Why do people criticize Bush's economic policy by saying we have lost jobs to overseas markets?

Question

We are at the lowest levels of unemployment for the past 3 decades at around 4.4%. Since 1980, only in 1999 and 2000 did we have lower unemployment than we do now. So why do people criticize the current economic situation?

Bananas: I can see the frustration in your post. I may be a capitalist, but I am no where near to being a neo-con. I hate Bush and his foreign policy.

Answer 1

It's Bush bashing with no merit. The Democratic Party has been the party for raising the minimum wage, imposing excessive costly environmental legislation, votes to raise taxes, is pro union and has been anti-business. The Republican Party has always been in favor of deregulation, lowering taxes, letting the economy dictate wages and creating legislation that is pro business Now- you tell me who is to blame for companies moving jobs overseas?

Answer 2

First of all, the number of jobs created under Bush is actually less than what normal population growth should have given us. In fact, there was a net loss of jobs in the first 2 years of his presidency (a very rare occurrence by the way) and we didn't return to 2000 levels until 2005. If it weren't for government-created jobs in homeland security and the military, the number would have been really bleak.

Secondly, there is a concern about the quality of jobs. Manufacturing jobs used to pay higher salaries with great benefits and those are the jobs being lost. They have been replaced by lower-paying service industry jobs with few benefits instead. This all started well before Bush but still causes many to feel uneasy.

Answer 3

I researched unemployment back in 2003 for a statistics course I was taking. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, within the Department of Labor, had previously been responsible for computing unemployment figures. But Elaine Chao, Bush's Secretary of Labor, contracted that work out to private agencies, and they do not have to keep within the same parameters. They compile those figures through a "random" phone sampling, rather than by adding the exact numbers kept by every state. Among other problems, this limits their sample group to people who have working telephones. Also, they are allowed to err within a wider margin than the BLS was. Taken together, and yes, considering the quality issue that a McJob does not equal a skilled position, I wouldn't rely on Bush administration numbers for anything besides fooling the public.

Answer 4

I think you need to look more closely at those numbers. For example, the unemployment figures do not represent those that are employed, sometimes more than one job, and still cannot make ends meet. As others have mentioned, the new jobs created are towards the bottom of the income scale.
http://www.bls.gov/emp/emptab3.htm
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.t06.htm

If you didn't get to see Bill Moyers' Journal on PBS Friday night, you might be interested in reading the transcript. One of his guests was Barbara Ehrenreich, an independent journalist who has been investigating and writing about this subject for many years. The reason I see her opinion as credible is that she actually 'walked the walk' in researching her new book:

"For this bestselling book, NICKEL AND DIMED, Barbara Ehrenreich spent months working as a waitress, a cleaning woman, and a Wal-Mart sales clerk, among other low-wage jobs. And tried to make ends meet for $7 an hour."

Answer 5

The unemployment figure you are citing is simply for people collecting unemployment benefits, it doesn't mean that 4.4% of the workforce is unemployed, the actual number is much higher than that.

The important thing to look at is JOB CREATION and total number of full-time jobs, net, we are still down over 600,000 from when Bush took office. Although this was not entirely his fault, NAFTA and other trade agreements during the Clinton administration hold some of the blame; the fact remains Bush has done very little to CREATE new jobs. The tax cuts for the rich are not working. Service jobs are increasing, but manufacturing is still hemoragging jobs at a record place.

And to add the stock market is barely keeping ahead of inflation, it isn't booming, it is essentially treading water.

Answer 6

the recent "climb" is with the help of the actuality that generally markets circulate up and infrequently they circulate down. a extreme vogue is one that lasts each week or greater. This one is owing to no longer something. I do take situation with the president characterizing the industry as an "opinion monitoring poll". That replaced into rather naive, pretty for a guy along with his accomplishments.

Answer 7

Do your homework. Since 2002, the United States has outsourced over 250,000 telecommunications jobs to other countries. This fact is widely known and is available at the Dept of Labor website.

Answer 8

Heard of under employment?

Been having an issue with it since the only thing I was trained for shipped off to India.

Answer 9

This is pure manipulation of numbers and has no basis in fact .
All you have to do is look at how many people are employed currently in government jobs or contracts and then deduct them from the work force . They produce nothing of value and pay no taxes .
The n the number left is those actually working among these people you have an unemployment rate of a little over 11% currently .

Answer 10

Too bad the economy is nowhere near as good as it was under Clinton. We are used to high expectations and George is not producing.