Jobs Update: More Jobs For Bartenders, As Factory Workers Lose Jobs

[Fade the Butcher]

The great economic news keeps on coming.

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/060310_jobs.htm

By Paul Craig Roberts

[See also National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein: A Cold February for White Workers]

March 10. The BLS payroll jobs report released today lists 205,000 new private sector jobs for February. As has been the case for a number of years, the new jobs are in domestic nontradable services. The sources of February’s new jobs are: construction (primarily specially trade contractors) 41,000 jobs; wholesale and retail trade, transportation and warehousing, 15,000 jobs; financial activities (includes insurance and real estate) 22,000 jobs; professional and business services, 39,000 jobs (roughly half of which are in administrative and waste services); education and health services, 47,000 jobs; waitresses and bartenders, 21,000 jobs.

During the past year, the economy has lost 60,000 private supervisory jobs, 48,000 manufacturing jobs, 65,000 jobs in nondurable goods (mainly textiles, apparel, paper and paper products), and 25,000 jobs in air transportation. Over the last year, the economy has gained 203,000 jobs for waitresses and bartenders.

New York Times reporter Vikas Bajaj again misreported the BLS release. He attributed 38,000 state and local government jobs to businesses. [Jobs Grow and Wages Rise as Economy Picks Up Steam, March 10, 2006]

Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services reports that hours worked in manufacturing have fallen 7.1 percent during the 51-month old current recovery and that growth in total private sector hours worked in non-supervisory jobs is the weakest of any recovery on record. This suggests that many new jobs are for less than a full 40- hour work week, which could account for the lack of growth in median household real income.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

[Dan Dare]

Let's not forget container truck delivery driver for Wal*Mart, another high-growh occupational sector.

[Gorilla]

I wonder if 'economic growth' is proportional to immigration, with new immigrants having to posess a certain amount of money.

[Donny the Punk]

Where do you live, Dan?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Destroy the machines and robots. We need to put men back to work on the assembly line!

[WFHermans]

And what about the thousands of extra jobs in the military?

The economy is booming!

http://www.marcellosendos.ch/humor/Capitalism.gif

[Jofreidr_1488]

Sounds about right. During Bushes tenure in office I lost 1 job and the job I have now pays literally half what I made before. No wonder Bushes approval ratings hit a new low just a few days ago.

Oh well, Worse is Better for Now to help wake up the lemmings.

[WFHermans]

Bush needs your money to give to the jews.

[Sulla the Dictator]

And what about the thousands of extra jobs in the military?

The economy is booming!


WFHerman IS a cartoon.

[Fade the Butcher]

I wonder if 'economic growth' is proportional to immigration, with new immigrants having to posess a certain amount of money.

I have pointed out in the past how 'economic growth' masks social decline.

[WFHermans]

If I pay you on paper a salary of one million dollar and you pay me on paper a salary of one million dollar, the "economy" has grown by two million dollars, according to "economists".

Economics has become a part of the religion that is taught in the temples called universities.

[Dan Dare]

Globalization = Mexicans filling their carts with cheap Chinese-made tat in Wal*Mart and paying in illegally-earned US dollars.

[Fade the Butcher]

This is the second time globalization has been tried. It ended in the First World War the last time around.

[Donny the Punk]

Imperialism isn't the same thing as twentieth century capitalist globalisation. The Great War was hardly ignited by economics, either. It was rather ultra-nationalism, your favourite. :p

[Thinker]

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/12/news/international/kia.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

No. 2 Korean automaker to build first U.S. factory
Kia Motors has one eye on the surging won and the other eye on the competition.
March 12, 2006: 8:41 PM EST

SEOUL, South Korea (Reuters) - Kia Motors Corp., South Korea's second-largest automaker, said on Monday it would invest $1.2 billion building its first U.S. factory in the state of Georgia.

Kia is seeking ways to move more production abroad in order to shield itself from a surging won currency and also grab a bigger share of the U.S. market.

The firm also said in a statement it expected its sales in North America, including the United States and Canada, to rise 15 percent to 350,000 vehicles in 2006 and to grow to 800,000 by 2010.

The carmaker expects the new plant, which will begin production in 2009, to produce up to 300,000 vehicles a year and employ about 2,500 workers.

Analysts have said overseas production is key for the growth of Kia as a strengthening won undercuts profits earned abroad. The won has risen 3.2 percent against the U.S. dollar so far this year, compared to a 2.7 percent gain for all of 2005.

Kia's plant in Georgia will be located in West Point on the western edge of the state.

The firm is also expanding production to Europe where Kia is set to open a plant in Slovakia later this year to produce 200,000 mid-sized cars a year by 2008, a total that will rise to 300,000 in 2009. Kia also has a plant in China.

