On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 10:25:45 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


By Roland Jones

Wall Street reporter

MSNBC

Updated: 5:06 p.m. ET March 4, 2005



NEW YORK - A surprisingly strong report on U.S. job creation ignited a
robust rally on Wall Street Friday, lifting major stock indexes to their
highest closing levels in nearly four years.



Wall Street was elated following the release of the February employment
report, which showed 262,000 jobs were created last month, more than the
225,000 economists expected and the best showing in four months. The data,
which showed jobs were created throughout the economy from retail to
manufacturing, boosted investors' confidence about growth and corporate
earnings.

"The economic numbers were better than expected, and that set the tone for
the [trading] day," said Dan McMahon, head of listed trading at CIBC World
Markets. He said stocks also were boosted by a modest decline in the price
of crude oil, which hit a four-month high Thursday. "[The jobs report] is
great news for stock investors," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at
Economy.com, a private research group.

The lack of growth in wages means the Federal Reserve will not feel
compelled to raise interest rates at an accelerated pace, he said. "There's
not enough job growth to cause wage inflation and put pressure on company
profits," he told CNBC.

High interest rates tend to weigh on stock prices because they increase the
cost of borrowing for companies.

"[The jobs report] is great news for stock investors," said Mark Zandi,
chief economist at Economy.com, a private research group.

The lack of growth in wages means the Federal Reserve will not feel
compelled to raise interest rates at an accelerated pace, he said. "There's
not enough job growth to cause wage inflation and put pressure on company
profits," he told CNBC.

High interest rates tend to weigh on stock prices because they increase the
cost of borrowing for companies.

The Dow rose 107.52 points, or 1 percent, to close just shy of 11,000, its
highest level since June 12, 2001. The blue-chip index was boosted by
manufacturers like DuPont, Caterpillar and 3M, and interest-rate sensitive
stocks like Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase.

Broader indexes also rallied. The S&P 500 finished up 11.65 points, or 1
percent, closing at its best level since July 3, 2001. The technology-rich
Nasdaq composite index climbed 12.21 points, or 0.6 percent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/


Who was it that wanted to be informed when the Dow hit 11,700?

I'm already thinking of a 22' Grady White.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On 5 Mar 2005 07:51:00 -0800, wrote:

Let's see:

According to information in the article you posted:

Investors are happy because all the new jobs being offered pay such
crappy wages there is very little chance that wage growth will
contribute to inflation.

Our artificially low interest rates will continue to fuel the illusion
of a robust economy for just a little bit longer.

You know, if you don't give a darn about the middle class, the current
economic trend (outlined in this article) of a lot of sub-family wage,
service sector, burger flipping jobs and the bull market paying strong
dividends for the tiny minority of Americans with any significant money
invested in the market is either very good news, or one step closer to
bankruptcy.....

Bankruptcy that may soon be harder to declare. I would favor that, in
many ways, but the timing is wrong when wages are stagnant or declining
and employer paid health care benefits are either scaled back to a much
smaller portion than before or withdrawn entirely.

We are rapidly becoming a nation of haves and have-nots.

I agree, that can be very good news if you're a "have" and don't give a
damn about your neighbors.

Our middle class is shrinking because the number of educated people is
shrinking. You should have watched Alan Greenspan as he answered the same
concerns of yours expressed by some of the less informed Democrats during his
hearings.

When you have liberals like Ward Churchill comparing capitalists to Adolph
Eichmann, and other liberals *believing* him, you have to wonder at any of them
complaining about the reduction of the middle class.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On 5 Mar 2005 08:12:15 -0800, wrote:

Why did I know you would focus on the negative?

******************
I have no idea.

Could it be because you posted a report that said that the creation of
a lot of low wage jobs where folks have no realistic chance to put
"pressure" on wages was "good news"?

The economy is not the DJIA. It's the pile of bills on the kitchen
table in every working home in the nation. We have traditionally been
judged as a nation not on how fabulously wealthy the Jay Goulds, John
Rockefellers, Andrew Carnegies, Howard Hughes and Bill Gates of society
can become, but rather on how well our common, ordinary, everyday
working men and women are able to live. Our wroking people have been
able to own houses, cars, annual vacations, many of them can even
afford boats..........ain't happening at $8 an hour. Especially when
"family values" applaud one parent staying home to raise the kids.

Not all the jobs were in the lettuce picking industry. According to the
Department of Labor:

Construction employment rose by 30,000 in February. This followed no
change in January, when unusually severe weather conditions in some areas of
the country limited construction activity. Since its most recent low point
in March 2003, the industry has added 458,000 jobs. Employment growth among
residential specialty trade contractors (16,000) and residential builders
(5,000) accounted for the bulk of February's gain.

