"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

That's because you listen to those wacky liberal news stations like
NPR.

Heh. Would you like whipped cream on that foot, as long as it's in
your mouth? Three weeks ago, our local NPR radio station interviewed
two people from the NYS department of labor. They were bemoaning the
FACT that although they can offer retraining to mid- and senior-level
engineers who will lose their jobs when Delphi (the auto parts maker)
shuts its doors, they know for a FACT that companies simply do not
exist here which can offer these people anywhere near the money they
were making before. They were talking about people going from 75k to
100k, down to 30k-40k. Not funny when you're 45 years old and your
first kid's going to college next year.

Just because someone was earning $75-100k doesn't mean that they are
guaranteed that amount in the future.

Obviously not, but you're using your incomplete information to "prove"
that wealth is being created, when, on the whole, it may not be.



Consider this:

Before you could look up the exact dealer cost of an automobile....

Blah. This does not support your use of incomplete data. I assume you
realize that if this were a discussion in an economics or statistics
class, your professor would've humiliated you by now.

I went to a conservative university, in a conservative town in a
conservative state. My professors were conservatives. They would not
only have *not* humiliated me, they would have agreed with me.

Bull****. You stated that more jobs were created. You did NOT indicate at
what income levels they were created. 95% may have been jobs which pay
minimum wage. Or not. You don't know.

And neither do you. So aren't you jumping to conclusions by stating
unequivocally that they were minimum wage jobs?

And, you don't know where those employees came from before. Were they
unemployed? Did they leave other jobs for reasons other than money, like
travel distance or job satisfaction? You have no idea. Therefore, you
cannot argue that there was any gain or loss, or that it has any political
significance whatsoever.

Interesting concept. Labor statistics are unimportant.

Then why were the Dems pointing to the labor statistics in '01, '02, and
'03, and talking about "Bush being the first President with a net loss of
jobs" just prior to the election?