Guest bengalrick Posted July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 i found this article, and figured that i'd share it... it is an unbiased source, and shows the "good" and "bad" of the economy... [url="http://personal.fidelity.com/research/stocks/content/marketsindex.shtml?bar=s"]click here[/url] [quote][b]U.S. job growth tepid, jobless rate drops[/b] 3:55 p.m. 07/08/2005 Provided by By Andrea Hopkins WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. employers added 146,000 jobs in June, below Wall Street's forecasts, but the unemployment rate fell to its lowest since September 2001 as few people joined the labor force, a government report showed on Friday. June's tepid hiring fell short of analysts' expectations of 188,500 new jobs and did not keep pace with population growth. But the drop in the unemployment rate to 5.0 percent was a bright spot, since it was forecast to hold at 5.1 percent. [b]"It's enough to keep the wolves at bay but not enough to get excited about,"[/b] said Michael Jansen, currency strategist at National Australia Bank in New York. [b]Economists said the rise in hiring suggested an economy growing at a rate above 3 percent -- strong enough to reassure the Federal Reserve that a spring "soft patch" had evaporated, but not enough to spark inflation worries.[/b] [b]"It's very consistent with an economy that is growing at or just below trend. It does not change anything for the Fed -- they're going to raise rates again next month,"[/b] said Steve Ricchiuto, chief U.S. economist at ABN AMRO in New York. The central bank has raised short-term interest rates nine times since last June in a bid to head off inflation, and experts expect a tenth rate hike in August. [b]The Labor Department also revised up job growth in April and May to 292,000 and 104,000, respectively, boosting the two-month count by 44,000 payroll jobs.[/b] Treasury Secretary John Snow hailed June's employment gains as evidence the economy was "thriving." [b]"More than 3.7 million jobs have been created since May 2003, with more than one million of those in the past six months," Snow said in a statement.[/b] [b]WEAK SPOTS[/b] [b]But not everyone was as optimistic, because the unexpected decrease in the jobless rate was mostly due to a paltry 1,000 increase in the labor force -- suggesting many Americans have stopped looking for work.[/b] [b]"The decline is not a sign of vigorous labor market activity, in our view, since it came in tandem with a pullback in the labor force participation rate to 66.0 percent," economists at Merrill Lynch said.[/b] [b]Factory payrolls shrank for the fourth straight month as auto assembly and parts plants cut back on production. Bloated inventories have prompted many automakers to slow production lines until demand can catch up. Some 96,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since August 2004. While 18,000 workers were hired in the construction industry last month, most of June's employment growth came in the service sector. Professional and business services jobs rose by 56,000, education and health services were up 38,000 and leisure and hospitality payrolls grew by 19,000.[/b] In a potentially troubling sign, the length of the average workweek was 33.7 hours, unchanged from May's downwardly revised total. The factory workweek was also unchanged at 40.4 hours, while overtime held at 4.4 hours. [b]Employers typically increase the length of the workweek before taking on new workers, so a lack of growth in that area can mean scant hiring ahead. Average hourly earnings rose 3 cents to $16.06 and have risen 2.7 percent over the year.[/b] A separate report by the Commerce Department showed inventories at U.S. wholesalers rose just 0.1 percent in May, below analysts' forecasts, while sales were flat. Wall Street analysts had expected wholesale inventories to gain 0.5 percent. (Additional reporting by Laura Macinnis) Copyright © Reuters 2005[/quote] we're in between... it sounds like jobs might be an issue in the near future, b/c of the last part explaining how they will increase the workweek, before hiring a bunch of people... but i don't see us having a major problem in the future... we have a pretty sound economy right now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 [quote name='Beaker' date='Jul 8 2005, 11:04 AM']That question was about as non-partisan as you can get. I read your posts, contemplated your rant, and was trying to identify why these "facts" you were railing against were so important to you. You claim it was a no bid situation, but had no link or info backing that claim up. You claim Cheney is getting richer because of it. My opinion is so what, I dont buy into the "have/have not" and "big bad corporation" rhetoric. So tell me how is Cheney getting richer hurting you? How is any of it (explained your way), hurting you directly? Thats what I was interested in hearing, not big bad gov't paranoia stories. [right][post="112066"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] I think you are confusing me with other posters... I have not made any comment about Cheney making money off this... Show me the post where I did.. I have also not "railed" against "big bad corporations" as you suggest.. Again, show me where I did... I also never said anything about Cheney getting richer hurting me.... Once again.. Please show where I have even suggested this... I want you to point out how I have even a HINTED of paranoid "big bad corporation stories"... I think you are reading someone elses posts and attributing it to me. All I have said is that a no bid process is inefficient and does nothing but waste tax payers money.. I don't care if Haliburton or anyone else makes money.. You must be confusing me with a socialist. I just don't see where you get this. Here is the link concerning Haliburton and the NO-Bid process you