In February, manufacturing added 20,000 jobs, with motor vehicles and parts
accounting for about half of the job gain. The increase in motor vehicles em-
ployment (11,000) reflected the return of auto workers from larger-than-usual
temporary layoffs in January. While total manufacturing employment edged up
over the year, it has shown little net change since mid-2004.

Employment in a number of service-providing industries grew over the month.
Professional and business services employment expanded by 81,000 in February.
Within this sector, sizable increases occurred in employment services (38,000),
services to buildings and dwellings (14,000), and architectural and engineering
services (7,000). Within employment services, temporary help services added
30,000 jobs in February and 207,000 jobs over the year.

Retail trade employment increased by 30,000 in February, with small gains
distributed throughout this industry. Over the year, retail trade has added
135,000 jobs. Wholesale trade employment was essentially flat in February;
employment in the industry has been trending upward, however, and has grown
by 94,000 since its most recent low in August 2003.

Within the financial activities sector, employment growth continued in
credit intermediation and related activities. The industry added 11,000
jobs in February, with commercial banks accounting for about 5,000 of the
gain.

Health care employment rose by 23,000 over the month. Since February 2004,
this industry has gained 262,000 jobs. Over the month, employment increased
in ambulatory health care services (12,000) and in hospitals (6,000).

In the leisure and hospitality sector, food services and drinking places
added 27,000 jobs in February. Over the year, leisure and hospitality employ-
ment increased by 268,000, with strong gains in both food services and accom-
modations.
**********************************************

So all of these jobs are $5.45/hour jobs? Give me a break, Chuck.

Apparently some of the less bright Wall Street folks thought the news wasn't too
bad. A gain of 107 points isn't bad. Do you reckon all these folks think the
news is as bad as you do?

Is there a new credo amongst liberals, "If it's bad it's good, but if it's good
it's bad!"


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On 5 Mar 2005 08:38:32 -0800, wrote:

Then perhaps those folks need to get an education and learn a skill.
Nothing is stopping them.

************

Nor does anybody guarantee that they will be employable in their field
of education.

We don't have white collar jobs for every college grad.

You find college grads flipping burgers, clerking at Target, sweeping
floors, etc.




Your other comment:

What we consider poor is defined as rich in many countries. Owning a
car,
having tv's, cell phones, air conditioning, a house and perhaps a boat.



******

As long as our working people are better off than those in Bengladesh,
things are OK?
The way to increase the number of rich people is not to redefine rich
as "owning a cell phone and a TV". :-)

We have too many college grads who seem to think that "Liberal Arts" is the
guarantee of good employment.

Go here and look at employment by type of degree. Compare the
Professional/Technical Field percents to the Social Sciences and Humanities
percents.

Could it possibly be that *individuals* reach their own decisions about their
lives? Could 'personal responsibility' and wages have anything to do with each
other?


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On 5 Mar 2005 08:55:05 -0800, wrote:


If you're not one of the "haves" and you're trying to pay rent, buy
groceries, clothe and educate a couple of kids, pay for more or all of
your family health insurance (hundreds of dollars per month, typically)
and keep an old car running on the $535 a week average wage in the US
right now it would be very optimistic to consider the current status
"good news". Especially when, even after 262,000 jobs were "created"
last month, the unemployment rate also went *up*.

Hey Chuck, what is the educational background of the bottom 20% of wage earners?
Why does someone making $7.00 an hour have two kids? Where does personal
responsibility enter your calculations?

How the hell could Bush affect these 'problems' you present anyway? Raise taxes
and give them more money?

John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:

Our middle class is shrinking because the number of educated people is
shrinking. You should have watched Alan Greenspan as he answered the
same
concerns of yours expressed by some of the less informed Democrats
during his
hearings.

**********

You heard this where? Rush Limbaugh's comedy hour? Hannity's propagada
workshop?

According to a reasonably recent report by the US Census Bureau, the
number of people enrolled in college was at an *all time high*.

I guess we could split hairs about whether these people are being
educated, or not, but they're certainly making the attempt

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p20-533.pdf

Fill in next excuse for disappearance of middle class he
_______________

Hey Chuck, what is the educational background of the bottom 20% of wage
earners?
Why does someone making $7.00 an hour have two kids? Where does
personal
responsibility enter your calculations?

How the hell could Bush affect these 'problems' you present anyway?
Raise taxes
and give them more money?


***************

There are a lot of highly educated and experienced people who have been
forced into "under-employment". They will take anything they can get,
but often find the only jobs available are grunt level, miniwage gigs
for which they are over educated and over qualified. When you're making
$15 an hour, have two small kids, and then your job gets sent to India
and the best you can do to replace it is work for about half what you
were earning, what does the "personally responsible" person do then?
Put the kids up for adoption? Pimp out the daughter?

How did President Bush get dragged into this topic? The president
doesn't dictate the economy.
Nobody mentioned PB until you threw him up here.