Hyundai Motor Co., an affiliate of Kia and South Korea's top car maker, opened its first U.S. plant in Alabama last year.

Shares in Kia rose more than 2 percent, outpacing a 1 percent gain in the broader market.

[Fade the Butcher]

Imperialism isn't the same thing as twentieth century capitalist globalisation. The Great War was hardly ignited by economics, either. It was rather ultra-nationalism, your favourite. :p

On the contrary, the world has still yet to reach the level of free trade that it did during the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries.

[Donny the Punk]

On the contrary, the world has still yet to reach the level of free trade that it did during the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries.
Not in the sense that Dan Dare is using 'globalisation' so this is an inaccurate semantic distortion. Are you saying 'free trade' caused the Great War?

[Fade the Butcher]

Not in the sense that Dan Dare is using 'globalisation' so this is an inaccurate semantic distortion.

In what sense is he using the term? I'm using it to refer to an globalized economy characterized by low trade barriers.

Are you saying 'free trade' caused the Great War?

I'm saying it had a lot to do with the Great War. It had much more to do with the outbreak of the Second World War though.

[Donny the Punk]

In what sense is he using the term? I'm using it to refer to an globalized economy characterized by low trade barriers.
He's using it in a modern sense, which is completely different from the commerce which operated within an intercontinental empire all administered by the same ruling authority. Your definition is ahistorical.

I'm saying it had a lot to do with the Great War. It had much more to do with the outbreak of the Second World War though.
It had very little to do with the Great War and even less with the Second. Nationalism was the principal cause of both conflicts.

[Kodos]

I'm saying it had a lot to do with the Great War. It had much more to do with the outbreak of the Second World War though.


I thought international trade had reached a historically pretty low level before WWII broke out...

[Fade the Butcher]

He's using it in a modern sense, which is completely different from the commerce which operated within an intercontinental empire all administered by the same ruling authority. Your definition is ahistorical.

This is false. Britain practiced a radical form of laissez-faire free trade during this period that has no historical parallel even today. This was not specific to trade within the empire at all either. This is why current economic consensus today is known as "neoliberalism," Potyondi.

It had very little to do with the Great War. Nationalism was the principal cause of both conflicts.

This is nonsense. The balance of power was the principal cause of both conflicts.

[Donny the Punk]

This is false. Britain practiced a radical form of laissez-faire free trade during this period that has no historical parallel even today. This was not specific to trade within the empire at all either. This is why current economic consensus today is known as "neoliberalism," Potyondi.
This is false. Britain's colonies were forced by virtue of their subjection to the throne to import goods from the mother country. In 1867, £21 million of goods were exported to India, £8m to Australia, £5.8m to Canada, £2.5m to Hong Kong, £2m to Singapore and £16m to New Zealand. In 1850, British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston sent seven battleships and five steamers to Salamis bay to bully the Greeks into submission after they had refused to compensate losses by British moneylenders. The Greek navy was seized without a struggle, its merchantmen were arrested in the Piraeus, Spezia and Patras and it was embargoed. Palmerston explained himself to the House of Commons in the following way:

"These half-civilized Governments such as those of China, Portugal, Spanish America, all require a dressing down every eight or ten years to keep them in order. Their minds are too shallow to receive an impression that will last longer than some such period and warning is of little use. They care little for words and they must not only see the stick but actually feel it on their shoulders before they yield to that argument which brings conviction."

British 'free trade' was actually the creation of the 'unofficial empire,' a system of national economic privileges enforced by threats and violence on behalf of the British crown. There are more examples, especially to do with the Ottoman empire.

This is nonsense. The balance of power was the principal cause of both conflicts.
Fade is wrong again. Bismarck's policies were clearly aimed at redressing the balance of power by creating a powerful and industrialised Germany without provoking war with either Britain or Russia. Aggressive Wilhelmine expansionist and colonial ambitions driven by German nationalistic sentiment were what brought it to loggerheads with Britain. It was Serbian nationalism and the unyielding response of the Austrian empire which sparked the Great War.

[WFHermans]

Aggressive Wilhelmine expansionist and colonial ambitions driven by German nationalistic sentiment were what brought it to loggerheads with Britain.
Kaiser Wilhelm II was emperor for a quarter of a century and he didn't expand Germany one bit. If he really was the kind of expansionist madman the historians-for-sale make of him, he would have initiated a surprise attack on France, citing some vague Bushevik reasoning ("Do we have to wait until we see a mushroom cloud over Berlin? The French tried to kill my dad! They're behind the socialist terrorists!").

[WFHermans]

The British let millions of Irish and Bengals die of starvation, refusing them any food because that would be against "Free Trade".