is now isn't troubled by such notions as facts and reality.

... unemployment was significantly higher during portions of the Clinton presidency than it is now ...

By "portions", of course, you mean "the beginning", as in what he inherited from Bush the Elder. The unemployment rate only moved in one direction during the Clinton administration (you may insert your predictably inevitable "going down" jokes here).

Yeah, Thlayli, it went "up" because of the dot.com bubble. Didn't you read? Or are facts too hard for your brain to absorb?

First, let me just interject that I DO NOT BLAME CLINTON FOR THE DOT.COM BUBBLE OR ITS BURSTING. Hell, if I had been president I'd have taken credit for the "great" economy too. I mean, what did anyone know? I still remember those long ago days... when no one knew what the hell they were doing, it was this new "internet" thing and everyone was sure it was going to make them rich. Well, it ended up making most people involved in it broke. But anyway, if I had been the president then, I would have taken credit for the great economy because people invest the presidency with god-like powers to bestow fertility, fecundity, and wealth upon the land and its people. That's why everyone keeps whining, ad nauseum, about "why hasn't Bush used his magical powers of office to give us all high-paying, fun joooooobs?"

Christ. Presidents don't make jobs, businesses do. When business people make stupid decisions -- such as starting up a company that sells a product that they can't even describe, much less convey what use it is for (remember "portals"? What the hell were they? What were they for? And most important -- how were they going to make any money for the people who started them up once they finished picking cute gif themes for the web pages?) -- then businesses fail. Deservedly.

Yeah, I'm a cruel, mean Republican -- I believe that stupid businesses, like stupid people, deserve to fail. And the government should not have to bail out your sorry ass.

By "portions", of course, you mean "the beginning", as in what he inherited from Bush the Elder. The unemployment rate only moved in one direction during the Clinton administration (you may insert your predictably inevitable "going down" jokes here).

He also inherited an economic recovery from Bush the Elder, something that Clinton didn't manage to provide for the current president. In any event, who inherited what from whom is irrelevant. What we're talking about is Pelosi's hyperbole. Since you have acknowledged that unemployment was worse in the early to mid 90s (and it would be folly not do so), you proven my point that Pelosi doesn't know what she's talking about.

Andrea makes an excellent point. Remember, it was the geniuses who headed up Pets.com who thought that cute sock puppet commercials were going to make people leave their regular pet stores in droves.