On 5 Mar 2005 13:02:17 -0800, wrote:

Hey Chuck, what is the educational background of the bottom 20% of wage
earners?
Why does someone making $7.00 an hour have two kids? Where does
personal
responsibility enter your calculations?

How the hell could Bush affect these 'problems' you present anyway?
Raise taxes
and give them more money?


***************

There are a lot of highly educated and experienced people who have been
forced into "under-employment". They will take anything they can get,
but often find the only jobs available are grunt level, miniwage gigs
for which they are over educated and over qualified. When you're making
$15 an hour, have two small kids, and then your job gets sent to India
and the best you can do to replace it is work for about half what you
were earning, what does the "personally responsible" person do then?
Put the kids up for adoption? Pimp out the daughter?

How did President Bush get dragged into this topic? The president
doesn't dictate the economy.
Nobody mentioned PB until you threw him up here.

Note that your 'average' hourly wage (actually $15.90) is for production and
nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls. You are leaving out any
supervisory personnel which would, of course, affect your average significantly.

Unless your 'highly educated and experienced' represent the average production
or non-supervisory worker, which I doubt, then the income is probably much
higher.

What does the person do? Learn a new trade, settle for less money, do the things
he or she must do. Perhaps they'll have to lower their standard of living.
Perhaps they'll become the 'middle class' this country is losing.

Are there a 'lot' of them. I think not. The unemployment rate is 5.4%. What part
of that is represented by your sample. I think not a great percentage.

The fact, Chuck, is that our economy is better than that of almost every other
country in the world. Bush has done a good job, and you know it.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On 5 Mar 2005 13:02:17 -0800, wrote:

Hey Chuck, what is the educational background of the bottom 20% of wage
earners?
Why does someone making $7.00 an hour have two kids? Where does
personal
responsibility enter your calculations?

How the hell could Bush affect these 'problems' you present anyway?
Raise taxes
and give them more money?


***************

There are a lot of highly educated and experienced people who have been
forced into "under-employment". They will take anything they can get,
but often find the only jobs available are grunt level, miniwage gigs
for which they are over educated and over qualified. When you're making
$15 an hour, have two small kids, and then your job gets sent to India
and the best you can do to replace it is work for about half what you
were earning, what does the "personally responsible" person do then?
Put the kids up for adoption? Pimp out the daughter?

How did President Bush get dragged into this topic? The president
doesn't dictate the economy.
Nobody mentioned PB until you threw him up here.

Note that your 'average' hourly wage (actually $15.90) is for production
and
nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls. You are leaving out
any
supervisory personnel which would, of course, affect your average
significantly.

Unless your 'highly educated and experienced' represent the average
production
or non-supervisory worker, which I doubt, then the income is probably much
higher.

What does the person do? Learn a new trade, settle for less money, do the
things
he or she must do. Perhaps they'll have to lower their standard of living.
Perhaps they'll become the 'middle class' this country is losing.

Are there a 'lot' of them. I think not. The unemployment rate is 5.4%.
What part
of that is represented by your sample. I think not a great percentage.

The fact, Chuck, is that our economy is better than that of almost every
other
country in the world. Bush has done a good job, and you know it.


John H


Yep, the economy is in good condition. Are there still some problems? Yes.
But those problems are minor when looking at the total picture.

Considering what GWB has overcome since the beginning of his Presidency
(including inheriting a failing economy from Clinton) one can say he has
done a remarkable job....and this while seeing major accomplishments in Iraq
and the Middle East.

Now some folks will say that the President has little impact on the
rebounding stock market yet those same folks gave Clinton credit for a good
market during his watch. Double standards. Not surprising though.

Yes, the economy is in good condition and positive things are happening in
the Middle East....the libs just cannot admit it. In fact, sadly enough,
these same folks are hoping for failures. (See my "Disturbing Interview"
thread).

Sad.

On 5 Mar 2005 12:57:19 -0800, wrote:

John H wrote:

Our middle class is shrinking because the number of educated people is
shrinking. You should have watched Alan Greenspan as he answered the
same
concerns of yours expressed by some of the less informed Democrats
during his
hearings.

**********

You heard this where? Rush Limbaugh's comedy hour? Hannity's propagada
workshop?

According to a reasonably recent report by the US Census Bureau, the
number of people enrolled in college was at an *all time high*.

I guess we could split hairs about whether these people are being
educated, or not, but they're certainly making the attempt

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p20-533.pdf

Fill in next excuse for disappearance of middle class he
_______________

I watched Alan Greenspan's testimony on C-span. The fact that college enrollment
is at an all time high has little bearing on how well educated young people are.

Do you think the average liberal arts degree is sufficient preparation for
today's job market? It's easy to get, compared to the sciences or engineering,
etc.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."