requested. [url="http://washingtontimes.com/business/20031029-091743-3685r.htm"]Halliburton keeps no-bid Iraq pact[/url] Here are links to the various investigations about Halliburton impropriety [url="http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1052032.htm"]Criminal probe targets Halliburton's Iraq deal[/url] [url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4163810/"]Another Halliburton Probe[/url] [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7606-2004Oct28.html"]FBI Widens Probe of Halliburton[/url] I could find more links, but I am too lazy. As far as saying that the government "just wastes money because they need to keep their budget", I don;t buy it.. Not one bit.. If it's true, that would be pretty sad considering we have slashed education and social programs, the VA is over 1billion short of funding this year (and will be more in debt next year), our borders are not safe, Homeland Security is VASTLY under funded. The list goes on and on... Once again Beaker. I am not saying that Cheney is getting rich, or that Halliburton making money bothers me... None of this is true. I just think we could have gotten a better deal, and spent tax money more appropriately had we had an open bidding process. [b]And to Bunghole[/b] - We had already told Germany and France that they were not welcome to participate in rebuilding contracts because they failed to support us in the UN. Just because you have a bidding process does NOT mean that the government MUST give the contract to someone. They can tell people that they [b]CANNOT BID[/b]. [url="http://edition.cnn.com/2003/BUSINESS/04/21/iraq.rebuild/"]Companies battle to rebuild Iraq[/url] Here is the relevant snippet - [b][quote]British companies are widely expected to benefit from American goodwill, but France and Germany -- which opposed the conflict to disarm Iraqi President Saddam Hussein -- are likely to be frozen out.[/quote][/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 [quote name='Lucid' date='Jul 8 2005, 06:20 PM']I think you are confusing me with other posters... I have not made any comment about Cheney making money off this... Show me the post where I did.. I have also not "railed" against "big bad corporations" as you suggest.. Again, show me where I did... I also never said anything about Cheney getting richer hurting me.... Once again.. Please show where I have even suggested this... I want you to point out how I have even a HINTED of paranoid "big bad corporation stories"... I think you are reading someone elses posts and attributing it to me. All I have said is that a no bid process is inefficient and does nothing but waste tax payers money.. I don't care if Haliburton or anyone else makes money.. You must be confusing me with a socialist. I just don't see where you get this. Here is the link concerning Haliburton and the NO-Bid process you requested. [url="http://washingtontimes.com/business/20031029-091743-3685r.htm"]Halliburton keeps no-bid Iraq pact[/url] Here are links to the various investigations about Halliburton impropriety [url="http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1052032.htm"]Criminal probe targets Halliburton's Iraq deal[/url] [url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4163810/"]Another Halliburton Probe[/url] [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7606-2004Oct28.html"]FBI Widens Probe of Halliburton[/url] I could find more links, but I am too lazy. As far as saying that the government "just wastes money because they need to keep their budget", I don;t buy it.. Not one bit.. If it's true, that would be pretty sad considering we have slashed education and social programs, the VA is over 1billion short of funding this year (and will be more in debt next year), our borders are not safe, Homeland Security is VASTLY under funded. The list goes on and on... Once again Beaker. I am not saying that Cheney is getting rich, or that Halliburton making money bothers me... None of this is true. I just think we could have gotten a better deal, and spent tax money more appropriately had we had an open bidding process. [b]And to Bunghole[/b] - We had already told Germany and France that they were not welcome to participate in rebuilding contracts because they failed to support us in the UN. Just because you have a bidding process does NOT mean that the government MUST give the contract to someone. They can tell people that they [b]CANNOT BID[/b]. [url="http://edition.cnn.com/2003/BUSINESS/04/21/iraq.rebuild/"]Companies battle to rebuild Iraq[/url] Here is the relevant snippet - [b][/b] [right][post="112313"][/post][/right][/quote] I guess I have no idea why I'm arguing with you. I agree that a no-bid scenario isn't such a good thing, but I am still under the impression that Halliburton was the best company to do the job, and I would base that on facts, but like you say, I am too lazy! But I see no problem with disallowing the French and Germans from having a share of the financial gain...they already got theirs building shit for Saddam long ago...but I guess we sold him weapons, too... We have to no longer apply to the theory that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"...that gets us into so much trouble... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 [quote name='Bunghole' date='Jul 8 2005, 08:28 PM']I am still under the impression that Halliburton was the best company to do the job[/quote] Good, then they would have won the bidding process hands down.. But maybe they would have felt pressure to offer a better deal to be competitive. [quote]I see no problem with disallowing the French and Germans from having a share of the financial gain[/quote] Me either. [quote]We have to no longer apply to the theory that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"...that gets us into so much trouble...[/quote] Definately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.